Jared Smith On Various Issues

3 Hyper Calvinist Quotes

Below are twenty-five more statements made by Hyper Calvinists:

J. Hupton: “The faith under consideration is a blessing of the covenant of grace. This you must either admit or deny. If you deny it, you renounce the gospel, which says, that faith is the gift of God. That he chose his people to the belief of the truth; that he gives them on the behalf of Christ, to believe on his name; that when he calls them to believe, it is according to his own purpose and grace given them in Christ, before the world began;—and that, his covenant is ordered in all things, and sure; and, therefore, must include faith. If you admit of it, then you must give up the point in dispute; unless you should be so happy as to prove, that the covenant of grace and covenant of works are only the same thing, called by different names; that the blessings of the former are only the duties of the latter; that, when the scriptures speak of a new covenant-blessing, an old covenant duty is intended; and, when they make mention of an old covenant duty, they most certainly mean, a gift of divine grace. When you, or any of the same opinion with yourself, have given full proof of this, we will give up the point; but, till this is done, we must maintain, that the faith under consideration is not a duty of the covenant of works; for, except the above is proved, it cannot be made to appear, that it is a. legal duty, though many plausible things may be said in favor of it. While the two covenants are distinct, the things belonging to the one, must be kept separate from those pertaining to the other. The blessings of that of grace cannot, with the least shadow of propriety, be said to be the duties of that of works. I know the common religious cry is, away with your niceties and particularities; persons and things are jumbled altogether. Believers and unbelievers the children of the bondwoman, and those of the free the two covenants old covenant duties, and new covenant privileges, bondage and. liberty, Moses and Christ.”

C. Banks: “There is grace triumphing in the absolute gathering and bringing of the whole election of grace, the whole house of Israel, from among the heathen, gathering them from all countries, and bringing them into their own land. This I consider to be the first manifested blessing: an effectual Call by grace divine. I find some of the best of men in the olden times, and almost all the free-will and duty-faith men in this and in other kingdoms, are everlastingly talking about “offered grace” and offering Christ: rejecting Christ, and rejecting the Spirit. Can any such sentiment, or feature in the ministry, be justified from the Scriptures? did Christ, or did the Apostles, thus authorise preachers, to talk to men? It is high time this lifeless idol, this unmeaning branch of the gospel ministry, be examined, exposed, and banished from the earth. Preach the gospel to men with all the powers you have. Persuade men by all the arguments you can use. Warn them of their danger; and point them to the great and glorious Refuge set before them in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ: but until he comes and alters the parable, and makes the true virgins to say, that they have oil to give, grace to give, Christ to offer and salvation to bestow, never let puny proud mortals stand in their pulpits; and talk of offering Christ, or, of God’s offering grace; “weeping,” as some dare to say, because men will not embrace and receive his offered mercy. All such preachers must be like Miriam, when the leprosy was upon her, “half-dead” at the least: and I think, like Moses, we should try and pray unto the Lord to heal such poor half-dead, if not wholly dead-priests, and set them right: for the Lord says in ten thousand places, “I will bring them.” “I the Lord have spoken it,” and “I will do it.”

J. Bloomfield: “I should exceedingly rejoice to see good men and true, united for the spread of the gospel of Christ; I mean, the gospel in its fulness, purity, and vitality; and for the maintaining of gospel ordinances as instituted by the Great Head of the Church; but I fear this will not take place! if, however, there should be any stir amongst men of truth in this direction, the organization must be based upon gospel doctrines, and must harmonise with the great principles of God”s truth. There must be no compromise between truth and error. What we want is, not duty-faithism, but the gospel in all its liberalities and immutable principles. What we want is the everlasting gospel, godly experience, and a practical manifestation of the life and power of God in the soul. While I write this, l have no expectation that such a co-operation as has been suggested will be carried out. With some other good brethren, I was interested some time since in an association that was intended to carry out the principles I have named; that however, came to nothing; and now I am quite willing and happy in working in the gospel ministry without any such association.”

J. Wells: “Now I do not for a moment believe that you on that side of the Atlantic are, with all your freewill revivals; (which revivals have, by our divinity-auctioneers here in England, been puffed into the very first stage of the millennium) you are not, I say, with all your revivals, anywhere near us here in England for ministers of truth, or for real Christians. We out-number you greatly; the old duty-faith and freewill fables cover your land; we are bad enough and you are worse, but the Lord can revive his work.”

D. Allen: “Dear Brother, I drop you a line by our brother Mills, just returning (from Australia) to London. We have gradually shone out of obscurity, during seven years. We have just been enabled to raise a chapel here at the cost of about £1,550; £1,250 of which is paid; and all within six months of the purchase of the ground. We have baptized six believers in the Lord Jesus Christ since the chapel has been opened; the Lord has been very gracious to his called people; and has been pleased to call others—I send you my answer to the slander of the Fullerite Baptists in this place, they say, “you do not preach to sinner.” Also, our “Articles of Faith,” and verses composed at the laying of the corner-stone, and opening the chapel. Praying the blessing of God to rest upon you, and your labors, I am yours affectionately in Jesus, March 30, 1858.”

J. West: “But there may be some before me, who may probably flinch from these glorious TRUTHS. There may be some that may be conscientiously afraid that they may tend to Antinomianism. I hate Antinomianism! And I tell you that the people of God are a people desirous to serve Him. “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them,” and the Church of England in her ordinance service of the Lord’s Supper has the very echo of that scripture, “all such good works as Thou has prepared for us to walk in.” “We are His workmanship.” O! What a blessed piece of machinery! “A vessel of mercy! Afore prepared unto glory!” Saved by the blessing of God! “We are His workmanship!” I speak as a Christian! “Shall we continue in sin then?” Rather let right hands be chopped off, right eyes plucked out, right feet cast from us. The desire of our soul is, that our conversation may be in heaven, as “it becometh the gospel of Christ.” There is no Antinomianism in that, is there? How was it with the apostle Paul? He was a preacher of FREE unconditional grace! And would have been called in England, in the times, a high Calvinist. But what was his statement? “By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain. But I labored ore abundantly than they all.” (There was practical conformity to God’s will, and all under the influence of grace.) “Yet not I,” Paul had a tender conscience, (he checks himself, he would not exalt self in any way). “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Thus you see, there is no danger of Antinomian errors from the gospel faithfully preached!, though there be the charge of preaching high Calvinism! I am sure the church of God does not desire to make John Calvin a Pope; John Calvin, like all other men, had his errors, but the gospel which I would preach is Jesus Christ’s! And I can say with Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.””

E. Blackstock: ““And he hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”—that is, of all the flock. If it be asked, for whom Christ died, the answer is, for the elect only, whose sins he bore; for he bore all the sins of all the elect. Christ calls one part of mankind sheep, and the other part goats. He says he will, in the day of judgment, place the goats on his lefthand, and say unto them, “I never knew you.” Now, if Christ never knew those whom he denominates goats, if he knew only his sheep, as he has said, “I know my sheep,” must it not be evident that he died not for any of those who perish, but for the chosen sheep only? Should any ask him for whom he died, his twofold answer is ready: “I lay down my life for the sheep;” “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” Some of our modern teachers say, that the Father has a chosen people, who alone shall be saved, and yet, say they, Christ died for all mankind. Now what is this but to represent that the Father and the Son are differently minded?—the one is for saving a part only, and the other wishes to save the whole, but cannot, because some men will not be saved. Modern Calvinism sets the Trinity at variance, and represents Christ as being unable to do what he would. Are not these fair conclusions, from such premises? And are they not monstrous absurdities? Christ died for the very people whom his Father chose, and for none else. For them he passed through the depths of tribulation, took their place under the law, and, in his own person, fulfilled its principles and precepts, jots and tittles; for in his life the law appears drawn out in “living characters.” He went to the end of the law, and “became the end of it for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

‘James The Less’: “On the 24th page of this month’s edition, an Enquiry by a Correspondent with the signature of ‘James’; he asks—‘that if there is (be) no offer in the gospel to all men—and all men have it not in their power to receive it—is not the message, (command) preach the gospel to every creature, a tantalizing one?’ Now, Mr. Editor, whether there be an offer in the gospel to all men or not; or, whether all men have power to receive it or not; I do not see how, in either case, the message can be tantalizing…To whom is the mission—’preach the gospel to every creature’ a tantalizing message; for, if all men have power to receive it, then it does not tantalize them; and, on the other hand, if all men be spiritually dead, then the dead know not anything: the message cannot tantalize them…My good friend James, let me say to you, that the very nature of salvation’s blessings, precludes the possibility of what you are pleased to call offers of the gospel…You know that in the Bible, we read of all spiritual blessings being given ‘before the foundation of the world,’ and that they are given to ‘a chosen people.’ And, besides, look even at the absurdity of Christ offering to die for you—offering to write your name in the book of life—the Holy Spirit offering to quicken you—the Lord Jesus looking down from heaven, and offering to stop Saul of Tarsus, asking whether he would be stopped or not—Jesus Christ offering to raise the dead; and so, if they do not choose to rise, they cannot be raised. Jesus, according to your doctrine, has power to damn without the sinner’s consent; but not power to save without both the consent and the help of the sinner. Truly, James, your gospel appears one like your tantalization—a very nothing. Well, let me tell you, that no hyper Calvinist will tell you that it is not the duty of all men to believe the Bible, fear God, and honor him, as their Maker, their Judge, and their Preserver. No high Calvinist will tell you, that men have not power to receive the gospel in the letter of it, and as far as mere natural conscience can go, and this is morally and socially good, but there is no salvation in that; no!—not a particle; we are not save day receiving the letter of the word, but by being born of God; and until the ground be thus prepared, the seed can take no saving root; all the men in the world may be converted tomorrow to the letter of the word, and every one of them the next day be in hell. All believing which does not arise from regeneration, is only natural. Such believing is not the faith of God’s elect, and therefore cannot save the soul…You enquiry involves another question—namely, ‘what is the gospel?’ The gospel is the revelation of a covenant ordered in all things and sure; of which covenant Jesus is the Mediator; his Holy Spirit the Witness; and the election of grace the partakers; and is to be preached to every creature, for a twofold purpose. First, to take out the Jews and Gentiles a people ordained to eternal life; and, secondly, for the moral and temporal good of others…Thus, friend James, there is no tantalizing; there is no such thing as offered grace; and there is no power in man to help himself to a saving possession of the gospel; ‘for the flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickeneth.’ Just look at yourself, with your three nothings, and worst than nothings; because they are errors, lies and delusions. No Tantalizings! No offers! No power in man to savingly receive the gospel! These are your three worse than nothings.”

H. Hall: “If hyper-calvinism (as it is called) was not burnt into our very souls, we would throw off the badge.”

J. Jones: “I am well known to be what is termed ‘high in doctrine;’ but not higher I trust that the scriptural standard. I am by no means a ‘duty-faith man,’ as the phrase is. Yet holding firmly with free-grace, and full duties…I would drop one remark on what I call ‘dead duty-faith,’ that is, ministerial exhortations to all men indiscriminately, to exercise precious faith, as the condition of their salvation. How any persons who maintain that Christ did not die for all, can yet invite all men to come to Jesus, except by a thoughtless inconsistency, I am unable to conceive. General invitations can only be maintained on the ground of general Redemption; and is the alone footing on which duty-faith can be placed.”

T. Row: “We are not to infer from this faithful saying, that Christ came and suffered to bring ALL sinners into a salvable state, to give all an equal opportunity of being saved by making it their duty to repent and believe—for that would be utterly inconsistent with the word of God, the grace of God, the work of God, and the real safety of his people. Such a scheme may be pleasing to proud fallen nature, but cannot fail to offend the lovers of truth, and deceive the advocates of error. If we really believe all truth, as well as the one now under notice, we shall find the true meaning of the latter by the aid of the former. But we shall find no Bible authority for preaching general mercy, while its discriminating character is kept out of sight. We should be glad to see many more saved than we do, were it the will of God, but we cannot teach the WHOLE truth without sometimes telling of those that perish in their sins, which could not be if Christ came to save them. All after whom he came shall surely be called to come after him. And so it follows, he came into the world to save all chosen sinners, (2 Thea. 2:13,) all truly sanctified, sensible, humble, hoping, believing, praying and obedient sinners. But as many live and die destitute of these things, salvation is far from them. They only are saved from hell who are saved from their sins.“

J. Wells: “Freewill, therefore, is a liar and a deceiver, and the twaddle of half-way Calvinism is little better than freewill. Yea, in some respects worse, because more deceptive.”

H. Bulteel: “There are some that say God merely offers grace and salvation in the Gospel. But God says that he gives grace and salvation. There is a mighty difference betwixt the two: an offer is a good thing, but a gift is better; for a thing offered either may become the property of him to whom it is offered, or it may not; but a gift, in order to constitute it a gift, must pass from the hands of the giver into those of the receiver. It cannot truly be called a gift till it is actually given. The offer only comes half way, and there stops, but the gift comes home. So it is in the things of God. When God intends grace for any poor soul, he does not stop half way, and wait for our closing with his offer, but he comes home to our very soul, and makes a sure lodgment of the blessing. When therefore God declares that he gives Christ, he doth more than offer Christ. If God had waited for man’s acceptance of Christ before he sent him into the world, Christ never would have appeared in the world; for when he did come, his own received him not. Had God offered man that Christ should come, he would have left the redemption of the world suspended upon man’s corrupt will; but God having given his Son, he went beyond, and even contrary to the will of man, and acted after the counsel of his own will, and therefore made sure work of the sinner’s salvation.”

H. Myerson: “Now, what is the standard of a man in Christ? ‘Faith that worketh by love.’ And according as our faith is in act and exercise, so will our souls be drawn out in pure love to Christ, and his people. Have I this love? The faith of a dead professor is stimulated by mere natural idea (for natural it is}, that he must believe, and if he does not believe he must perish; so dread and fear stimulate him so to do what he calls his duty; and if you ask him why he believes, he will readily answer, because it is my duty to believe. May God Almighty ever keep us from such a faith as this: this is a faith that works by duty. I want a faith that works by love: and, my reader, you may have a duty-faith and be lost; but a man that has faith wrought in the soul by the Holy Ghost, that faith will lead the soul up to its Author; Christ; and it will be quite as impossible for such a soul not to love, as for the opposite to love Christ—it would be quite as impossible for such a soul to be lost, as for the other, living and dying in that faith, to be saved; and yet if you ask a duty-faith believer if he loves Jesus Christ, he will give you an answer in the affirmative; but when he says it, it does not seem to come from his inmost soul; I suppose he thinks it his duty to say so. Had Simon, the straight-laced pharisee been asked if he loved Jesus Christ, he would, no doubt, have said, he seems a very nice sort of a· person, I have a liking for him, so I have asked him to dine with me—he would do Jesus Christ good if he could. This seems about the stamp of the duty-faith believer’s love. He must help Jesus Christ in saving his soul, as well as in the salvation of his own soul; thus his faith being natural, his love also is natural. Such love as this comes from a corrupt heart, and not from a regenerated soul. Now, for one minute, let us look at Mary’s faith, for Mary’s was the right sort of faith, and so produced genuine faith. Mary’s faith brought her to Christ’s feet, the only true place for a true penitent. Did she talk of assisting Christ in salvation matters? Oh, no! She felt she was lost, ruined, undone; but faith brought her to Christ’s feet, and her tears spoke the bitterness of her soul; they evinced true signs of penitential grief. Yes! Not a word she spoke, but bathes his feet with her tears, and wipes them with the hair of her head. Pause, my soul, and ask the question, has my faith brought me thus to Jesus’ feet? But further, Mary’s faith led her to see thousands of charms in Christ that no duty-faith man could. Oh, yes! Her faith was a living faith, and it operated, and produced mighty effects. It operated upon Christ’s heart, produced sympathy and compassion, and brought the sweet testimony from his lips which flowed like a cordial into her wounded, dispensing, sin-stricken soul; and thus all her wounds were healed; all her griefs subsided; and those eyes from which gushed a flood of tear, now sparked with joyous delight. “Oh! Woman,” said the Savior, ‘thy sins, which are many, are all forgiven thee.’ And so she loved him, the object of her faith—because he manifested his love to her, and because he loved her he gave her faith to believe in him, and because she had faith imparted to her to believe in him as the true Messiah, she loved him with all her heart, soul, mind and strength. Astonishing discriminating grace! A room full of immortal soul, and only one, the worst of the number, the most despised—a vessel of mercy, which was afore prepared unto glory.”“

J. Hazelton: “We are told that the covenant is “ordered.” It is not an unpremeditated speculation, but wisdom’s well laid plan; a Trinity in Unity concurs in it, and a Unity in Trinity. I consider it to be, therefore, the duty of every minister to preach Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ‘You preach Christ full and free,’ a good man once said to a gospel minister, ‘but be sure you honor the Holy Ghost.’ And so much importance did he attach to this, that he had printed and placed in his study, ‘Be sure you honor the Holy Ghost,’ without whom we shall know nothing of election, redemption, or regeneration.“

J. Jones: “[The question on whether it be the duty of unregenerate sinners to believe on Christ to the saving of their souls] has been irrefutably, because scripturally, answered again and again, by most able writers in their day and generation. I have a treatise on the subject, written 123 years ago (1738), by Mr. Wayman, of Kimbolton, in reply to a Mr. Morris, of Rowell; which sets the question at rest. But the Baptist churches (generally speaking) were sound in the faith until about the year 1776, when three young men scraped an acquaintance, and became very intimate. Their names were John Sutcliffe, aged 24; John Ryland, jun., aged 23; and Andrew Fuller, Aged 22. This trio met together for the first time on May 28, 1776, at the Northamptonshire Association…’These young associates (Ryland and Sutcliffe) had lately drunk deep in the writings of President Edwards, and they introduced that…author to the acquaintance of their new friend, Fuller. Woe and alas!, for the introduction of this American exotic, this New-England-School theology, into our churches. However, these three young lads became wonderfully taken up with their new Dolly. The father of one of them, the celebrated John Ryland, sen., wrote at the time as follows. He said, speaking of the “Modern Question” (the term then used to express the sentiment by), his son and Fuller were busied on it. The Devil threw out an empty barrel for them to roll about; while they ought to have been drinking the wine of the kingdom. That old dog, lying in the dark, has drawn off many good men to whip syllabub and to sift quiddities (‘a trifling nicety’), under pretense of zeal for the truth.”

W. Styles: “The question which divides us from so many of our fellow Christians may be thus expressed. Is the act of believing in Christ to the salvation of the soul, a duty naturally incumbent on all men. Our answer is an emphatic “No,”—while “Yes” would be the reply of the majority of godly persons. This is the gist of the Duty-Faith controversy. Let the reader understand it. It is not whether men as men are able spiritually to believe in Christ. Many to whom we are opposed deny this as emphatically as we do. We too admit with them that creature inability in no wise diminishes creature obligation—and we deplore that so many of our brethren have weakened our cause by seeking to defend it by arguments that were assailable. Thus a writer says: “It is absurd to preach that it is a man’s duty to believe savingly in Christ. Can that be a duty which is out of the power of a natural man?”—Earthen Vessel, vol. 13. 203. To this the answerable reply might be made that inability does not destroy obligation. A debtor’s being without money does not cancel his obligation to meet his liabilities. Again, in reviewing Duty-Faith, a Tract by W. Stokes, the late W. Palmer objecting to the course of the argument pursued observes, that “The question to be tried is not whether Faith has a Divine origin, or whether man is able to create it for himself. Many Duty-Faith advocates admit both. The question lies deeper, and the issue is joined at another point.”—Voice of Truth, 1864, page 185. The question therefore concerns not what man can do, but what he ought to do—not ability or inability—but duty. Yet again, the inquiry is limited to natural men. We admit that regenerated sinners are empowered and commanded to believe in Jesus, and that they ought so to do.”

J. Jones: “It was in the year 1781 that Andrew Fuller published his work, entitled The Gospel Of Christ Worthy Of All Acceptation. A copy of the first edition I have now before me. Mr. William Button, who was for upwards of 40 years pastor of the Baptist church in Dean Street, replied to it, in a well-written and most conclusive pamphlet of more than 100 pages, now before me. In his preface he says, “Mr. Fuller’s treatise appears to me to be opposite to Scripture and experience; and tends to overthrow the distinguishing and glorious doctrines of the gospel. Yet I wonder not at its prevailing, as it is exceedingly pleasing to human nature, and very gratifying to a proud man to be told he can believe if he will. But it is too humbling and too degrading to tell a sinner he has neither will nor power. So that those ministers who maintain the hypothesis of the creature’s natural ability, will be sure to please the ear of men in general, and so gain what is so much sought after in the present day—vain popularity.”

J. Wells: “The doctrine of duty-faith is just that doctrine which sets men down for Christian that are not Christians; and you will find that those duty-faith men, when they go a little way with you in your tribulatory experiences, soon contradict it all again, and thus show their ignorance of the new covenant ministry of the Holy Ghost. These men tell us that all is of grace, that God alone can quicken the soul, and often in the same sermon tell us, that if a man be lost it is his own fault, thus holding that there is a chosen people, and the rest might be saved if they would; whereas nobody wishes to be lost. All are willing to be saved; but it is not that kind of willingness that accompanies salvation. Now, such men make the Word of God contradict itself; and then say they are not bound to reconcile it; but where, in all the Word, is their authority for making the Holy Spirit of God contradict Himself? What kind of Will would that be which should contradict itself? What attorney would risk his credit in drawing up such a Will? Would it not be utterly impossible for executors to act upon such a Will? And is not eternal salvation a matter entirely of God’s good-will? And is not his will called his testament, or covenant? And is not this testament will, or covenant, ordered in all things, and sure? And yet these duty-faith men advocate what they themselves acknowledge to be a contradiction; and then say they are not bound to reconcile it. This is what they say; but the general tone of the Word of God is quite after another order of things. The Apostle Paul felt bound to reconcile Law and Gospel, and to show that so far from faith making void the Law, it (faith) receives the Savior as the end of the Law for righteousness, Christ having fulfilled and established the Law. Here is no contradiction—all is harmonious; and so with the attributes of God, mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other…Fly from such preachers and doctrines as make the Word of God self-contradictory; and do thou still sacredly hold that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and gives not an uncertain, but a certain, sound.”

E. Blackstock: “The Holy Ghost, for himself, in eternity, entered into the most solemn covenant engagements. He was appointed agent for the accomplishment of the great work to be wrought in every elect vessel. Moreover, he, in the council of peace, bore his solemn witness to the making of the covenant of grace. By nature, the elect are, as others, under unbelief and sin. They cannot do a spiritual act, nor perform any of the functions of spiritual life, because they are “dead in trespasses and sins.” They can neither will nor do, until the Holy Ghost works in them, and enables them to both will and do. He breathes upon the dry bones, and they live. He completely fills his high office, and performs his own work. He will work, and who shall let it? There is a set time to favour Zion. Her dead men shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and live. The north wind shall awake, and the south wind shall blow upon the garden of Christ. The Holy Ghost will convince every elect vessel of sin. The sinner shall hear from the Father, and learn his own lost condition. The Holy Ghost will quicken him; he will drive him from under a covenant of works, and at length out of himself. He will draw him to Christ with soft but strong cords, and will unfold unto him the beauty and glory of God incarnate. As a Spirit of grace and supplication, he will pour out his influences upon him, and will incline his heart to seek the Lord. He will give him an understanding, lead him to the written word, shine into his soul, open unto him the plan of salvation, bestow upon him true faith, hope, repentance, and humility; build him, as a poor sinner, upon Christ as a foundation, and so place him upon the rock Jesus, and his finished work, helping him to believe. He will teach the sinner to crown the blessed Saviour, and the Saviour will crown the poor sinner with his loving-kindness.”

H. Bulteel: “If to give, means more than to offer, it certainly means much more than to sell; for there be some who tell us that God gives upon conditions, or, in other words, sells grace; into which error they have been drawn by their inability to perceive, that the ifs of the New Testament are not conditional, but evidential. For instance, Paul (1 Cor. 15:2.) says, Ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached; and, (Col. 1:21,23.) You hath he reconciled, if ye continue in the faith. Now though it be most true, that if we forget, and continue not in the faith, we are neither saved nor reconciled; yet it by no means follows, that our remembering and continuing are the conditions of our salvation, although they be the evidences. I know of no other condition on which sinners are saved, but the death of the Son of God; according to his own word, I lay down my life for the sheep: and nothing else could move God to so great and glorious a work, but the foreview of that infinite satisfaction to be rendered by Christ to his violated law: and even this is rather the effect of God’s grace towards us, rather the channel through which it flows down to us, than the condition on which it is granted; for God so loved the world, that he gave his Son. If then even the death of Christ, in some sense, may not be termed the condition of man’s salvation, how much less anything that we can do in time! Shall our works, our duties, our alms, have the least effect in moving God to save us? Shall our prayers, our tears, our repentances, be any part of the condition on which God is content to put away our sin? Can our faith, our knowledge, our love, the very highest of our spiritual attainments, do us the least good in this matter? God forbid! Nay, are not all and every one of these, if we have them, gifts which have been bestowed upon us by God himself? How then do we dare attempt to bribe him to save us with the very money which he himself hath put into our hands.”

J. Jones: “I repeat it, that the Fullerian Duty-faith system, is opposite to scripture and experience, and tends to overthrow the distinguishing and glorious doctrines of the gospel. It has had my determined and unqualified opposition from the first day of my ministerial labor to the present hour. I consider it to be an heresy of the very first magnitude. It is a calling on the creature, while dead in trespasses and sins, to make himself alive; and to do that work which our Lord himself says is the work of God to perform. See John 6:29.”

J. Jones: “I repudiate and reject the unscriptural Fullerian sentiments of Duty-faith. To enjoin and invite all to believe in Christ, and to inculcate it as their duty to do so, unless Christ died for all men, is, to say the least of it, a most thoughtless inconsistency. There can be no union between a limited provision for some, and an unlimited exhortation for all to partake of the same. If Christ died for all, then invite all. “The legs of the lame are not equal.” Prof 26:7”

J. Jones: “What is real Fullerism? I reply, it is the wide-spreading error, or rather heresy, of the present day. Its doctrine is—That it is the Duty of man to do and perform that which God alone can accomplish; and, if man does it not, his damnation is sure…Some persons may suppose that certain ministers hold the doctrine of Particular Redemption, because they occasionally speak of Christ’s dying for his people; but, no, for at bottom, they are general redemptionists. Let us attend to Mr. Fuller himself on this subject. He says:—“There is such a fulness in the satisfaction of Christ, as is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to believe.” So that the atonement is a universal atonement; all the human race may be saved, provided they will but believe. So that general exhortations cannot harmonize with particular redemption. It amounts to this,—either that Christ died for all men, or, that he died only for some men, else that he died for no man. Now our Lord himself has decided this point. He says, “I lay down my life for my sheep.”—John 10:15. And he says to certain persons, “Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.”—Verse 26. The plain language of Fullerism, then, is, addressing the sinner, in substance thus: “Christ has died for you, provided you will only believe. He has paid your dreadful debt—that is, if you will but be kind enough to accept the receipt.” Acceptation then, or rejection, is the ground of salvation or damnation. Is this Scriptural? I trow not.”

J. Jones: “It is with pain of mind that I notice the sad erroneous views of [C. H. Spurgeon], who seems, at present, to carry, as it were, all before him. His sentiments are far beyond those of Fuller. I could produce proofs by dozens from his sermons, in corroboration. I give but one as a sample; and if that does not satisfy the reader, then he is like the man himself, who is so elated with his great Babylon as to be callous and case-hardened to anything. I have now lying before me, “The London City Mission Magazine” for February, 1861. Eleven close printed pages are filled with Mr. Spurgeon’s address, as delivered by him to the City Missionaries on New Year’s Day. He says to them, “You missed opportunities of doing good; you passed by seasons when the heart was impressible, and when you might have driven home the truth; and—there they are in Hell! The thousands of your district—and there they are, weeping, and wailing, and gnashing their teeth! What will the unfaithful minister dare to say? Will not a double hell, a hell multiplied in proportion to the number of souls who, by his instrumentality, were damned, seize upon his soul at once?” Ah! My hand trembles! I forbear to transcribe more. Yes, this is ultra Fullerism. Here you have it fully developed, and no mistake.”