I conclude with a few remarks on the order of addressing exhortations to the unconverted. There being an established order in the workings of the human mind, it has been made a question whether the same ought not to be preserved in addressing it. As, for instance, we cannot be convinced of sin without previous ideas of God and moral government, nor of the need of a Saviour without being convinced of sin, nor of the importance of salvation without suitable conceptions of its evil nature. Hence, it may be supposed, we ought not to teach any one of these truths till the preceding one is well understood; or, at least, that we ought not to preach the gospel without prefacing it by representing the just requirements of the law, our state as sinners, and the impossibility of being justified by the works of our hands. Doubtless, such representations are proper and necessary, but not so necessary as to render it improper, on any occasion, to introduce the doctrine of the gospel without them, and much less to refrain from teaching it till they are understood and felt. In this case a minister must be reduced to the greatest perplexity; never knowing when it was safe to introduce the salvation of Christ, lest some of his hearers should not be sufficiently prepared to receive it. The truth is, it is never unsafe to introduce this doctrine. There is such a connexion in Divine truth, that if any one part of it reach the mind and find a place in the heart, all others, which may precede it in the order of things, will come in along with it. In receiving a doctrine, we receive not only what is expressed, but what is implied by it; and thus the doctrine of the cross may itself be the means of convincing us of the evil of sin. An example of this lately occurred in the experience of a child of eleven years of age. Her minister, visiting her under a threatening affliction, and perceiving her to be unaffected with her sinful condition, suggested that “It was no small matter that brought down the Lord of glory into this world to suffer and die, there must be something very offensive in the nature of sin against a holy God.” This remark appears to have sunk into her heart, and to have issued in a saving change.† Divine truths are like chain-shot; they go together, and we need not perplex ourselves which should enter first; if any one enter, it will draw the rest after it.

Remarks nearly similar may be made concerning duties. Though the Scriptures know nothing of duties to be performed without faith, or which do not include or imply it; yet they do not wait for the sinner’s being possessed of faith before they exhort him to other spiritual exercises; such as “seeking” the Lord, “loving” him, “serving him,” &c., nor need we lay any such restraints upon ourselves. Such is the connexion of the duties as well as the truths of religion, that if one be truly complied with, we need not fear that the others will be wanting. If God be sought, loved, or served, we may be sure that Jesus is embraced; and if Jesus be embraced, that sin is abhorred. Or should things first occur to the mind in another order, should sin be the immediate object of our thoughts, if this be abhorred, the God against whom it is committed must, at the same instant, be loved, and the Saviour who has made a sacrifice to deliver us from it embraced. Let any part of truth or holiness but find a place in the heart, and the rest will be with it. Those parts which, in the order of things, are required to precede it, will come in by way of implication, and those which follow it will be produced by it. Thus the primitive preachers seem to have had none of that scrupulosity which appears in the discourses and writings of some modern preachers. Sometimes they exhorted sinners to “believe” in Jesus; but it was such belief as implied repentance for sin: sometimes to “repent and be converted;” but it was such repentance and conversion as included believing: and sometimes to “labour for the meat that endureth unto everlasting life;” but it was such labouring as comprehended both repentance and faith.

Some have inferred from the doctrine of justification by faith in opposition to the works of the law, that sinners ought not to be exhorted to any thing which comprises obedience to the law, either in heart or life, except we should preach the law to them for the purpose of conviction; and this lest we should be found directing them to the works of their own hands as the ground of acceptance with God. From the same principle, it has been concluded that faith itself cannot include any holy disposition of the heart, because all holy disposition contains obedience to the law. If this reasoning be just, all exhorting of sinners to things expressive of a holy exercise of heart is either improper, or requires to be understood as merely preaching the law for the purpose of conviction; as our Saviour directed the young ruler to “keep the commandments, if he would enter into life.” Yet the Scriptures abound with such exhortations. Sinners are exhorted to “seek” God, to “serve” him with fear and joy, to “forsake” their wicked way, and “return” to him, to “repent” and “be converted.” These are manifestly exercises of the heart, and addressed to the unconverted. Neither are they to be understood as the requirements of a covenant of works. That covenant neither requires repentance nor promises forgiveness. But sinners are directed to these things under a promise of “mercy” and “abundant pardon.” There is a wide difference between these addresses and the address of our Lord to the young ruler; that to which he was directed was the producing of a righteousness adequate to the demands of the law, which was naturally impossible; and our Lord’s design was to show its impossibility, and thereby to convince him of the need of gospel mercy; but that to which the above directions point is not to any natural impossibility, but to the very way of mercy. The manner in which the primitive preachers guarded against self-righteousness was very different from this. They were not afraid of exhorting either saints or sinners to holy exercises of heart, nor of connecting with them the promises of mercy. But though they exhibited the promises of eternal life to any and every spiritual exercise, yet they never taught that it was on account of it, but of mere grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. The ground on which they took their stand was, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” Hence they inferred the impossibility of a sinner being justified in any other way than for the sake of him who was “made a curse for us;” and hence it clearly follows, that whatever holiness any sinner may possess before, in, or after believing, it is of no account whatever as a ground of acceptance with God. If we inculcate this doctrine, we need not fear exhorting sinners to holy exercises of heart, nor holding up the promises of mercy to all who thus return to God by Jesus Christ.

 Fuller, A. G. (1988). “On the Duty of Ministers in Dealing with the Unconverted,” The Gospel Worth of All Acceptation. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: Controversial Publications (J. Belcher, Ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 391–393). Sprinkle Publications.