Mr. T., in his Ninth Letter, remarks on the evidence I offered for an absolute determination in the death of Christ to save some of the human race. “This sentiment,” Mr. T. says, “whether true or false, I do not wish to oppose,”—XIII. 92. He would not dispute, it seems, about Christ’s dying with a view to the certain salvation of some, provided I would admit that, in another respect, he died for all mankind. Here, then, we seem to come nearer together than we sometimes are. The sense in which he pleads for the universal extent of Christ’s death is only to lay a foundation for this doctrine, that men, in general, may be saved if they will; and this is what I admit: I allow that the death of Christ has opened a way whereby God can, consistently with his justice, forgive any sinner whatever who returns to him by Jesus Christ; and if this may be called dying for men, which I shall not dispute, then it is admitted that Christ died for all mankind. But I say, they will not come to Christ for life; and that if Christ had died for no other end than to give them this offer, not one of them would have accepted it.

I hold as much as Mr. T. holds to any good purpose. I admit of a way being opened for the salvation of sinners without distinction; and, what is more, that an effectual provision is made in the death of Christ that that way shall not be unoccupied; that he shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. Without this provision, I suppose, no one would ever have been saved; and the tendency of my reasoning is to prove that all who are saved are saved in consequence of it.

Mr. T., I observe, is not disposed to controvert the doctrine of eternal, personal, and unconditional election,—XIII. 100. I am allowed, therefore, to take that doctrine, together with a special design in the death of Christ for the salvation of the elect, for granted. “This sentiment,” Mr. T. says, “whether true or false, he does not wish to oppose.” If any thing is necessary to be proved, in this place, it is that none but those whose salvation Christ absolutely designed in his death are eventually saved; or, in other words, that whoever are saved are indebted to sovereign and efficacious grace for their salvation. Now, let the reader turn to my Reply to Philanthropos, and he will perceive that several of those scriptures which prove the doctrine of election prove also that none else are finally saved. The apostles addressed all the believing Ephesians, Thessalonians, &c. as having been “chosen in Christ” before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy; as “chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth;” as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience;” as being “saved and called with a holy calling, not according to their works, but according to God’s own purpose and grace, given them in Christ before the world began.” But if some were saved in consequence of such a purpose in their favour, and others without it, the apostles had no just ground to write as they did, concerning them all, without distinction. When we are told that “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” this implies, as strongly as any thing can imply, that no more believed, and were saved, than such as were ordained to eternal life. Christ returned thanks to his Father that he had “hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so Father,” said he, “for so it seemed good in thy sight.” And again, we are assured, by the apostle Paul, “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

To the above passages I shall add only one more: 1 Cor. 1:26–29, “Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.” The reasoning of the apostle, in this passage, plainly supposes the following things:—1. That there is a special and effectual vocation, which is peculiar to all Christians. The common call of the gospel extends alike to rich and poor, wise and foolish, noble and ignoble; but the effectual operations of the Holy Spirit do not: it is the latter, therefore, and not the former, which is here meant. 2. That this vocation, common to all true Christians, corresponds, as to the objects of it with election. The same persons, and all of them, said to be called, are, in the same passage, said to be chosen; which agrees with the same apostle’s account of the matter, in Rom. 8:30, “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called.” 3. Vocation not only corresponds with election as to the objects of it, but is itself an effect of it. The reason given why the foolish, weak, and despised ones of the world were called, rather than others, is God’s sovereign choice of them before others. Some might have supposed, if the apostle had not been so particular in his expressions, that the minds of the weak and illiterate, though under a disadvantage in one respect, yet possessed an advantage in another, in that they were more free from prejudice; and that Paul had meant to ascribe their embracing Christ before others to the unprejudiced state of their minds; but such a supposition is entirely precluded by the apostle’s language. He does not say the weak and foolish have chosen God, but God hath chosen them; nor would the other mode of expression have corresponded with the end assigned, to prove that “no flesh shall glory in his presence.”

Many worthy men, who have maintained the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, have at the same time admitted that Christ might be said, in some sense, to have died for the whole world. They distinguished between the sufficiency and efficiency of his death; and considered the indefinite language of the New Testament, relative to that subject, as expressing the former of these ideas. Thus the English Reformers, who composed the Thirty-nine Articles, appear to have viewed the subject. They fully avowed the doctrine of predestination, and at the same time spoke of Christ’s dying for all mankind. Mr. T. on this ground affirms that “the doctrine of the universality of our Saviour’s death both is, and ever since the Reformation has been, the doctrine of the Established Church,”—XIII. 141. I believe, in the sense above mentioned, it has been so; and if this was all that Mr. T. pleaded for, he might debate the point with whomsoever he pleased, I should not interest myself in the dispute. But the views of Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Usher, and Davenant, were very different from those of Mr. Taylor. They, as well as Fraser of Scotland and Bellamy of New England, and many other anti-episcopalian divines who have agreed with them in this point, never imagined that any besides the elect would finally be saved. And they considered the salvation of all that are saved as the effect of predestinating grace, as their works abundantly testify.

Mr. T. may say, the question is, not whether more than those whose salvation is absolutely determined will be eventually saved, but whether they might be. “If,” says he, “any such election be maintained as supposes that all the rest of mankind never enjoyed the possibility of happiness, nor had any provision of happiness made for them, but were necessarily, either from eternity or from their birth, exposed to eternal misery, such election as this I deliberately consider as opposite to the spirit and design of the gospel, and to the tenor of Scripture,”—XIII. 100. To this it is replied, All such terms as necessary, cannot, impossible, &c., when applied to these subjects, are used improperly. They always denote, in strict propriety of speech, an obstruction arising from something distinct from the state of the will. Such terms, in their common acceptation, suppose a willingness in us to perform an action, or obtain an end, but that we are hindered by some insurmountable bar from without. Such an idea is always annexed to the use of such terms; and Mr. T. certainly has this idea in his use of the terms necessary and impossible, in this place. His meaning is to oppose that doctrine which represents a part of mankind as placed in such circumstances, as that, though they should be willing to embrace Christ, or at least willing to use means that they may be willing to embrace him, yet it would be all in vain. But such a doctrine nobody maintains; at least, I had no such ideas of the subject. I have no such notion of election, or of the limited extent of Christ’s death, as that it shall be in vain for any of the sons of men truly to seek after God. If they are willing to be saved in God’s way, nothing shall hinder their salvation; and (if there were any meaning in the expression) if they were but truly willing to use means that they might be willing, all would be clear before them. Now, where this is the case, it cannot be said, in strict propriety of speech, that no provision is made for their happiness, or that any man’s salvation is impossible, or his destruction necessary; seeing the way of salvation is open to him, if he will but walk in it. All that can be said in truth is that there is a certainty in these things. It is certain that none will be saved but those who choose to be saved in God’s way. It is certain that no one will choose that which is opposite to the prevailing bias of his heart. Yea, it is certain that, whatever means there may be adapted to the turning of his heart, a man who is wholly averse from God will never make use of them with such a design. To make use of a means, with a view to accomplish an end, must imply the existence of a desire after such end; but a desire after this end exists not till the end is accomplished. A desire after a change of heart is, in some degree, the very thing desired. Besides, if, as Mr. T. says, “men have no will nor power, nor any concern about the matter” of believing in Christ, “till the Holy Spirit work, awaken, and produce these in his mind,” (XIII. 23,) then it is certain, even from his own premises, that no sinner ever sincerely applied to God for grace before he had it, unless he could be supposed so to apply without will, or power, or any concern about it. These things, I say, are certain, according to the nature and constitution of all intelligent beings; and there are other things equally certain, as consequences of them, which are confirmed by Scripture testimony. It is certain that none are willing to be saved in God’s way but those who are made willing in the day of his power; it is certain that whenever God makes a sinner willing in the day of his power, he is only working things after the counsel of his own will, executing his own eternal purpose; and hence it is certain that such, and only such, will eventually be saved.

If Mr. T. objects against the certainty of any man’s destruction, and will have it that this amounts to the same thing as necessity and impossibility; let him consider, that as he admits the doctrine of Divine foreknowledge, he must allow, therefore, that God certainly foreknew the final state of every man. But certain foreknowledge must imply a certainty of the event foreknown. If an event is certainly foreknown, the future existence of that event must be certain. If there was an uncertainty respecting the future existence of an event, there must, in the nature of things, be an equal degree of uncertainty in the foreknowledge of that event. Certain foreknowledge, therefore, implies a certainty of the event foreknown.

But foreknowledge, it is alleged, has no causal influence upon the thing foreknown,—XIII. 108. Be it so; neither has any purpose in God, that I embrace, any influence towards a sinner’s destruction, except in a way of punishment for his sin. The scheme which Mr. T. opposes, so far from representing man as “for ever unable to improve one single mercy of God to any good purpose,” represents him as not only possessing great advantages, but as able to comply with every thing that God requires at his hand; and that all his misery arises from his “voluntary” abuse of mercy, and his wilful rebellion against God. It is not a want of ability, but of inclination, that proves his ruin.* If Mr. T. had kept these things in view, (which, surely, he ought to have done,) he could not have repesented my sentiments in such a light as he has done,—XIII. 106, 108.

Fuller, A. G. (1988). “Letter X”, The Reality and Efficacy of Divine Grace. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: Controversial Publications (J. Belcher, Ed.; Vol. 2, pp. 543–547). Sprinkle Publications.