“A System Of Holiness”: Andrew Fuller’s Evangelical Calvinistic Theology Of Virtue

By Ryan P. Hoselton

One of the most helpful theological works in recent days has been Ellen Charry’s discussion of virtue and theology. [1] Charry offers the neologism “aretegenic” to capture the “virtue-shaping function of the divine pedagogy of theological treatises.” [2] The adjective “aretegenic” (“aretology” in its nominal form) is a compound of the Greek terms, aretē denoting “virtue,” and gennaō, “to beget.” The classic theologians believed that an accurate knowledge of God was aretegenic—it fostered virtue and excellence in the lives of believers. Examining theological texts spanning from the New Testament to the Reformation, Charry’s project aims at “reclaiming a genuine pastoral Christian psychology that grounds human excellence in knowing and loving God.” [3] She takes her study up to John Calvin, but she could well have continued it to later theologians in the early modern era who have a similar way of doing theology. In this article, one such theologian, Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), is examined.

Fuller’s Evangelical Theology And The Moral Order

Andrew Fuller was a Baptist minister in Kettering, England, who played a central role in laying the theological foundations for the modern missionary movement. [4] He was an avid apologist for evangelical Calvinistic orthodoxy, writing voluminously against Arminianism, Hyper-Calvinism, Sandemanianism, Antinomianism, Socinianism, and Deism. [5] Fuller developed his theology of virtue most comprehensively in his writings against two of the most well- known eighteenth-century critics of orthodox Christianity: Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) and Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Although Priestley was a Socinian and Paine a Deist, they had a shared agenda to restore what they regarded as pure religion by replacing traditional Christian beliefs about God and human nature with more optimistic and enlightened ones. They pronounced traditional Christian doctrine a hindrance to moral and social progress.

In his engagement with Socinianism, Andrew Fuller outlined the “principal objections to the Calvinistic system” with regard to the atonement, the glory of God, and “the worship paid to Jesus Christ” as fully God. [6] The Deists censured the same doctrines but also included an aggressive opposition to the truth of Scripture. Fuller’s aim in both polemical contests was to show that the aretegenic value of Christian doctrine bore witness to its veracity.

Fuller based his theology of virtue on the doctrines that he considered central to the gospel. The truth and import of evangelical beliefs about the righteous character of God, the depravity of mankind, the deity and atonement of Christ, and the veracity of Scripture rested in their aretegenic power to convert moral agents from evil and instill in them holiness and love. For Fuller, the clash between good and evil did not consist merely in rival philosophical axioms; rather, it took place in a cosmic drama in which every moral agent was personally involved. In order to depict the dynamic between God’s moral authority and humanity’s moral insubordination, Fuller employed the analogy of a government. God was like a moral governor who in His love desired to find a means to pardon the rebels without compromising His justice.

Fuller considered each doctrine of evangelical Calvinist theology crucial to maintaining the moral order. To negate one belief undermined the harmony of not only truth but also of morality: “There is such a connexion in truth, that, if one part of it be given up, it will render us less friendly towards other parts, and so destroy their efficacy.” [7] Joseph Priestley confessed belief in the resurrection but denied Christ’s deity and atonement. Paine held to the doctrine of a future life, but he rejected Scripture and challenged the goodness of the Christian God. Fuller countered that his opponents’ moral system was incomplete because their belief system was incomplete. The truth of a belief system and its aretegenic value stood and fell together, for “that which we account truth is a system of holiness.” [8] Hence, he believed that if he could display “the morality and virtue inculcated by the gospel,” then he could corroborate the truthfulness of its doctrines. [9] What follows delineates the way Fuller’s theological system shaped his moral worldview.

“The Prime Object Of Genuine Love”: The God Of Moral Glory

In The Gospel Its Own Witness, Fuller commenced his moral argumentation with the doctrine of God. [10] God’s holy character furnished the standard and source of virtue. He wrote, “There are certain perfections which all who acknowledge a God agree in attributing to him; such are those of wisdom, power, immutability, &c.” [11] These attributes constitute God’s natural perfections. “There are others which no less evidently belong to Deity,” Fuller explained, “such as goodness, justice, veracity, &c., all which may be expressed in one word—holiness.” [12] Fuller counted these traits among God’s moral perfections. Although both “natural and moral attributes tend to display the glory of the Divine character,” Fuller claimed that God’s moral perfections exhibited His glory far greater than His natural perfections. A figure’s greatness will win acclaim, but his or her goodness will captivate hearts: “Moral excellence is the highest glory of any intelligent being, created or uncreated. Without this, wisdom would be subtlety, power tyranny, and immutability the same thing as being unchangeably wicked.” [13] Thus, although natural perfections like wisdom and power render God’s character “a proper object of admiration,” His “justice, veracity, and goodness attract our love” and capture our devotion. [14]

According to Fuller, the religions of the world have largely overlooked the divine moral character. The pagans have fabricated deities that represent greatness and power; but when it came to the moral character of their idols—many of which stood for drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, human sacrifice, and deception—they fell considerably short. The Deists emphasized God’s natural perfections, praising His transcendent grandeur, might, and intelligence while often ignoring His moral character. Fuller accused both the pagans and Deists alike of imposing their moral norms on their conception of the divine. [15] In contrast, the moral character of God determined Christian belief and its understanding of virtue: “The object of Christian adoration is Jehovah, the God of Israel; whose character for holiness, justice, and goodness, is displayed in the doctrines and precepts of the gospel.” [16] The gospel represented not merely a solution for mankind’s moral problem—it revealed the moral glory of God.

Fuller’s defense of the evangelical doctrine of God against the accusations of vindictiveness and malevolence was driven by his aretegenic goal to promote virtue in his readers. Human beings learned virtue by knowing God, practiced virtue by obeying God, and loved virtue by loving God. Fuller believed that a “cordial approbation of the Divine character is the same thing as a disinterested affection to virtue.” [17] Even more, a “holy likeness to God” was equivalent to “the very practice or exercise of virtue.” [18] Thus, Fuller deemed it impossible to grow in correct moral thinking and conduct without having accurate beliefs about and affection for God’s good character and ways:

it is the character of God that is the prime object of genuine love…the true character of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, must be taken into account, in determining whether our love to God be genuine or not. We may clothe the Divine Being with such attributes, and such only, as will suit our depraved taste; and then it will be no difficult thing to fall down and worship him: but this is not the love of God, but an idol of our own creating. [19]

Fuller perceived that one’s understanding of God’s moral character spoke volumes about his or her own character and moral standards. He charged his opponents with adapting their doctrine of God to their love of self. Their commitment to God was ultimately an “attachment to a being whose glory consists in his being invariably attached to us.” [20] The irony of making God subservient to the creature’s inclinations was that it divested God of His power to benefit mankind and facilitate its morality and happiness. The god of Enlightenment religion played no role in reforming humanity’s moral practices and ideas but merely served to endorse them. Fuller argued that excluding the Christian God from morality was not only ideologically flawed but it also undermined the advancement of virtue.

In Fuller’s moral cosmology, God’s moral glory comprehended the nature and beauty of virtue. God held the “supreme place in the system of being,” and His existence was the source of all creation.21 Likewise, His good character occupied the supreme place in the moral system, and therefore all goodness originated in Him. Thus, Fuller concluded that the best vehicle for becoming a person of virtue was to assign all glory and worship to God as the Supreme Being:

The great God, who fills heaven and earth, must be allowed to form the far greatest proportion, if I may so speak, of the whole system of being; for, compared with him, “all nations,” yea, all worlds, “are but as a drop of a bucket, or as the small dust of the balance.” He is the source and continual support of existence, in all its varied forms. As the great Guardian of being in general, therefore, it is fit and right that he should, in the first place, guard the glory of his own character and government. Nor can this be to the disadvantage of the universe, but the contrary; as it will appear, if it be considered that it is the glory of God to do that which shall be best upon the whole. The glory of God, therefore, connects with it the general good of the created system, and of all its parts, except those whose welfare clashes with the welfare of the whole. [22]

The ultimate objective of creation rested in ascribing worship, love, and obedience to the God of moral glory. Fuller perceived that the supremacy of God’s moral glory in creation held clear implications for human virtue: “That place which God holds in the great system of being he ought to hold in our affections; for we are not required to love him in a greater proportion than the place which he occupies requires.” [23] When human beings make God the object of their affections, they will imitate His goodness and live in moral harmony with creation.

Fuller’s aretegenic objective to advance the universal welfare of mankind drove his defense of the Calvinist notion of God against its critics. God was no vindictive egotist to promote his glory as primary and require creation to do likewise, for it is “thus that the love of God holds creation together.” [24] For Fuller, the glory of God provided creation with its universal unifying principle: “He is that lovely character to whom all holy intelligences bear supreme affection; and the display of his glory, in the universal triumph of truth and righteousness, is that end which they all pursue.” [25] In order for true social justice, compassion, and freedom to prevail universally, mankind needed to find solidarity in an ultimate telos to glorify and love God: “Thus united in their grand object they cannot but feel a union of heart with one another.” [26] Thus, in promoting the glory of God, human beings not only learned to love God but also their neighbor.

God’s character embodied goodness, love, and righteousness; to establish His moral glory as supreme resulted in creation’s greatest well-being. If God substituted His moral glory for another standard as the end of creation, then true virtue would be eclipsed:

If it were otherwise, if the happiness of all creatures were the great end that God from the beginning had in view, then, doubtless, in order that this end might be accomplished, every thing else must, as occasion required, give way to it. The glory of his own character, occupying only a subordinate place in the system, if ever it should stand in the way of that which is supreme, must give place, among other things. And if God have consented to all this, it must be because the happiness, not only of creation in general, but of every individual, is an object of the greatest magnitude, and most fit to be chosen; that is, it is better, and more worthy of God, as the Governor of the universe, to give up his character for purity, equity, wisdom, and veracity, and to become vile and contemptible in the eyes of his creatures—it is better that the bands which bind all holy intelligences to him should be broken, and the cords which hold together the whole moral system be cast away than that the happiness of a creature should, in any instance, be given up! [27]

God held an infinitely greater place in the system of being than everything else; therefore, His moral glory was paramount. If God allowed sinful mankind to determine the standard of virtue and assert its warped notions of happiness as the supreme end of creation, then He would fail as a moral judge over evil. Even more, He would fail to benefit His creation, for the “glory of God consists…in doing that which is best upon the whole.” [28] Contrary to the objections of Fuller’s opponents, God acted for the good of creation in establishing His moral glory as the supreme object of adoration and emulation. [29]

God expressed His moral perfections in His moral law. Fuller designated the moral law as “the eternal standard of right and wrong,” which was “summed up in love to God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to our neighbour as ourselves.” [30] The moral law grounded all of God’s precepts—He never issued a commandment that did not brim with His love and goodwill. Like God’s moral character, the moral law was eternal and thus set above the volatile moral standards that finite mankind has invented. The aretegenic value of the moral law consisted in its intention to establish righteous relationships between God and human beings and foster social justice and love between neighbors. Fuller argued that the order of the moral law was crucial to its efficacy. Without first loving God, it was impossible to love one’s neighbor and treat him or her with dignity. The moral law also existed as a standard to judge evil. Every evil action had its source in an absence of love to God, which was the same as an absence of love to virtue itself.

Since the moral law was an extension of God’s moral character, any deviation from it merited God’s righteous judgment:

If the moral law require love to God with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and to our neighbour as ourselves, it cannot allow the least degree of alienation of the heart from God, or the smallest instance of malevolence to man. And if it be what the Scripture says it is, holy, just, and good, then, though it require all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, it cannot be too strict; and if it be not too strict, it cannot be unworthy of God, nor can it be “merciless tyranny” to abide by it. [31]

God was no tyrant to hold creation accountable to His standard of moral justice. In guarding His glory and moral character, God maintained moral order and promoted the general good of the universe. Thus, God administered His judgments for the benefit of creation, not its injury. Defending God from the charge of unwarranted vindictiveness, [32] Fuller wrote,

God…in the punishment of sin, is not to be considered as acting in a merely private capacity, but as the universal moral Governor; not as separate from the great system of being, but as connected with it, or as the Head and Guardian of it. Now, in this relation, vindictive justice is not only consistent with the loveliness of his character, but essential to it. Capacity and inclination to punish disorder in a state are never thought to render an earthly prince less lovely in the eyes of his loyal and faithful subjects, but more so. [33]

God as the Supreme Being and protector of the ultimate good not only possessed the right but also the moral responsibility to judge evil. A God who did not exercise justice would be “neither loved nor feared, but would become the object of universal contempt.”34 Only when moral agents acknowledge God’s moral glory can they understand His equity and goodness in judging sinners.

“The Grand Succedaneum”: Humanity’s Moral Slavery To Self-Love

Fuller attributed considerable aretegenic value to the doctrine of human depravity. [35] Since Christian belief held a correct estimation of mankind’s moral state, it alone could offer a remedy. In fact, the reality of universal corruption attested to the truth of Christianity: “This single principle of human depravity, supposing it to be true, will fully account for all the moral disorders in the world,” and “the actual existence of those disorders, unless they can be better accounted for, must go to prove the truth of this principle, and, by consequence, of the Christian system which rests upon it.” [36] As long as human beings continued in the delusion that their desires, passions, and conduct were not sinful but inherently good, they could never turn from evil to the love of God. Therefore, “the system which affords the most enlarged views of the evil of sin must needs have the greatest tendency to promote repentance for it.” [37] The doctrine of human depravity possessed singular power to inspire human beings to resist and turn from evil by exposing them to sin’s heinousness.

According to Fuller, the Scriptures taught that the “spring-head whence all the malignant streams of idolatry, atheism, corruption, persecution, war, and every other evil” came, lay in mankind’s refusal to devote their love supremely to God. [38] The absence of love for God not only introduced sin into the world but has sustained it ever since:

It has already been observed, that Christian morality is summed up in the love of God and our neighbour, and that these principles, carried to their full extent, would render the world a paradise. But the Scriptures teach us that man is a rebel against his Maker; that his carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; that instead of loving God, or even man, in the order which is required, men are become “lovers of their own selves,” and neither God nor man is regarded but as they are found necessary to subserve their wishes. [39]

As the “sum of the Divine law is love,” Fuller concluded that the “essence of depravity” consisted “in the want of love to God and neighbor.”40 The object of a person’s love determined his or her conformity to the moral law.

Fuller imputed all moral rebellion to the love of self:

All objects set up in competition with God and our neighbour may be reduced to one, and that is self. Private self-love seems to be the root of depravity; the grand succedaneum in human affections to the love of God and man. Self-admiration, self- will, and self-righteousness are but different modifications of it. Where this prevails, the creature assumes the place of the Creator, and seeks his own gratification, honour, and interest, as the ultimate end of all his actions. [41]

The preoccupation with self-love has retarded rather than hastened the development of human virtue. First and foremost, it eroded and undermined a supreme love for God. Without a love for God, an agent could not have a sincere understanding of and affection for virtue. It also has blinded mankind to its evil. When the self is adored and served as paramount, a person cannot form an accurate opinion about the justice of his or her own character, ideas, and ways. A love of self has inspired creatures to estimate their moral nature according to their own standards rather than by God’s moral law. And it not only made creatures hostile to their Creator but also to their neighbors. A person’s interests drives all of his or her actions, even if they appear benevolent and loving on the surface. If an agent’s motivation was not chiefly the love of God, his or her actions were not in agreement with real virtue.

Fuller understood innate depravity to entail the enslavement of all of mankind under the rule of sin. The human will held no power to reform wickedness because the corrupt will was the very thing that enslaved human beings to sin in the first place. Many Enlightenment thinkers lambasted the Calvinist doctrine of innate depravity because it diminished the moral agent’s freedom, but Fuller flipped the charge on its head: “moral slavery, any more than moral liberty, has nothing to do with free agency. The reason is, that, in this case, there is no force opposed to the agent’s own will.” [42] Every human being was under the dominion of his or her most dominant inclinations. Thus, when an agent’s will rejected God’s moral law and inclined toward selfishness, the moral slavery involved was voluntary and self-imposed. No one could be virtuous because no one desired God, the standard and provider of virtue.

Mankind had rebelled against God because His moral character was “not suited to their inclinations.” [43] In the place of God, mankind fabricated objects of adoration that gratified their selfish inclinations: “If men be destitute of the love of God, it is natural to suppose they will endeavour to banish him from their thoughts…substituting gods more congenial with their inclinations.” [44] God’s holiness and righteousness did not appeal to the wicked. Human beings perceived God’s moral character as a threat to fulfilling their selfish desires, and as a result they projected their depraved inclinations on their self-made idols. “If we be enemies to moral excellence, God, as a holy Being, will possess no loveliness in our eyes,” Fuller wrote, and “the further his moral character is kept out of sight, the more agreeable it will be to us.” [45] All attempts to accommodate the moral character of God to man’s inclinations were rooted in contempt for moral goodness.

“Love Of God Wrought In A Way Of Righteousness”: Christ’s Moral Atonement

Fuller [46] regarded the doctrine of the cross as “the central point in which all the lines of evangelical truth meet and are united.” [47] Christ’s atonement held Fuller’s theology of virtue together, offering the single greatest demonstration of divine justice and goodness. His opponents could not have disagreed more: “The doctrine of atonement, as held by the Calvinists, is often represented by Dr. Priestley as detracting from the goodness of God, and as inconsistent with his natural placability. He seems always to consider this doctrine as originating in the want of love…as though God could not find in his heart to show mercy without a price being paid for it.” [48] Paine likewise disputed the morality of the atonement: “Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty…. To suppose justice to do this is to destroy the principle of its existence…. It is no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.” [49]

These Enlightenment thinkers rejected the atonement on the basis of their beliefs about God and human nature. They represented mankind as inherently moral and God as placid and rational—therefore, God had no need to judge mankind or an innocent substitute in its place.

Fuller determined the morality of the atonement by a completely different anthropology and doctrine of God:

Those who embrace the Calvinistic system believe that man was originally created holy and happy; that of his own accord he departed from God, and became vile; that God, being in himself infinitely amiable, deserves to be, and is, the moral centre of the intelligent system; that rebellion against him is opposition to the general good; that, if suffered to operate according to its tendency, it would destroy the well-being of the universe, by excluding God, and righteousness, and peace, from the whole system; that seeing it aims destruction at universal good, and tends to universal anarchy and mischief, it is, in those respects, an infinite evil, and deserving of endless punishment; and that, in whatever instance God exercises forgiveness, it is not without respect to that public expression of his displeasure against it which was uttered in the death of his Son. [50]

All of humanity voluntarily exchanged the love of God and virtue for their immoral passions. God as the sovereign judge of the universe and guardian of righteousness must execute justice on their evil rebellion. Without the cross, Fuller maintained, sinful mankind had no hope for virtue and thus no escape from God’s righteous judgment. Fuller’s aretegenic motive to defend and promote belief in Christ’s atonement was to restore sinners to the love of God and to offer mankind hope for righteousness and moral excellence. He passionately defended the doctrine of the cross because it summoned mankind to rely on God entirely for virtue.

In order to communicate the gravity and moral significance of the atonement, Fuller presented the doctrine in terms of a cosmic governmental drama. [51] In The Gospel Its Own Witness, Fuller employed a governmental illustration to prove that the use of a mediator was consistent with sober reason. “Let us suppose,” Fuller wrote, “a division of the army of one of the wisest and best of kings…traitorously conspired against his crown and life.” [52] The empire naturally expected the king to punish the traitors, but the king loved the men and desired to extend mercy. However, the king faced a dilemma as to how he could simultaneously show mercy and maintain moral justice: “‘To make light of the controversy,’ the king said to his friends, ‘would loosen the bands of good government.’” [53] The only solution was to find a mediator who met these unique qualifications: he could not have participated in the offence, he must be highly esteemed by both the king and the public, the degree of the mediation must amount to the weight of the crime, he must have compassion for the guilty, and he must have a close relationship with the king in order to fully display his determination to uphold morality in offering mercy. [54] After deliberating with his counselors as to whom in the kingdom could meet these qualifications, the king sought the advice of his son:

“My son!” said the benevolent sovereign, “what can be done in behalf of these unhappy men? To order them for execution violates every feeling of my heart; yet to pardon them is dangerous.

The army, and even the empire, would be under a strong temptation to think lightly of rebellion. If mercy be exercised, it must be through a mediator; and who is qualified to mediate in such a cause? And what expedient can be devised by means of which pardon shall not relax, but strengthen just authority?” [55]

The prince responded, “I feel the insult offered to your person and government…. They have transgressed without cause, and deserve to die without mercy. Yet I also feel for them…. On me be this wrong!” [56] Motivated by love for the king, for the criminals, and for righteousness, the innocent prince volunteered to take the punishment on behalf of the guilty, “Inflict on me as much as is necessary to impress the army and nation with a just sense of the evil, and of the importance of good order and faithful allegiance.” [57] The king, full of sorrow and love for the prince yet satisfied at his courage, accepted the offer: “Go, my son, assume the likeness of a criminal, and suffer in their place!” [58]

At first, the criminals remained incorrigible, resistant to the king’s extension of pardon and reconciliation. But the justness and grace of the king and the goodness of the prince ultimately won their allegiance: “The dignity of his character, together with his surprising condescension and goodness, impresses us more than anything else, and fills our hearts with penitence, confidence, and love…we are utterly unworthy.” [59] The criminals enjoyed a new devotion and affection for the king because they recognized their complete unworthiness of his love. Even more, they honored the king because even though he loved and pardoned the guilty, he did not compromise his justice. The mediation of the prince alone made this reconciliation possible: it manifested the king’s love, satisfied his justice, and restored rebels to righteousness.

The main goal of this illustration was to highlight the importance of Christ’s atonement for maintaining moral order. In upholding the righteousness of God, the atonement caused justice to triumph over evil. It counteracted the forces of the wicked to undermine the moral system by bearing the guilt of the world. It was designed to advance the well-being of the whole and the good of the public by promoting love, reconciliation, and moral justice. The atonement thus displayed “the love of God wrought in a way of righteousness.” [60] It was God’s “appointed medium” to pour “forth all the fullness of his heart.” [61] For Fuller, God did not need the atonement in order to love sinners. Rather, He required a sacrifice for sins due to His goodness—it was necessary in order to preserve the equity of moral government: “receiving them to favour without some public expression of displeasure against their sin would have been a dishonour to his government” and to the moral order of the universe. [62] As the moral governor, God could not compromise His righteousness when extending His love to sinful creatures: “The incapacity of God to show mercy without an atonement, is no other than that of a righteous governor, who, whatever good-will he may bear to an offender, cannot admit the thought of passing by the offence, without some public expression of his displeasure against it; that, while mercy triumphs, it may not be at the expense of law and equity, and of the general good.” [63]

Contrary to the objections of Paine and Priestley, belief in the atonement was not inconsistent with the love of God. Fuller affirmed that love and justice must co-exist, and he charged his opponents with sacrificing the goodness of God at the expense of His love in abandoning the atonement.

Moreover, Fuller stressed that Christ’s atonement satisfied moral rather than commercial justice. [64] He believed that Paine had misrepresented the morality of the atonement by claiming that it had “for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral justice.” [65] Paine reasoned thus: “If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me into prison, another person can take the debt upon himself…but if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed.” [66] In reply, Fuller explained that when Scripture described sin as a debt, it referred to what the sinner owed God by way of moral duty—not a commercial payment. Since every agent owed moral obedience to the supreme moral governor, humanity’s disobedience and sin created its moral debt. Thus, sinners did not require an economic payment in order to satisfy the governor but a moral reckoning: “As sin is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt, so the atonement for it is not pecuniary, but a moral ransom.” [67] Fuller thought that the governmental analogy better elucidated the moral nature of the sinners’ debt and Christ’s atonement than the commercial imagery. The prince’s death was not a commercial transaction but a moral redemption. By taking the punishment for the rebels’ moral disobedience in their stead, he atoned for their moral debt and satisfied the king’s “moral justice.” [68]

Whether one rendered the atonement on the basis of pecuniary or moral justice was important to moral order, Fuller argued. The moral atonement maintained the justice of God in extending mercy to the guilty. According to Fuller, a commercial payment downplayed the personal dimension of both the offence and the mercy in the pardon: “Redemption by Jesus Christ was accomplished, not by a satisfaction that should preclude the exercise of grace in forgiveness, but in which, the displeasure of God against sin being manifested, mercy to the sinner might be exercised without any suspicion of his having relinquished his regards for righteousness.” [69] A commercial atonement “excludes the idea of free pardon on the part of the creditor, and admits of a claim on the part of the debtor,” but “it is otherwise in relation to crimes.” [70] Fuller insisted on expressing the atonement in moral rather than commercial terms because it held greater aretegenic weight—it called criminals to not “come before him as claimants, but as supplicants, imploring mercy in the mediator’s name.” [71] The moral nature of the atonement emphasized the evilness of the debt and the judiciousness of the pardon. The goodness, equity, and grace of the moral atonement were ultimately what stirred the criminals to renounce evil and love the king: “Divine love is the cause, the first cause of our salvation, and of the death of Christ, to that end.” [72]

Fuller also contended that the divine character of Christ was essential to the success of His moral atonement. “Let it be inquired,” said Fuller, “whether this great end of moral government could have been answered by the sufferings of a mere creature.” [73] In Fuller’s moral cosmology, no upright human being could satisfy God’s moral displeasure against a world of criminals, for “an atonement must be of so much account in the scale of being as to attract the general attention.” [74] Christ’s divine nature uniquely qualified Him to effect atonement for the guilty, for He occupied the same space of being as the Father. Contrary to his opponents, Fuller deemed belief in the deity of Christ as necessary for morality. Mankind had the moral duty to love and worship Christ because He possessed all the same divine natural and moral perfections as the Father:

Further, it ought to be considered that, in worshipping the Son of God, we worship him not on account of that wherein he differs from the Father, but on account of those perfections which we believe him to possess in common with him. This, with the consideration that we worship him not to the exclusion of the Father, any more than the Father to the exclusion of him, but as one with him, removes all apprehensions from our minds that, in ascribing glory to the one, we detract from that of the other. [75]

Since the Son partook in the divine nature, no mortal could question the equity of His satisfaction of the Father’s justice. As Fuller reasoned, “the satisfaction of justice in all cases of offence requires” a punishment “equal to what the nature of the offence is in reality.” [76] If any other creature could have “satisfied justice,” or if “any gift from the Divine Father, short of that of his only begotten Son, would have answered the great purposes of moral government,” then “there is no reason to think that he could have made him a sacrifice, but would have spared him, and not freely have ‘delivered him up for us all.’” [77] In order to attract attention to the Father’s display of His justice and love, the Son of God Himself had to become a creature and rectify the moral order. Thus, belief in the deity of Christ was critical to moral virtue.

The doctrine of the atonement instructed mankind in justice, grace, love, and humility. According to Fuller, the world rejected the atonement because it questioned human ability to achieve virtue. It especially challenged human pride to rely on a mediator for goodness:

It is far less humbling for an offender to be pardoned at his own request than through the interposition of a third person; for, in the one case, he may be led to think that it was his virtue and penitence which influenced the decision; whereas, in the other, he is compelled to feel his own unworthiness: and this may be one reason why the mediation of Christ is so offensive. It is no wonder, indeed, that those who deny humility to be a virtue should be disgusted with a doctrine the professed object of which is to abase the pride of man. [78]

Fuller regarded humility as essential to virtue. Criminals have no moral ability to redeem themselves; everyone was enslaved to their immoral inclinations and had no personal righteousness to rest on. Belief in the atonement summoned moral agents to humble themselves, renounce their self-love, admit their guilt, and depend on Christ for morality.

In sum, belief in the gospel alone made virtue possible: “The only method by which the rewards of the gospel are attainable, faith in Christ, secures the exercise of disinterested and enlarged virtue.” [79] Its doctrines enjoined repentance from moral evil and faith in Christ for righteousness. Fuller defined repentance as “a change of mind. It arises from a conviction that we have been in the wrong; and consists in holy shame, grief,” and “a determination to forsake every evil way.” [80] Repentance from sin and reliance on Christ’s moral atonement thus restored guilty criminals to the love of God and the imitation of His good character.

“The Grand Lesson Which They Teach Is Love”: The Moral Wisdom Of The Scriptures

Fuller defended the verity of Scripture against Paine and other Enlightenment thinkers influenced by Deism because he believed that its salutary precepts and instructions were vital for understanding and practicing true virtue. [81] Paine regarded the Scriptures as historically false, contradictory, fraught with immoral principles, and inherently discriminatory since all of humanity did not have equal access to them. He argued that nature was sufficient to teach rational mankind morality, equity, and freedom. Fuller countered that while nature had the capacity to reveal humanity’s injustices and rebellion, it could not “recover them from it.” [82] Mankind needed divine revelation to correct their depraved notions of good and evil and lead them in moral wisdom.

Hence, Fuller argued for the veracity of Scripture on the basis of its intrinsic goodness. He wrote, “it is not on the natural, but the moral, or rather the holy beauties of Scripture that I would lay the principal stress.” [83] Since the Scripture originated from God, its design, intentions, and expressions were not only factual but also good: “A divinely-inspired production will not only be free from such blemishes as arise from vanity, and other evil dispositions of the mind, but will abound in those beauties which never fail to attend the genuine exercises of modesty, sensibility, and godly simplicity.” [84] The Scripture was uncorrupted from human error and selfish interest. Therefore, it alone could serve as humanity’s pure and righteous mentor in moral reformation.

The main aretegenic import of the Scriptures rested in their instruction to love and worship God supremely: “The grand lesson which they teach is love; and love to God delights to express itself in acts of obedience, adoration, supplication, and praise.” [85] God’s Word not only guided readers in how to love God but it also motivated obedience and devotion: “The Scriptures…both inculcate and inspire the worship of God.” [86] A love for God and virtue was inextricably connected to an attachment to the revelation of God: “The words of Scripture are spirit and life. They are the language of love. Every exhortation of Christ and his apostles is impregnated with this spirit.” [87] Love was the very essence of Scripture’s communication. Thus, without love for Scripture, one had no life in God and no love for virtue. Fuller stressed that the desire to love and worship God and cherish virtue was not natural to human beings; creatures needed the direction and appeal that Scripture alone provided. The Bible unfolded the good character of God by highlighting His moral attributes and recording His righteous acts. It made humanity aware of the moral law to love God and their neighbor. By discovering God in the Scriptures and contemplating its exhortations to imitate Him, readers learned love and moral excellence.

Scripture also uniquely exposed the wickedness of the human heart. Fuller likened it to a “mirror” that unveiled the inward person of “individual characters” as well as “the state of things as they move on in the great world.” [88] As Fuller elaborated,

Far from flattering the vices of mankind, it charges, without ceremony, every son of Adam with possessing the heart of an apostate. This charge it brings home to the conscience, not only by its pure precepts, and awful threatenings, but oftentimes by the very invitations and promises of mercy, which, while they cheer the heart with lively hope, carry conviction by their import to the very soul. In reading other books you may admire the ingenuity of the writer; but here your attention is turned inward. Read it but seriously, and your heart will answer to its descriptions. [89]

Most literature, Fuller perceived, gratified mankind’s lust, pride, arrogance, and vanity. In contrast, the Scripture summoned its readers to forsake those inclinations and find happiness in knowing God.

In contrast to all human creations, the divinely inspired Scripture had the power to speak to the heart and transform the inward person:

It is a distinguishing property of the Bible, that all its precepts aim directly at the heart. It never goes about to form the mere exterior of man. To merely external duties it is a stranger. It forms the lives of men no otherwise than by forming their dispositions. It never addresses itself to their vanity, selfishness, or any other corrupt propensity. You are not pressed to consider what men will think of you, or how it will affect your temporal interest; but what is right, and what is necessary to your eternal well-being. [90]

Many Enlightenment thinkers promoted social progress and advancement in morality through the medium of education, but Fuller—who was no enemy to education—judged its usefulness for morality limited and temporary at best. In contrast, Scripture “will bring conviction to your bosom.” [91] It penetrated the reader’s deepest passions, seeking to refine men and women’s moral conduct by enabling their hearts and minds to love God’s moral purity.

Fuller questioned the utility of philosophy to profit the morals of men and women: “philosophy is little in comparison with Christianity.” [92] A philosophical system that attempted to ascertain truth and ethics without God had no hope of leading men and women to the source of goodness. “Philosophy may expand our ideas of creation,” but “it neither inspires a love to the moral character of the Creator, nor a well-grounded hope of eternal life.” [93] In contrast, divine revelation offered “the only medium” to know and love virtue; it positioned readers “on nature’s Alps,” where “we discover things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it never hath entered the heart of man to conceive.” [94]

Conclusion

Fuller judged that the aretegenic value of the gospel lay in its invitation to rely solely on God for virtue. The character of God provided the source and standard of goodness, and thus knowing and loving Him was the vehicle to knowing and loving virtue. In loving God supremely rather than the self, men and women learned to love their neighbor and treat others with dignity—fulfilling the moral law. A Calvinist understanding of human nature was salutary even though it could appear quite negative. It humbled men and women to admit their moral inability to achieve virtue, calling them to forsake their evil and turn to righteousness. The moral atonement of Christ furnished mankind with hope for pardon for their sins. It maintained moral order and displayed to creation God’s justice and His merciful love for criminals. Christ’s divine nature was essential to the success of the atonement—it made Him distinctly qualified to satisfy God’s justice and draw creation’s attention to the gravity of God’s willingness to love sinners. The moral law entailed a love of Christ for all of His divine natural and moral perfections—virtue was impossible without it. Faith in Christ’s deity and moral atonement was vital to entering into a life of knowing, loving, and imitating God. Humanity’s conflicting moral inclinations necessitated reliance on divine instruction to know true virtue. Scripture not only taught mankind about God’s character and the gospel but it also held power to pierce and mold the hearts of men and women. Scripture produced moral fruits in the lives of its adherents, testifying to its goodness and veracity.

Fuller challenged the proponents of the new moral philosophy that it was deeply unwise to exclude God from morality. Every doctrine of the gospel proved salutary to the lives of believers, rousing a love for God that pervaded the agent’s entire being:

It might fairly be argued, in favour of the tendency of Calvinistic doctrines to promote the love of God, that, upon those principles, we have more to love him for than upon the other. On this system, we have much to be forgiven; and, therefore, love much. The expense at which our salvation has been obtained, as we believe, furnishes us with a motive of love to which nothing can be compared. [95]

Notes

1. Ellen Charry, By the Renewing of Your Minds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). The quote in the chapter title is from Andrew Fuller, The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined and Compared as to Their Moral Tendency, in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller with a Memoir of His Life by Andrew Gunton Fuller, ed. Joseph Belcher (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845; repr. Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1988), 2:134. Henceforth abbreviated as Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF.
2. Charry, By the Renewing of Your Minds, 19.
3. Charry, By The Renewing of Your Minds, 18.
4. See Peter Morden, Offering Christ to the World: Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) and the Revival of Eighteenth Century Particular Baptist Life, SBHT 8 (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 2003).
5. See Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., “At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word”: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist, SBHT 6 (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2006).
6. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF 2:154.
7. Fuller, The Gospel Its Own Witness, or, The Holy Nature and Divine Harmony of the Christian Religion Contrasted with the Immorality and Absurdity of Deism, in WAF, 2:23.
8. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:134.
9. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:14.
10. The quote in the subheading title is from Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:153-54.
11. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:9.
12. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:9.
13. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:9.
14. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:9.
15. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:13.
16. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:9.
17. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:25.
18. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:25.
19. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:153-54.
20. Fuller, Socinianism Indefensible on the Grounds of Its Moral Tendency, in WAF, 2:270.
21. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:159.
22. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:159-60.
23. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:159.
24. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:15.
25. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:15.
26. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:15.
27. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:160. Fuller quoted Priestley’s criticism that Calvinists disregarded the happiness of mankind in asserting the glory of God as the supreme end of virtue: “‘Those who assume to themselves the distinguishing title of orthodox,’ says Dr. Priestley, ‘consider the Supreme Being as having created all things for his glory, and by no means for the general happiness of all his creatures.’” Fuller responded that Priestley sorely misrepresented Calvinists, for creatures find true happiness in glorifying God rather than in rebelling against him. Even more, Fuller objected that human notions of happiness are often selfish and would not benefit the good of the whole, making it a deficient standard of morality. If God’s ultimate objective was to promote the creature’s happiness over His glory, Fuller reasoned, then God has so far been immensely unsuccessful since “All creatures, we are certain, are not happy in this world.” Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:158.
28. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:158.
29. Fuller followed Jonathan Edwards’s reasoning in his treatise, Concerning the End for which God Created the World. Edwards wrote, “if God in himself be in any respect properly capable of being his own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself as his last and highest end in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings…. And therefore if God esteems, values, and has respect to things according to their nature and proportions, he must necessarily have the greatest respect to himself…. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any moral agent, either God or any intelligent being, is capable of. To him belongs all the heart.” Fuller agreed that moral agents realize their chief end and greatest happiness in knowing, loving, and glorifying God. Jonathan Edwards, Concerning the End for which God Created the World, in WJE, vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), 421-22. For more on this work, see George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), 459-63.
30. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:137.
31. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:138.
32. Fuller was responding to Priestley’s claim that Calvinists “represent God in such a light that no earthly parent could imitate him, without sustaining a character shocking to mankind.” Quoted Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:155. Priestley argued that this notion of God did not make Him imitable and worthy of love. Fuller’s principal argument against Priestley was that God’s judgments—though against to the benefit of the wicked—were ultimately directed for the good of the whole and were therefore justified. God would in fact be far more malevolent if He did not judge evil but instead allowed it free reign.
33. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:157-58.
34. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:10.
35. The quote in the subheading is from Fuller, Dialogues and Letters Between Crispus and Gaius, in WAF, 2:662.
36. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:65.
37. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:116.
38. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:64.
39. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:64.
40. Fuller, Dialogues and Letters Between Crispus and Gaius, in WAF, 2:662.
41. Fuller, Dialogues and Letters Between Crispus and Gaius, in WAF, 2:662. Emphasis original.
42. Fuller, Dialogues and Letters Between Crispus and Gaius, in WAF, 2:656.
43. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:10.
44. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:65.
45. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:10.
46. Quote in subheading is from Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:154.
47. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:182.
48. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:154.
49. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason in Paine: Political Writings, ed. Bruce Kuklick (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 285.
50. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:116.
51. Among the most controversial aspects of Fuller’s theology is his appropriation of governmental language when describing the atonement. The Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) first articulated the governmental theory of the atonement, and many of Jonathan Edwards’s disciples who led the New Divinity Movement adopted it as a central aspect of their theology. Many have debated whether Edwards himself held the theory. Oliver Crisp demonstrates two key differences between Edwards Sr. and the New Divinity on the atonement that could also be said for Fuller. First, Edwards “conceives of the atonement as definite and limited in scope.” Second, “Edwards clearly endorses the doctrine of penal substitution,” an “idea that is abandoned by the representatives of the New Divinity.” Oliver D. Crisp, “The Moral Government of God: Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Bellamy on the Atonement,” in After Jonathan Edwards: The Courses of New England Theology, ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 84-85. For more on the subject, see Michael A. G. Haykin, “Particular Redemption in the Writings of Andrew Fuller,” in The Gospel in the World, vol. 1, Studies in Baptist History and Thought, ed. D. W. Bebbington (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 2002), 122-38.
52. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:76.
53. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:76.
54. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:76-77.
55. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:77.
56. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:77.
57. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:77.
58. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:77.
59. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:79.
60. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:154. Emphasis original.
61. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:154.
62. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:155.
63. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:154.
64. Fuller initially expressed this position in The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation: “the atonement of Christ” proceeded “not on the principle of commercial, but of moral justice, or justice as it relates to crime.” Fuller, Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, in WAF, 2:373.
65. Paine, Age of Reason, 285.
66. Paine, Age of Reason, 285.
67. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:80.
68. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:81.
69. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:82.
70. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:81.
71. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:82.
72. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:154.
73. Fuller, The Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement, in WAF, 3:694.
74. Fuller, The Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement, in WAF, 3:694.
75. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:161.
76. Fuller, The Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement, in WAF, 3:694.
77. Fuller, The Deity of Christ Essential to Atonement, in WAF, 3:695. He cited Rom. 8:32.
78. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:74-75.
79. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:82.
80. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:116.
81. Quote from Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:12.
82. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:19.
83. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:68.
84. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:64.
85. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:12.
86. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:11.
87. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:21.
88. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:64.
89. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:63.
90. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:15.
91. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:64.
92. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:97.
93. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:97.
94. Fuller, Gospel Its Own Witness, in WAF, 2:97.
95. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined, in WAF, 2:116.