This afternoon (12.11.2020), I received an article which Michael Haykin had uploaded to Academia.educ who kindly sent me a copy. The 17 paged article with seven pages of endnotes affixed is entitled \u2018A Great Thirst for Reading\u2019: Andrew Fuller the Theological Reader\u2019.<\/p>\n
As Haykin has been promising new information on Fuller\u2019s life, ministry and theology for many decades, I am always curious on receiving anything from Haykin\u2019s pen concerning new insights on Fuller as he has daily contact with Fuller\u2019s records. Nobody is in such a fine position to do this work. Haykin is a university Professor of Fullerite Teaching and has every opportunity to spend his time researching Fuller assisted by a staff of scholars and an extensive library. Sadly, there was nothing new in the article but Haykin used the same well-trodden paths that he has stamped out for decades totally avoiding his academic duty to provide the less privileged than he with scholarly work on the Essential Fuller whom Haykin stubbornly circumnavigates in his pleas that we nevertheless should think of the \u2018Forgotten Fuller\u2019. When one realise that there are so many works nowadays which deal with Fuller\u2019s theology for and against, one wonders why Haykin says he endorses it yet never actually deals with it. What is he doing on his Professor\u2019s Chair?<\/p>\n
Haykin\u2019s topic is Fuller\u2019s wide theological reading though he gives little evidence of this. Indeed, he quarrels with those who say that Fuller\u2019s personal library was scanty but the only evidence he gives is to say that other libraries at the time were also scanty. However, Gill to who Haykin has a love-hate association, he confesses, had a large library and so had Sutcliffe. He does not say how large in comparison with Fuller\u2019s scanty library these were.<\/p>\n
Haykin starts by putting Fuller on a high pedestal, associating him with the great on the absolutely minimum of evidence. However, he scolds the biographers for not emphasising Fuller\u2019s friendship with those of the Clapham Sect such as Lord Wilberforce although he has in no way established such a friendship. He forgets that the first BMS missionaries, especially Thomas, clashed heavily in India with missionaries supported by the Clapham Sect, covered them with insults and scorn but expected them to pay for the Baptists\u2019 keep and finance their translations whilst Fuller forbade cooperation with them. Fuller yet accepted their hospitality and financial support, though claiming they were \u2018deceived by Jezebel.\u2019 Then Haykin relates that Fuller had told Sutcliffe that he had a \u2018great thirst for reading\u2019 and concludes that his thirst made Fuller the leading Baptist theologian of the day. Haykin, however, does not even try to prove his point. It is sufficient for him to state it.<\/p>\n
Haykin, indeed, has trouble placing John Gill into his scheme as naturally, he towered far above Fuller as a theological giant. So, too Haykin does not give credit to Gill for rescuing Fuller from his Johnsonism, Hyper-Calvinism and low view of the responsibility of man. Indeed, it is Haykin and his sect who claim that these three atrocities were Gill\u2019s until Fuller put such as Gill, Brine, Toplady, Hervey, Romaine and very many others right. This shows that he has not studied Fuller\u2019s works carefully as Fuller freely omits his dependence on Gill.<\/p>\n
Now, Haykin who is very slow to come up with with details of Fuller\u2019s profound theological reading, to satisfy his profound thirst and now tells us that the Bible was Fuller\u2019s Library and that Fuller was a \u2018biblicist\u2019. This might sound very good but in describing Fuller\u2019s adherence to the Word of God Haykin no ways gives a theological description of Fuller\u2019s doctrine of the Word. Yet Haykin sets Fuller up against Tom Paine\u2019s and Joseph Priestley\u2019s Deism, Rationalism and Socinianism forgetting that Fuller\u2019s contemporary Reformed evangelicals accused Fuller of following such Rationalism and Socinianism closely, even claiming that Fuller was \u2018worse than Priestley\u2019. Fuller believed that revealed religion and revealed Law as declared in the Word of God was only an arbitrary work of God which He would set aside and then place Himself under true Law which is Natural Law. Fuller\u2019s god is thus Natural Law. Fuller always used capitals to describe his NCT view of Natural Law and the inadequacies of both Old Testament and New Testament revelation. This Natural Law or rational understanding of what Fuller called \u2018the fitness of things\u2019 is the only Law Fuller taught. Gill has an excellent essay demolishing the theory of \u2018the fitness of things\u2019 which Fuller took from Liberals outside his denomination but Haykin has shown little acumen in studying Gill but adorns him with clich\u00e9s borrowed from others who are equally in the dark as to Gill\u2019s fine, Biblical teaching.<\/p>\n
Haykin now describes Booth\u2019s and Fuller\u2019s knowledge of Calvin believing that Booth\u2019s was greater and claims that \u2018Calvin was not as instrumental in the formation of his theology, later known as \u2018Fullerism\u2019.\u2019 Haykin, however, tells us that Fuller followed Calvin on \u2018imputation\u2019 which must be the tongue-slip of the year. Haykin also does not tell us that on hearing Fuller\u2019s defence of his peculiar theology, Booth pronounced Fuller \u2018lost\u2019. But this is what Booth said of Carey also.<\/p>\n
Haykin goes on to deal with Fuller\u2019s major reading of New Divinity teaching which Haykin claims was as central to Fuller\u2019s theology as that of Johnathan Edwards Senior. Arthur Kirkby pointed out clearly many years ago that associating Fuller so much with the theology of Edwards Senior cannot stand historical scrutiny and we have no certain evidence of Fuller reading Edwards much at all, especially in the years during which he was dealing with his early work The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Fuller\u2019s association with New Divinity with its high view of man and low view of God can hardly be a quality worthy of any acceptation. Fuller\u2019s theory of an unaccomplished and delayed Atonement awaiting the sinner\u2019s stretching out of his hand to embrace it is a total denial of the Biblical once-and-for-all-time accomplishment on the Cross. Haykin as a \u2018Strict Calvinist\u2019 and Protestant Reformed evangelical should be ashamed to associate himself with such teaching.<\/p>\n
We are now on page 10 of Haykin\u2019s 17 paged essay on Fuller\u2019s profound theological reading but Haykin keeps to New Divinity and how it helped convince Fuller of the truth of what is known as the Governmental Theory of Atonement, or the Moral Government Theory as it is also called. It is all a matter of morals which Fuller claimed was his gospel but morals never saved anyone. Fuller used \u2018morals\u2019 and \u2018spirituality\u2019 as synonyms. We note that Haykin calls himself \u2018Professor of Spirituality\u2019 in the Fullerite sense. The Governmental Theory was worked out by Pelagian Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) who was imprisoned for his politico-Rationalist theories and denies the doctrine of penal substitution which states that Christ died a vicarious death to atone for man\u2019s sins. Fuller, following Grotius, maintained that Christ died for no man\u2019s sins but provided a moral determent against sin. Christ\u2019s death was merely a matter between the Son and the Father to obtain a propitiation for those who exercise faith, repentance, and good works and remain in that path until death or lose their salvation. It is all as unbiblical and pseudo-rational as that. We are reminded of Arminian and Pelagian John Wesley who preached that one can be a child of God today and a child of the devil\u2019s tomorrow. I do not believe that this is a gospel worthy of all acceptation, however, Fuller might entitle his moral theories and Haykin accept them.<\/p>\n
To legitimise Fuller\u2019s view, although Fuller\u2019s was a theory propagated by the enemies of the Synod of Dort, Haykin again links Fuller here with Edwards Senior as if he were one of these critics of the orthodox Reformed faith. Haykin\u2019s attempts to merge Johnathan Edwards theology with that of the New Divinity School and claim that this was the combination Fuller accepted as his own is historically incorrect and would leave Fuller way outside of the Reformed, Biblical path as it indeed did. However, we are still waiting for Haykin\u2019s portrayal of Fuller\u2019s alleged profound reading which Haykin now wishes to demonstrate was in New Divinity, Governmental Theory literature. Surely readers were expecting something better and more edifying.<\/p>\n
Haykin now takes a side jump and explains how Fuller took advantage of contemporary printing to expound his views which Haykin feels could not have been done in previous years. Here, as I am currently writing a work on the history of Indian evangelism, I am reminded of Fuller\u2019s BMS claims of being the first in India to use a printing press for the spreading of Christian literature though this had been going on for over a hundred years in India. Ziegenbalg, for instance was printing mission reports, theological books, educational manuals, grammars, dictionaries, journals and works on comparative religion over a hundred years before the BMS. We note, too, that Ziegenbalg used a modern printing press with movable type in 1712 whereas a hundred years later Carey was still using a cast-off press from older Calcutta presses using ancient wooden type in an antiquated script which was not designed for modern Indian languages. Ziegenbalg\u2019s press turned out modern material whereas Carey\u2019s press merely remained an antique phenomenon. Even when Carey modernised the press after the fire of 1812, he still used a cut-down antiquated script which did not cater for the sounds in contemporary Indian languages. In the India of Fuller\u2019s day there were a number of towns boasting of as many as ten printing presses each and Danish and German missionaries had been printing text books, journals, dictionaries, grammars and Bible translations for a century before Fuller\u2019s time. Indeed, before them, 17th century Dutch missionaries were printing missionary evangelistic material and works on Indian religions. A mass of both secular and Christian literature had also been printed in England well over a century before Fuller went to print. This must be noted because most biographers of the early BMS missionaries claim that they gained a \u2018first\u2019 in using a printing press in India when they were had been in constant usage for over a century. So, too the claim of many Fullerite writers that the BMS were the first under Carey to take the Gospel to Bengal is quite ridiculous as there were several thriving churches there for Indian, Europeans or both long before Thomas and Carey reached India.<\/p>\n
Haykin goes on to speak of Robert Robinson the Arian and certain differences between Robinson\u2019s theology and that of Fuller\u2019s. Here Haykin is less than distinct. Robinson developed his Arianism over many years and through various denominations, so at what point and when is Haykin drawing comparisons? Furthermore, Fuller accepted Arians as his brethren in Christ and even arranged for an Arian to take over his first church which he had run down to nine members. When Fuller tried to clear his name of Socinianism before the courts, the Christian and secular press, including some of his closest missionary minded friends, could not accept his denials of being a Socinian and wrote rejecting his defence. Fuller was let of in public opinion on the grounds that he was a theological novice and had no idea of what he was talking about.<\/p>\n
We also must add that in order to oust the Serampore Trio from their posts, Fuller sent out a team to replace them and encouraged two Arians to join the anti-Carey front. George Adam was especially criticised for his Arianism by Carey and Marshman wrote several books against Rammohun Roy who had been writing for the Calcutta Baptist newspaper and had influenced the Baptists\u2019 Bible translations. Marshman quite lost his otherwise good arguments because of his scathing racist claims against the Indian nobleman. However, Yates whose translations were preferred to Carey\u2019s, remained adamant that Roy\u2019s Arian understanding of Greek had convinced him of the Baptist position.<\/p>\n
What Haykin now says of Samuel Pearce is just, noble and fitting but linking Fuller with Pearce does not mean that Fuller took up Pearce\u2019s mantle. One must hang Fuller\u2019s coat on his own hook.<\/p>\n
Haykin leaves the life of Fuller on page 15 for a look at his biographers all of whom did more original research on Fuller that Haykin has done and Haykin has used them as cakes out of which he has plucked their plums and raisins. Here Haykin quarrels sternly with Morris who did much to combat the unbalance of Fullerite ideology and also the theory that Fuller was a greatly read man but what he says of Fuller\u2019s books is modest and just so that we realise that Fuller was as well-read as many a pastor having more books than some and less books by far than others of his profession. Haykin counters this by writing that \u2018the vast majority of Fuller\u2019s books were works of theology\u2019 without explaining what was \u2018vast\u2019 about them. The individual volumes he quotes certainly do not add up to a \u2018vast\u2019 number. Haykin should abide by biographers who were more objective than he. We are now told that Fuller scorned the works of his contemporaries but we are not told much about how Fuller used older works. With this piece of unsatisfactory information Haykin closes his essay on Andrew Fuller and his great thirst for reading theological books.<\/p>\n
As Haykin sent me his upload open to all and asked for comments, I provided him with the following remarks which can be read on Academia.educ:<\/p>\n
Dear Michael,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thank you for your upload. I am always full of expectancy when you write again on Fuller hoping that you will come up with something new as no one is in a better position to do so than yourself. Plodders such as myself living on a small invalid pension and far from university libraries are rather handicapped. However, for all your privileges and opportunities you have come up with nothing new concerning your \u2018Forgotten Fuller\u2019 and you have skated around the Essential Fuller presenting your own theology as his as you have been doing for many decades. You always seem to praise Fuller where he is at his weakest for instance on such topics as the Word of God, the Church, Revealed Law and the Atonement not taking into consideration that these terms meant something quite different to Fuller and which he explains at length in his many works which are not noticed by you. So, too, you associate Fuller by name with celebrities to enhance his importance though you complain yourself that these celebrities hardly mention him. The little they do say is blown up by you to a most exaggerated extent. You are obviously not aware how Thomas and Fuller clashed arrogantly and ignorantly with the Clapham people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Furthermore, you always omit to mention the great opposition Fuller met by his more orthodox opponents yet claim that he opposed others, such as Priestley, who stood very near to him. Fuller\u2019s churches split up shrunk and turned Arian and Liberal in next to no time and Fuller had to admit that they contained a large percentage of non-Christians in spite of the being closed communion members. Fuller\u2019s strictures that Baptists should divorce themselves from non-Baptist wives and then be free to commit adultery and marry Baptists was exactly what many Indians felt their religion also taught them. Surely, Fuller\u2019s Radicalism was very near Paine\u2019s, Kant\u2019s, Daniel\u2019s, Lessing\u2019s (though not as sweetly mild) and yours.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You also are most shaky in your appreciation of John Gill who, of course rescued Fuller from his Johnson\u2019s and Hyper-Calvinism and taught him the doctrine of human responsibility which Fuller never really grasped. Nor do you mention Fuller\u2019s disastrous interference in India with his acute right-wing, imperialistic, Colonial view of missionary work in putting the converted under the British Raj without whose government, he and Marshman felt Christianity in India could not exist. So, too, you do not mention the fact that Baptist Bible translators departed radically from their hundreds of missionary forerunners in India and Bengal and severely Hinduised Scripture using a script totally unfamiliar to the average Indian reader. \u2018Missionary Bengali\u2019 was taught in the Baptists\u2019 schools until the pupils lost touch with their own language and literature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You are sadly providing us with a Fuller, and, of course, a Carey, of fiction and mythology and doing history and the cause of God and truth a great disservice. I still pray that you will drop this myth-making and get down to solid research before you leave this world. At least, it is a comfort to know that when you meet Fuller in Glory you will meet the real Fuller whom you have so radically forgotten, neglected and totally misrepresented in both his many good and many bad parts. However, whilst we are here, on earth, our duty is to preach the whole gospel to the whole man everywhere. This Fuller would not and could not do.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yours sincerely in the Christ God\u2019s Word has lovingly revealed to us,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
George Ella<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
George Ella<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
George M. Ella is a historian, author and biographer. His writings may be accessed at the online archived, \u201dBiographia Evangelica<\/a>\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n