American Baptist HISTORICAL SOCIETYBringing our legacy ٠؛ light. Andrew Fuller and the Defense o f Trinitarian Com m unities M i c h a e l a . G. H a y k in It is a curious fact that ^ th o u g h the concept of the encyclopedia has its origins within the ideological m atrix of the e i ^ t n t h - c e n t u r y Enlightenm ent, when it comes to onserv ativ e expressions of theology, this era was not really conducive to encyclopedic or systematic sum m aries of the Christian Eahh. In this regard, a work like Jo h n Gill’s (1697-1771) A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (1769-1770) was definitely out of sync with conservative theological trends. The Other great Baptist theologian of this era, Andrew Euller (1754-1815), was m ore typicalأ . T hough he was entirely capable of draw ing up a systematic theology, he resisted doing so until it was too late. W hen he finally began to write som ething in this vein, he had about sixteen m onths to live, and he never got beyond writing down Ids thoughts on the prolegom ena of theology, the being of God, the necessity of revelation along with the im piration of the Bible, and the doctrine of the Trinity.* Euller was well aware of his era’s aversion to y ^ e m a tiz in g theology for, as he noted in a serm on he gave at the annual m eeting of the Baptist churches of the N ortham ptonshire Association in 1796, “systematic divinity .. ٠has been MICHAEL A. G. HAYKIN is ?rofessor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also the Director of The Andrew Euller Center for Baptist Studies, which operates under the aegis of Southern Seminary He has written widely on fourth-century ?atristic Trinitarian theology and eiglueeml>century British Dissent. “The Father Son and th Spirit are n¿٠ be considered separate bei one Cod. H are one has n ot, revealed— and . ٠ ، ٠ ؟ believe il ste requiresfaith humility. ”
oflate years m uch decried,” and th at because such a way of going about doing theology was regarded as “the m ark o fa contracted m ind, and the g rand obstruction to free inquiry.”3 In other words, the Enlightenm ent exaltation of rational inquiry, unfettered by such external authorities as divine Writ or holy Church, had m ade a significant im print upon the world of Christian writing. Euller went on to note, however, th at only in the realm of religious thought was such an attitude acceptable. In other spheres of thought and action such as philosophy, agriculture, or business, it would be regarded as folly to dispense with a foundational system of first principles.^ Fuller was convinced th at there is a system of tru th to he found in the Scriptures, even though that tru th is not arranged systematically.5 But the same was tru e of the world of nature, Euller argued. T here one sees a “lovely variety but amidst all this variety, an observant eye will perceive unity, order, arrangem ent, and fullness of design.”®W hatever difficulties m ight therefore attend the discovery of the systematic interlocking of biblical truths, it was vital to recognize that, from G o d ’s perspective, there was a unified body of truth. As Fuller noted in another context, to simply abandon the idea of theological tru th because key aspects of it were disputed is, at best, absurd and, at worst, “infinitely . . . pernicious,” for “if all disputed su ^ ects are to be reckoned m atters of m ere speculation, we shall have nothing of any real use left in religion.”؟ Now, one of the m ost disputed theological loci in the eighteenth century was also one th at had been absolutely central to the Christian tradition, namely, the doctrine of the Trinity. T he trinitarianism of the Ancient C hurch had rem ained basically unchallenged until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even during the Reform ation, a most tum ultuous theological era, this vital area of C hristian belief did not come into general dispute, though there were a few, like Michael Servetus ( 1 5 1 1 3 ة ־ 15 ) and the Italians, Eelio Erancesco Sozzini (1525-1562) and his nephew Fausto Sozzini (153 و (, 604 ل ־ و who re]ected trinitarianism and instead adopted a U nitarian ^ r ^ e c t i v e on the G odhead. However, as Sarah M ortim er has argued in her groundbreaking study of c e m ^ n t h - c e n tu r y English Socinianism, in the century after the Reform ation the Socinian understanding of hum an beings as “inquiring, reasoning and active individuals who m ust take responsibility for their own spiritual lives” did come to play a critical role in ’ foe way that “trin itarian com m unities” in England had established theological boundaries for themselves^ This was p art o fa growing tide of rationalism in the seventeenth century and foe one following th at led to a “fading of the trin itarian im agination” and to the doctrine com ing u nder heavy attack.™ Inform ed by foe Enlightenm ent’s confidence in the “om nicom petence” of hum an reason, increasingly 259
the intellectual mentalité of this era either dismissed the doctrine of the Trinity as a philosophical and unbiblical construct of the post-Apostolic C hurch and tu rn ed to classical A rianism as an alternate, though adm ittedly odd, perspective or simply ridiculed it as utterly illogical, and argued for Deism or Socinianism .1 O f course, this re-tooling of theological perspectives did not happen w ithout significant conflict. C ontrary to the im pression given by various historical overviews of the doctrine of the Trinity, the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were actually replete with critical battles over trinitarianism . A nd some of these involved the trin itarian com m unity ofw hich Andrew Fuller was a m ember, the Particular Baptists. THE PARTICULAR BAPTISTS: ٨ TRINITARIAN COMMUNITY T hrough the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Particular Baptists in the British Isles tenaciously confessed a trin itarian understanding of the C odhead and so, while other comm unities, such as the Presbyterians and G eneral Baptists largely ceased to be trin itarian ,12 the Particular Baptists continued to regard themselves, and that rightly, as a trin itarian community. T heir earliest confessional docum ent, TheFirst London Confession ofFaith (1644/1646), had declared this about God: In [the] . . . G odhead, there is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; being every one of them one and the same God; and therefore not divided, but distinguished one from another by their several properties; the Father being from himself, the Son of the Father from everlasting, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.13 B.R. W hite has argued that this confession gave these early Baptists an extremely clear and self-conscious sense of their com m unity’s distinct identity and raison detre.u A nd yet, as this specific paragraph also reveals, these Baptists were desirous of declaring their complete solidarity with the m ainstream of classical Christianity th at was rooted in the fourth-century trin itarian creedal declarations and th at also included the medieval W estern C h u rch ’s com m itm ent to the Filioque. T he other ma]or Particular Baptist confession of the seventeenth century, The Second London Confession ofFaith (16?7/168 و), was equally forthright in its trinitarianism — in the words of Curtis Freem an, its “words . . . resonate with Nicene orthodoxy”13— and firmly linked this core C hristian doctrine to spirituality. T he “doctrine of the Trinity,” it affirm ed, “is the foundation of all our com m union with God, and com fortable dependence on him .”16 T hroughout foe long eighteenth century this com m unity unhesitat 260
ingly m aintained that this doctrine is, in the words of Ben]amin Wallin (1711-1782), the “first and grand principle of revealed tru th and the gospel.”17In 1 6 0 و , the London Baptist layman Isaac Marlow (164 و ا 7 ل ־ و ), for example, published a treatise on the Trinity in which he stated his conviction th at of those elem ents of divine tru th th at redound most to the glory of God and best fu rth er the fellowship of believers, “the blessed doctrine of the holy Trin-unity is the chiefest.”^ Nearly fifty years later, the renow ned preacher Joseph Stennett 11 ( 1 6 8 ة ־17 ﻋ ﻮ ) similarly affirm ed that “the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity, is of the greatest im portance to his [that is, G o d ’s] glory.”1؛1 Typical of the Particular Baptists’ grip on the doctrine of the Trinity during this era was a m ajor defence of this doctrine by the voluminous Jo h n Gill. His The Doctrine of the Trinity Stated and Vindicated, first published in 1731 and then reissued in a second edition in 1752, proved to be an extremely effective defense of the fact that there is, as Gill put it, “but one God; that there is a plurality in the G odhead; th at there are three divine Persons in it; th at the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; th at these are distinct in Personality, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.”^ Gill was especially concerned in this treatise to affirm the eternal sonship of the second person of the G odhead. As he explained in a letter he wrote to Jo h n Davis (1702־ 1778), the Welsh pastor of the Baptist C hurch in the Great Valley, Devon, Pennsylvania, in M arch of 1745: Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature and not office, . . . he is the eternal Son of God by ineffable filiation and not by constitution or as m ediator in which respect he is a servant, and not a Son. A nd of this m ind are all our churches of the particular Baptist persuasion nor will they adm it to com m union, nor continue in com m union [with] such as are of a different judgm ent. . ٠ . 1 have some years ago published a treatise upon the doctrine of the Trinity, in which 1 have particularly handled the point of C hrist’s sonship, have established the orthodox sense of it, and refuted the other notion, which th o ’ it may be held by some, as not dow nright Sabeleanism [sic], yet it tends to it.21 The h eart of this treatise was later incorporated into Gill’s Body of Doctrinal Divinity (1769), which, for m ost Baptist pastors o fth a t day, was their m ajor theological reference work. As Jo h n Rippon (1751-1836), G ill’s successor at C arter Lane, noted in a biographical sketch of his predecessor: T he D octor not only watched over his people, “with great affection, fidelity, and love;” but he also w atched his pulpit also. He would 261
not, if he knew it, adm it any one to preaeh for him, who was either eold-hearted to the doctrine of the Trinity; or who denied the divine filiation of the Son of God; or who objected to conclude his prayers with the usual doxology to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as three equal Fersons in the one Jehovah. Sabellians, Arians, and Socinians, he considered as real enemies of the cross of Christ. They dared not ask him to preach, nor could he in conscience, perm it them to officiate for him. He conceived that, by this uniform ity of conduct, he adorned the pastoral officeص . Gill’s defense of foe Trinity did far m ore th an adorn foe pastoral office; through it he played a key role in shepherding foe English Farticular Baptist com m unity along the pathway of biblical orthodoxy. Gill’s concern to uphold the eternal sonship and Sabellianism was not misplaced. D uring the late 1740s and 1750s the influential Welsh Calvinistic M ethodist leader, Howel H arris (1714-1773), was pushing F^fipassianism and seem ed to be veering towards Sabellian heterodoxy,^ while Gill’s follow Baptist A nne D utton (1602-1765) was sure that she detected Sabellianism in a tract by the popular Anglican Evangelical William Rom aine (1714-1705).^ Am ong the Baptists, Jo h n Allen (fi.l740s-l780s)— “a prickly and polem ic character,”^ and also som ething of a loner who em igrated to Am erica where he helped inflam e politically radical sentim ents prior to the Ifo ^ lu tio n — publicly accused Gill in 1770 of u n derm ining foe salvific work of Christ in his affirm ation of foe eternal generation of the Son. As Allen put it in his own peculiar style: I w onder for my p art how foe D octor [Gill] dares to die with such an idea in his heart, th at he who is the glory of God, the glory of heaven, the glory of the saints, has only his personal glory and existence by generation: does foe D octor think such stuff as this will pass in Israel? . . . the D octor teaches, th at a first, second, and a th ird person existeth [in foe G odhead], the one by nature, the other by being begotten,— and the other by procession; such an idea as fois of the existence of God, we th in k is unworthy his nam e, his nature, and perfection, and contrary to the declaration of the tru th of Christ, who says, “I am, 1 am the first” [Revelation 1:17b]; as th o ’ he had said, “1 am of myself, and derive neither essential nor personal glory from no n e”— therefore it is th at we believe according to the sweet simplicity of foe Scriptures, th at the Eather, Son, and Holy Ghost, the sacred three th at bare record in heaven [see 1 Jo h n 5:7], self-exist in every glory and perfection of foe divine nature, w hether essential or personal as the Triune God. . ٠. [So] if he [that is, Christ] is not self-existent in all the glories of his divine person, 262
my soul, I think, can never be saved; for can that being (or to come close to the point) th at divine person that has its highest existence by generation save another? And does not this idea cut through (as it were with the A rian and Socinian sword) all the glories of C hrist’s person, the m erit of his blood, the conquest of his resurrection, and power of his intercession?‘^ In other words, Gill’s prom otion of the eternal generation of the Son ultimately achieved what the Arians or Socinians aim ed at־ it fatally u n d erm ined the confession of the Son’s essential deity! THE CHALLENGE OF SOCINIANISM Although the particular piece in which this critique of Gill appeared also contained drubbings of num erous other English Baptists,^ Allen’s rejection of the eternal generation of the Son gained a hearing in m ore th an one Baptist quarter. Andrew Euller, for instance, was given one of Allen’s publications on this subject to read when he was a relatively young C hristian in 1775. True to a life-long “determ ination to take up no principle at second-hand; but to search for everything at the pure fountain of [G od’s] word,”28 Euller tested Allen’s views by Scripture and came to see that a num ber of biblical texts— namely 5:18 ص 01 ل ; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:8, 5:8ﺛ ﻮ -and 13: 8 ﺻ ﺎ 0 ل —provided clear evidence that Allen was m istaken and that Christ was indeed “the Son of God antecedently to his being b orn of a woman, and th at in calling God his own Eather, he m ade him self equal with G od.”29 In the long run, Fuller was glad that he w restled with this issue am ong others early on in his Christian life. It gave him the deep conviction that “everything ^ r ta in in g to the person of Christ is of m ore th an ordinary im portance,” and it also provided a kind of test ru n for his polem ical responses to Socinianism in the 1790s.30 Socinianism was the leading form of heterodoxy w ithin English Dissent in the last qu arter of the eighteenth century.31 In large part, this was due to the vigorous cam paigning of Joseph ?riestley (1733־ 1804), whom Michael R. Watts, in his study of the early history of British Nonconformity, has dubbed the “E eonardo da Vinci of Dissent.”32 By his early twenties, Priestley was proficient in physics, philosophy, and m athem atics as well as a variety of m odern and ancient N ear Eastern languages. D uring the 1760s and 1770s, his r e p ta tio n as E ngland’s forem ost experim ental scientist was established by his publication of a weighty history of electrical experim entation and his discovery of ten new gases, including oxygen, am m onia, and sulphur dioxide. Alongside this illustrious career as a scientist, Priestley was also a prolific and profound theological author. In fact, he regarded his work as a theolo 263
gian as his tru e vocation. After his conversion to the Socinian cause, which probably took place in 1769,33 ?riestley devoted m uch of his tim e to theological writing “with no other view,” he baldly stated on one occasion, “than to make proselytes.”3^ An “unflagging and often pugnacious controversialist,” ?riestley sought to establish his position not on nature and hum an reason, as did the Deists, but on a serious and rational investigation of the Scriptures and history.33 As a Dissenter, he had inherited the ?ro testan t com m itm ent to the Scriptures as a sufficient source of religious truth. “Revelation,” as M artin Fitzpatrick has noted, “lay at the core of his religion.”3®This attachm ent to the Scriptures, though, was yoked to a deep-rooted conviction th at the “plainest and most obvious sense of the Scriptures is in favor of those doctrines which are most agreeable to reason.”3؟ In other words, the Scriptures do indeed contain divine revelation, but their interpretation is to be determ ined by what is in accord with sound reason. Priestley did not deny th at there were certain affirm ations of Scripture which were beyond the grasp of htim an reason. De adm itted, for example, the historicity of many of the m iracles of the apostolic era, including the bodily resurrection of C hrist.33 W hat he refused to countenance, though, were interpretations of Scripture which, to his m ind, entailed a logical contradiction. This explains why orthodox trinitarianism bore the b ru n t of ?riestley’s theological polem ic.39 ?riestley was convinced th at the doctrine of the Trinity not only had no scriptural foundation, but it was also a m athematical impossibility, “since three cannot be one, or one, three.”*9 From ?riestley’s perspective, if there is one divine being, there must perforce be one person and thus one God; if there are three divine persons, then there m ust be three divine beings and so th ree gods. In the Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, ?riestley’s earliest m ajor theological work, Priestley thus m aintained th at God had instructed “the first parents of m an k in d ” in the tru th of his oneness and the fact that he alone is to be worshipped. “History,” ?riestley told his readers, “inform s us th at the worship of one God, w ithout images, was in all nations prior to polytheism .”** This “primitive religion of m ankind,” however, soon becam e corrupted, and idolatry gradually superseded the worship of the one true God. In order to free m en and women from their idolatry God gave to hum an beings the Scriptures, a fact th at ?riestley regards as self-evident when one considers “how strongly this great article, the worship of one God only, is guarded in all foe books of Scripture.’^ ¥et, because of foe hum an bent towards idolatry, this article was subject to corruption both during the time of the Old Testam ent dispensation and after th at of the New. ?riestley was especially concerned with foe latter period, for it was then th at there 264
was introduced into the life of the C hurch not only the worship of Mary and “innum erable other saints,” but also what he bluntly described as the “idolatrous worship of Jesus C hrist.”^ The Reform ation had only partially rectified this state of affairs, for, while it had re]ected prayers to the Virgin Mary and to the saints, “prayers to Christ, who is no m ore a proper ob]ect of worship th an his m o th e r,. . . were retained.”^ In arguing against the propriety of praying to Christ, ?riestley envisaged him self as com pleting therefore one aspect of the rediscovery of New Testam ent Christianity th at had been left undone by the si^een th -cen tu ry Reformers. In fact, Alexander G ordon has pointed out th at the ma]or difference between the Socinianism prom oted by Priestley along with friends like Theophilus Lindsey (1723-1808) and earlier English versions of this heterodoxy is that, while the form er categorically condem ned the worship of Christ as idolatrous, the latter merely sought to keep it w ithin due m oderation. In G ordon’s words, Priestley and Lindsey m ade “reduction of worship to a strict Patrolatry . . . central and distinguishing.”^ Erom what he called “the general tenour of Scripture,” Priestley argued th at the early church knew n othing of Christ as “a p roper ob]ect of worship” or prayer.^ He found proof for this assertion in the fact, for instance, th at Christ and his followers in the early church were in the habit of directing their prayers to God alone. As Priestley put it: “O u r Saviour him self always prayed to his Father, and with as m uch hum ility and resignation as the most dependent being in the universe could possibly do; always addressing him as his Father, or the author of his being; and he directs his disciples to the same great Being, whom only, he says, we ought to serve.”^ Priestley appears to have in m ind here such incidents in the life of C hrist as his prayers in the G arden of G ethsem ane (e.g. Luke 22:42) and his response to his disciples’ request to teach them how to pray (Luke 11:1-2). The life of the early church as it is described in Acts provided Priestley with fu rth er examples. In Acts 4:24-30 there is recorded a “prayer of some length,” which is addressed solely to God. Later, when Jam es, the brother of John, was m artyred and Peter im prisoned, supplication was m ade on Peter’s behalf to God w ithout any m ention of Christ (Acts 12:5). Likewise, the Apostle Paul, in such passages as Ephesians 3:14, “speaks of him self as praying to God, and not to Christ.’^ N ot only did Priestley find no clear examples in the New Testam ent th at provided a precedent for praying to Christ, he was also confident th at the New Testam ent com m anded us to pray to none b ut G od alone. Jam es, for instance, directed readers who lacked wisdom te ask God for it (James 1:5). He did not, Priestley emphasizes, advise “them to apply to Christ or to the Trinity for direction in these circum stances.’^؛*The 255
same is tru e with regard to the Apostle ?aul. In his Notes on All the Books ofScripture (1804), ?riestley quotes with evident approval a com m ent by a fellow Socinian, Paul C ardale (1705-1775), on the A postle’s instruction in Philippians 4:6 [“let your requests be m ade known unto G o d ” (KJV)]: “had it been possible for St. Paul to entertain the doctrine of a Trinity, he would no doubt have directed his own prayers, and [those of] the Philippians, to the Sacred T hree, as is the com m on language of the present age.”50 As Stephen Ford has pointed out, the final clause of this quote obviously has in view the language of the C hurch of E ngland’s Book ofCommon Prayer,٠in which prayers and collects are regularly concluded with a reference to the Trinity. ^ An open letter that Priestley wrote to a Swedenborgian congregation in 1 7 1 و m ade a similar point regarding C hrist’s instructions about prayer in Jo h n 16:23 [“In that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my nam e, he will give ityou” (^ V )]. According to Priestley’s reading of the text, Christ “plainly distinguishes between praying to the Father, and asking any thing of himself.”^ His comm ents on this verse and its context in the Notes س All the Books ofScripture reiterated that “Christ is not to be the ob]ect of worship or prayer in any respect,” and, contrary to what Christ appears to teach by the phrase “whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my nam e,” that “the intercession of C hrist with God for us is needless. We are to address our prayers to God him self immediately; and his affection for us is such as will always induce him to whatever is p roper for us, without the intercession, or m ediation, of any being whatever for us.”5؛؛ In his scientific enquiries, Priestley was regularly guided by utilitarian considerations, since he believed that the “im m ediate use of natural science is the power it gives us over nature, by m eans of the knowledge we acquire of its laws; whereby hum an life is . . . m ade m ore comfortable and happy.”^ Similarly, “the sound knowledge of Christianity is not of im portance as a m atter of speculation merely;” T he tl^ lo g ic a l convictions for which Priestley contended could not be believed without an im pact on the “sentim ents of our hearts, and our conduct in hfe.”؛^ In the case of his belief regarding the nature of God there were at least two practical consequences. First, God the Father alone should be the recipient of prayer and he alone worshipped. Then, Socinians must separate themselves from those who disagreed with them and they needed to form their own congregations. Addressing m en and women of like m ind, Priestley therefore raised foe question th at if it was a sufficient justification of foe first Reformers, th at they considered the church from which they separated as worshipping saints and angels; will it notjustifyyour separation from their partial 266
reform ations, that you consider them as praying to and worshipping one whom you consider as a m an like yourselves, though honoured and distinguished by God above all other men? T o ]o in habitually in public worship with ^ in ita ria n s , is countenancing th at worship, which you m ust consider as idolatrous; and which, however innocent in them , is highly crim inal in you.56 The society, however, in which Priestley was seeking to propagate his viewpoint and establish Socinian congregations was to a great extent still dom inated by a powerful ancien régim e whose political ideology and religious convictions were firm ly inerw oven.؛^ Consequently, it is not at all surprising that his assertions regarding the person of Christ involved Priestley in a variety of heated and prolific debates during the 1780s and early 1700s, which fostered a widespread public perception of Priestley as an enemy to both church and state. Indeed this perception was the key factor in the violent B irm ingham “C ^ r c ^ a n d - K in g ” riots of 1701, which witnessed the destruction of Priestley’s hom e, library, and laboratory, as well as the m eeting-house in which he regularly preached, all of which eventually led to his em igration to the U nited States in 1704.58 ،ARDENT LOVE TO CHRIST” Am ong Priestley’s fellow Dissenters who publicly deplored these riots was Andrew Fuller. From Fuller’s point of view the riots were an “iniquitous business,” contrived and executed by “m en of no principle.’^ Fuller’s profound disapproval of the riots did not deter him, however, from publishing in 3 و 7 ا an extensive critique of Priestley’s position in The Calvinistic and Socinian SystemsExamined and Compared, as to theirMoral Tendency.60 Fuller was well aware th at there had been num erous replies in response to the Socinian position by orthodox authors. W hat m ade his response unique was th at it sought to determ ine which one of these two rival ^ r s ^ c ti v e s on the C hristian Faith was most “aretegenic,” that is, most conducive to the developm ent of m oral transform ation and the creation of virtuous character.61 As has been noted, Socinians such as Priestley argued th at the firstcentury church refused to venerate Christ and thus w orshipped God aright. ¥et. Fuller asks, if this be so, how does one explain the fact that: T he ^ im itiv e Christians ٠.. w orshipped Jesus Christ. Not only d id the m artyr Stephen close his life by com m itting his departing spirit into the hands of Jesus, but it was the com m on practice, in primitive times, to invoke his nam e. “He hath authority,” said Ananias concerning Saul, to bind “all that call on thy nam e” [Acts 14ﺗ ﻮ]. 267
O ne p art of the C hristian mission was to declare th at “whosoever should call on the nam e of the Lord should he saved” [cf. Romans ل 3 ل : 0 ل , even o fth a t Lord of whom the Gentiles had not heard, ?aul addressed him self “to all th at in every place called upon the nam e of the Lord Jesus C hrist” [cf. 1 C orinthians 1:2]. T h ese modes of expression (which, if I he not greatly m istaken, always signify Divine worship) plainly inform us that it was not merely the practice of a few individuals, but of the great body of the primitive Christians, to invoke the nam e of Christ; nay, and that this was a m ark by which they were distinguished as C hristians.^ In order to dem onstrate that the worship of C hrist was not unknow n during the period covered by the New Testam ent, Fuller began with Acts ?:و ج, a text th at was frequently raised during this controversy over the person of Christ. The Baptist author saw in Stephen’s “calling u p o n ” Christ an act of invocation and prayer, and thus w orship.^ Fuller observed th at the verb “to call u p o n ” is one th at is used a num ber of times in a variety of contexts in the New Testam ent to designate Christians. Ananias, for instance, described the believers in Damascus as “all that call on thy n am e” (Acts م ( 14 ﺗ ﻮ This description is found in the m idst of an address to the “L o rd ” (Acts 13 ,10 ﺗ ﻮ), who, from the context, can be none other than Jesus (Acts ل : و ?; see also Acts 5:و ). A similar phrase was used by the Apostle Paul when he characterized his m inistry as a proclam ation of G od’s desire to save “whosoever shall call upon the nam e of the L o rd ” (Romans 1 1 3: ه ) and when he designated Christians as all those who “call upon the nam e ofjesus Christ our L o rd ” (1 C orinthians 1:2). Since this phrase clearly depicts prayer in Acts ?:و ج, Fuller reasoned th at it m ust have a sim ilar m eaning in the o ther New Testam ent texts where it appears. Thus, he stated th at “these modes of expression . . . always signify Divine worship.”^ Moreover, the early Christian writers. Fuller m aintained, m ade the dignity and glory of C hrist’s person “their darling them e,” for they “considered Christ as the All in All of their religion; and, as such, they loved him with their whole hearts.”65 Am ong the examples he adduced in support of this observation is Paul’s depiction of C hrist in Ephesians Feeling in him self an ardent love to Christ, he vehemently desired that others m ight love him too. For this cause he bowed his knees to the Father of ou r Lord Jesus Christ [cf. Ephesians 3:14], in behalf of the Ephesians; praying th at Christ m ight dwell in their hearts by faith. De represented him to them as the m edium of all spiritual blessings; of election, adoption, acceptance with God, redem ption, and the forgiveness of sins; of a future inheritance, and of a present 268
earnest of it; as H ead over all things to the chureh, and as him that filleth all in all. He deseribed him as the only way of aeeess to God, and as the sole fonndation of a sinner’s hope; whose riches were unsearchable, and the dim ensions of his love passing knowledge.^ ?riestley, as has been noted, regarded the fact th at ?aul directs his prayer in Ephesians 3:14 to God the Father, and not to Christ, to be a significant indication of the A postle’s convictions about the im propriety of prayer to Christ. Euller, though, sought to relate this prayer to its im m ediate and larger context in the letter to the Ephesians. C entral to the prayer in Ephesians 3 is ? a u l’s request of the Eather th at Christ m ight indwell the hearts of his readers by faith. W ho is this Christ, though, about whom ?aul makes such a request? Well, in what precedes his prayer Paul has described Christ, to use the words of Fuller, as “the m edium of all spiritual blessings” (cf. Ephesians 1:3), the “only way of access to G o d ” (cf. Ephesians 2:18), and the C ne “whose riches were unsearchable” (cf. Ephesians 3:8). Moreover, the Apostle finished his prayer by stating that “the dim ensions of his [i.e. C hrist’s] love” surpass knowledge (Ephesians 3 و ־1 18 ت ). Could the love th at is evident in such descriptions as these, Fuller ]ustly asked, ever be bestowed on “a fellow creature, . . . a fallible and peccable m an ” in ?riestley’s perspective,^ w ithout it being considered anything but “the height of extravagance, and essence of idolatry?” In other words, while Paul’s prayer may not actually be addressed to Christ, its content and th at which it presupposes all point to a conviction of C hrist’s deity. The Socinians’ re]ection of the propriety of praying to Christ or worshipping him led in tu rn to Fuller’s refusal to recognize them as Christian brothers and sisters.^ As the Baptist theologian pointed out in an article on “The Deity of Christ:” Calling on the nam e of the Lord Jesus is considered, in the New Testament, as of equal im portance with believing in him , having the same promise of salvation annexed to h.— “W hosoever shall call upon the nam e of the Lord shall be saved” [Romans 10:13]. And seeing it is asked, “How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” [Romans 10:14], it is strongly intim ated th at all who truly believe in C hrist do call upon him. This is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the primitive Christians, ? a u l’s Epistle to the C orinthians was addressed to th^m , in connexion with “all who in every place call upon the nam e of Jesus Christ our L o rd ” [1 C orinthians 1:2]. Now as a rejection of the Divinity of Christ renders it idolatry to worship him , or call upon his name; so it m ust involve a rejection o ^ h a t by which primitive Christians were distinguished, and which has the prom ise of salvation. . . . [W]e have no w arrant 269
to acknowledge those as fellow C hristians who come not u n d er the description given of such in the New Testament; th at is, who call not upon the nam e of Jesus Christ our L ord.^ Romans 10:1315 ־a outlines the chain of events by which a person is saved. It begins with G od sending forth som eone to preach the gospel and concludes with a person responding in faith by calling upon the nam e of the Lord. Fuller noted how vital is the final link in this chain, foe calling upon the nam e of foe Lord, for it is this action which is determ inant of the status of Christian. Unless a person has called upon the nam e of the Lord for salvation, he or she cannot consider him self or herself a Christian. This conclusion is fu rth er supported by 1 C orinthians 1:2, which describes Christians by m eans of the verb “to call u p o n ” and where this verb is used in a similar fashion to Romans 10, namely foe invoking of foe Risen C hrist in prayer. The Socinians, however, re]ected foe propriety of prayer to Christ on any occasion and for any reason. By so doing. Fuller can only conclude, they should not be regarded as Christians in the New Testam ent sense of foe term . Fuller thus was in full accord with FUestley th at Socinians and trinitarians should not worship together and that the form er ought to have their own “separate com m union”™or community. Some of the grand ends of Christian society are, unitedly to worship G od— to devote ourselves to foe blessed Trinity by Christian baptism — and to ^know ledge the atonem ent m ade by the Redeemer, by a participation of the ordinance of the L o rd ’s supper. But what union could there be in worship where the ob]ect w orshipped is not the s a m e where one party believes the other to be an idolater, and foe other believes him to be a degrader of H im who is “‘over all, God, blessed for ever’ [Romans 9:5]? . . ٠Either we are a company of idolaters, or they are enemies to the gospel—rendering the cross of Christ of none effect. Either they are unbelievers, or we are at least as bad— rendering to a creature th at hom age which is due only to the Creator; and, in either case, a union is foe last degree of absurdity.”؟* FULLER’S TRINITARIANISM Foundational to Fuller’s response to Friestley was the form er’s deep conviction th at Jesus is fully divine. For Fuller, Socinianism ’s denial of C hrist’s deity made it akin to Deism and this could only lead to foe total ruination of the virtuous life.^ As he put it in a serm on he preached in 1801: “T he person and work of Christ have ever been foe cornerstone of the C hristian fabric: take away his Divinity and atonem ent, and all will go to ruins.”™C hrist’s deity and his atoning work are “foe lifeblood of Chrisdafoty”; deny them and there is only death.™ Fuller thus 270
frequently insisted th at w ithout the confession of the deity of Christ, one simply cannot he counted as a C hristian, for “the proper Deity of C h ris t. . . is a great and fundam ental tru th in Christianity.”75 Given this insistence about C hrist’s deity, it is noteworthy th at when it came to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Fuller was nowhere near as em phatic, though he did believe th at the Scriptures “expressly call . . . the Holy Spirit G o d ” in Acts 5:3-4 and he did not hesitate to assert th at “every perfection of G o d h ead ” has been ascribed to foe Spirit.^ This lacuna is somewhat surprising since Fuller, like others im pacted by the Evangelical revivals of the eighteenth century, had a robust understanding of the Spirit’s work and m inistry.^ In part, this is due to the fact that Friestley and the other apostles of Socinianism focused their attention overwhelmingly upon Christ and not the Holy Spirit. W hen Fuller on one occasion referred to the first ^ in c ip le s of Christianity he believed were foe focus of the Socinian controversy he listed the doctrine of the Trinity, foe deity of Christ, and foe atoning death of the Lord Jesus,78 not the distinct deity of the Spirit. Fuller’s defense of the deity of Christ and the propriety of worshipping him is therefore akin to the way that A thanasius argued in the fourth century. The C hurch Father also spent most of his tim e and energy defending foe full and essential divinity of Christ in the face of the A rian onslaught against C hrist’s person. Only near the end of his life did Athanasius tu rn his attention to the Spirit.™ However, Fuller was also aware th at the Spirit’s overarching new covenant m inistry is the glorification of the Lord Jesus— the “Holy Spirit is not foe gran d object of m inisterial e ^ ib itio n ; but Christ, in his person, work and offices”— and this is a key reason why “m uch less is said in the Sacred Scriptures on the Divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit.”^ H ere Fuller seems to have followed Scripture. Finally, with regard to statem ents about foe Trinity, Fuller is certain th at foe Scriptures affirm the existence of three divine persons— the Father and foe Son and the Holy Spirit.^ These three are never to be considered three separate beings, but one God. As Fuller put it: “in a mysterious m an n er, far above our com prehension, there are in the Divine unity three subsistences.”^ How they are one has not been revealed, and so to believe it steadfastly requires faith and humility.*5 Moreover, this is a tru th th at m ust be regarded as being above reason, not against it nor a contradiction. As long as C hristian theology does not make the mistake of foe Socinians, which is to regard God as unipersonal, it can affirm this tru th without fear of being irrational. In this Christians need to “regulate [their] ideas of foe Divine Unity by what is taught us in the Scriptures of the Trinity; and not those of the Trinity by what we know, or think we know . . . of the Unity.”®* In addition to foe experience of worship, discussed at length above 271
and which for Fuller was determ inative for his understanding of the G odhead, Fuller’s reflections upon baptism served to reinforce his trinitarianism . His m ain piece on this ordinance is The Practical Uses ٠/ Christian Baptism, a highly significant tract on the m eaning of baptism. Fuller argued th at since baptism is to be carried out, according to Matthew 28:19, “in the nam e of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” submission to the ordinance entails an avowal of the fact that God is a triune Being. Well acquainted with the history of the early Church at this point, Fuller rightly stated th at this baptism al form ula was widely used in th at era to argue for the doctrine of the Trinity.85 To relinquish the doctrine of the Trinity is thus tantam ount to the virtual renunciation of one’s baptism .88 Fuller tied baptism to the Trinity again, and also to worship, in a small piece entitled “The M anner in which Divine T ruth is C om m unicated in the Holy Scriptures.” He wrote: The doctrine of the Trinity is never proposed to us as an object of speculation, but as a tru th affecting ou r dearest interests. Jo h n introduces the sacred T hree as witnesses to the tru th of the gospel of Christ, as objects of instituted worship, into whose nam e we are baptized; and Paul exhibits them as the source of all spiritual good: “The grace o fth e L ordjesus Christ, the love ofG od, and the communion o fth e Holy Spirit be with you all. Am en.” [2 C orinthians 13:14]. Again, “The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the ^ t i e n t waiting for C hrist.” [2 Thessalonians 3:5].87 W hat is noteworthy about this text is the refusal to see the Trinity as merely a “metaphysical mystery,” or as Fuller put it, “an object of speculation.”88 Rather, Fuller em phasized th at the doctrine has a bearing on our “dearest interests,” namely, the tru th as it is in the gospel, worship, and “all spiritual good.” T he first item, the tru th of the gospel, is supported by an allusion to 1 Jo h n 5:7, the fam ous Commajohanneum, which Fuller evidently regarded as genuine.8؟* For the th ird point, “all spiritual good,” Fuller has recourse to 2 C orinthians 13:14 and 2 Thessalonians 3:5. The use of the latter Pauline text is fascinating. Fuller’s trinitarian reading of it ultimately goes back to Basil of Caesarea (c. 329-379), who employs it in his argum ent for the Spirit’s deity in his classic work. On the Holy Spirit.90 Fuller m ost likely found this reading of the Pauline verse, however, in Jo h n Gill’s com m entary on 2 Thessalonians 3:5, where Gill follows Basil’s interpretation.؛*؟ It is with regard to the second point, the Trinity as the object of adoration, th at Fuller m entions baptism: “the sacred T h ree” are described “as objects of instituted worship, into whose nam e we are baptized.” Fuller was presum ably thinking of M ath ew 28:19. The reason why doctrinal 272
confession of the Triunity of God is vital is hecause it lies at the heart of C hristian worship. Fuller clearly saw baptism into the nam e of the Triune God as not only the initiatory rite of the C h u rc h -w h a t m ade it a “T rinitarian im m u n it y ”— but also the beginning of a life of worshipping the Trinity. Fuller m ade the same point in yet another text that has already been cited: am ong “the g ran d ends of C hristian society are unitedly to worship G o d ” and this m eant nothing less th an “to devote ourselves to the blessed Trinity by Christian baptism — and to acknowledge the atonem ent m ade by the Redeemer, by a participation of the ordinance of the L o rd ’s supper.”،^ Fuller’s choice of the verb “devote” here is noteworthy. Christian baptism is an act of dedicating oneself to the Triune G od— an act that surely is to continue throughout the C hristian life till it culm inates in the beatific vision of the Trinity. NOTES I. The title comes from Andrew Fuller, Strictures on Some of the Leading Sentiments of Mr. R. Robinson, in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. Ill, ed ^ o sep h Belcher, 1845 ed. (repr. Harrisonhurg, VA: sprinkle Fublieations, 1601 ,(88 و . This standard eolleetion o f Fnller’s works will he heneeforth referred to as Works ٠/ the Rev. Andrew Fuller. For the term “Trinitarian com munities,” see Fuller, Socinianism Indefensible 0 Wthe Ground ofits Moral Tendency, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 11, 258. Fortions o f an earlier paper o f the author— “A Socinian and Calvinist Compared: ^ s e p h Friestley and Andrew Fuller on the Propriety o f Prayer to Christ,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review) of Church History, 73 (1198 -178,(3 وو — have been used in this essay with permission from E.J. Brill, the publisher o f th is^ u rn al. ■ 2. See his Frdler, Letters on SystematicDivinity, in Works oftheRev. AndrewFuller, vol. 1, 684-711. Fuller was asked to draw up this “System o f Divinity” at the request o f his close friend John Ryland (1753-1825). n e deals with the doctrine o f the Trinity in the ninth, and final one, of these letters. See Fuller, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 707-711. n e would have written this final letter no earlier than October 1814. 3. Fuller, The Nature and Importance of an Intimate Knowledge ofDivine Truth, in Works ofthe Rev. Andreiv Fuller, vol. 1, 164. 4. Fuller, Intimate Knowledge ofDivine Truth, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. 1, 165. 5. Fuller, “The Manner in which Divine Truth is Communicated in the noly Scriptures,” in Works ofthe Rev. Andrexu Fuller, vol. m , .537. 6. Fuler, Intimate Knoidedge ofDivineTruth, in Works oftheRev. AndrewFuller, vol. 1, 165. ٦٠Fuller, A Defence ofa Treatise entitled The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation containing A Reply to Mr. Buttons Remarks س The Observations ofPhilanthropos, in Works ofthe Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. II, 511. 8. nis surname is sometimes rendered Socinus, hence Socinianism. 9. Reason and Religion in the English Revolution. The Challenge of Socinianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Fress, 2010), 240-241. 10. See especially William c. Placher, The Domestication ٠/ Transcendence. How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong (Louisville, K¥: Westminster John Knox Fres^, 1996), 164-178; Philip Dixon, ،Nice and Hot Disputes:’ The Doctrine ofthe Trinity im the Seventeenth Century (New Vork: T & T Clark, 2003). The quote is from Dixon, *Hice and HotDisputes,,L2\2. II. G.L. Bray, “Trinity,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, a n d j.l. Packer (Downers Grove, 1L: InterVarsity, 1988), 694. 273
12. For the loss o^rinitarianism among the General Baptists, see the very help£ul diseussion by Curtis w. Freeman, “God in Three Persons: Baptist Unitarianism and the Trinity,” Perspectives in Religious Studies, 33 (Fall 2006), 324-328. 13. TheFirst London Confession ofFaith 2 in William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions ofFaith, rev BillJ. Leonard (2nd rev. ed.; Valley Forge, PA^udson Press, 2011), 144. The spelling has been m odernized. 14. See, in particular, the following pubheations by White: “The Orgmdsation o f the Particular Baptists, 1644-1660,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 17 (1966), 209-226; “The Doctrine o f the Church in the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” The Journal of Theological Studies, ns, 19 (1968), 570-690; “Thomas Patient in Ireland,” Irish Baptist Historical Society Journal, 2 (1969-1970), 36-48, especially 40-41; “The Origins and Convictions o f the First Calvinistic Baptists,” Baptist History and Heritage, 25, no.4 (October, 1990), 39-47; and TheEnglish Baptists ofthe Seventh('}¡¡}¡ Century (Rev. ed.; London: The Baptist Historical Society, 1996), 59-94. 15. Freeman, “God in Three Persons,” 331. 16. The Second ¡.())Hon Confession ofFaith 2.3 in Lumpkin, ¡baptist Confessions ofFaith, 237. It is well known that the Second London Confession ofFaith reproduced large amounts o f the Presbyterian Westminster Confession ofFaith (1646), but the Baptist confession was also dependent in parts upon the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration ofFaith (1658). This statement regarding the Trinity is one o f those places where the Second London Confession is dependent upon the Savoy Declaration. Since the notable Puritan theologian John Owen (1616-1683) was one o fth e ؛mchitects o f the Savoy Declaration and he had a distinct interest in the doctrine o f the Trinity, Sinclair Ferguson is surely right to describe these ^vords about the Triune God as expressing “a deep Owenian conviction” (The Trinitarian Devotion ofjohn Owen [Orlando, FL: R ^orm ation Trust, 2014], 19). For “A Tabular Comparison o f the 1646 Westminster Confession o f Faith, the 1658 Savoy Declaration o f Faith, the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession o f Faith and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession o f Faith,” see http://www.proginosko.com /docs/wcf_sdfo_lbcf.htm l; ^ c esse d January 3, 2015. 17. The eternal Existence ofthe Lord Jesus ('.¡¡)־is( considered and improved (London, 1766), iv-v. 18. “To the Reader” in his A Treatise of the Holy Trinunity [5]ﺀﺀ (London, 1690), ﻟﻠﻞ -ال . For a brief discussion o f this work, see Freeman, “God in Three Person،333 -332” , .؟ 19. The Christian Strife for the Faith ofthe Gospel (London, 1738), 78, cited Roger Hayden, “The Contribution o f Bernard Foskett” in William H. Brackney and Paul s. Fiddes with John H. Y. Briggs, eds., Pilgrim Pathways: Essays in Baptist History in Honour of B. R. White (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999), 197. 20. John Gill, The Doctrine of the Trinity, stated and vindicated (2nd ed.; London, 1752), 166-167. 21. Letter to John Davis, March 7, 1745 (transcribed Gerald Priest; ms. in The Baptist Church in the Great Valley, Devon, PA; used by permission o f the church). 1 am indebted to Dr. Priest, for many years Professor o f Church History at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, for access to this letter. 22. John Rippon, A BriefMemoir ofthe Life and Writings ofthe late Rev. John Gill, D.D. (Repi'. H ^ iso n b u r g , VA: Gano Books, 1992), 127-128. 23. Eifion Evans, Daniel Roivland and the Great Evangelical Awakening in Wales (Edinburgh, PA: The Banner ofTruth Trust, 1985), 273-274. 24. For Dutton’s concern about Romaine, see her A Fette)- on the Divine Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ (London, 1757), now inJoA nn Ford Watson, ed., Selected spiritual Writings ()] Anne Dutton: Eighteenth-Century, British-Baptist, Woman Theologian (Mercer, GA: Mercer University press, 2008), 5:1-13. 25. The words o f Hywel M. Davies, Transatlantic Brethren: Rev. Samueljones (1735-1814) and HisFriends: Baptists in Wales, Pennsylvania, and Beyond (Bethlehem, PA: Leigh University Press/ London: associated University Presses, 1995), 116. See Davies’ account o f Allen’s career in 274
Transatlantic Brethren, 115-119. See also Jim Benedict, “A llen,John (d. 1783),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University ?ress, 2004; online ed., May 2007), http :// www.oxf0rddnb.com .libaccess.lib.m cm aster.ca/view/article/380; accessed March 31, 2013. 26. John Allen, The spirit ofLiberty: or, Junius's Loyal Address ([London ?], 1770), 91, 91-92, 95. The capitals in this text have been altered to lower case in accord with modern practice. 27. See Allen, spirit ofLiberty, 95-104. 28. Cited Andrew Gunton Fuller, “Memoir,” in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 1, 20. 29. C itedjohn Ryland, The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love, and the Patience of Hope illustrated; in The Life and Death of the Reverend Andrew Fuller (London: Button & Son, 1816), 62-63, 54. 30. Ryland, Life and Death of the Reverend Andrem Fuller, 52, 54. See also John w. £ddins,Jr., ‘Andreev Fuller’s Theology o f Grace” (Th.D. thesis. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1957), 123-130. 31. H.L. Short, “?resbyterians under a New Nam e” in C.G. Bolam, et a l, The English Presbyterians from Elizabethan Puritanism to Modern Unitarianism (London: George Allen Sc Unwin Ltd., 1968), 229-233. 32. Michael R. Watts, TheDissenters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 1:472. For the biographical details o f Friestley’s career, 1 am e^ ec iM l^ n d eb ted to The Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley, ed. John T. Boyer (Washington, DC: Barcroft Fress, 1964); Robert D. Fiala, “Friestley, Joseph (1733-1804),” Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals (Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Fress/Atlantic Highlands, Newjersey: Humanities Fress, 1979), 1:396-401; Erwin N. Hiebert, “The Integration o f Revealed Religion and Scientific Materialism in the Thought o f Joseph FHestley” in Lester Kieft and Bennett R. Wdleiord,Jr., eds.,Joseph Priestley: Scientist, Theologian, and Metaphysician (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1980), 27-61. 33. Rohert E. Schofield, “Friestley, Joseph (1733-1804),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Fress, 2004; online ed., May 2007), http://www. oxforddnb.com .libaccess.lib.m cm aster.ca/view/article/22788, accessed April 1, 2013. 34. Joseph Priestley, Defences of Unitarianism, for the Year 1786 (1787) (The Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestley, ed. J.T. Rutt [New York, N¥: Klaus Reprint Co., 1972], 18:372). Later references to the corpus o f Friestley will cite these w>rks as Works ofjoseph Priestley. In a lecture that Fuller’s friend Robert Hall, Jr. (1764-1831) gave “On foe Spirit o f Socinianism ” in 1823, the Baptist preacher took note o f the Socinians’ “zeal for proselytism” (The Works of the Rev. Robert Hall, eds. Olinthus Gregory and Joseph Belcher [New York, N¥: Harper Sc Bros., 1854], 3:24). 35. For Friestley’s threefold appeal to reason, scripture, and history, .see his Defences of Unitarianism, for the Year 1786 (Works ofjoseph Priestley, 18:350); An History of Early Opinions concerningjesus Christ (1786) (Works ofjoseph Priestley, 6:7). The description o f Friestley is that o f Martin Fitzpatrick, “Toleration and Truth,” Enlightenment and Dissent, 1 (1982), 25. 36. Martin Fitzpatrick, “Toleration and Truth,” 29, n.119. On foe com mitment o f Socinianism in general to Scripture, see Klaus Scholder, The Birth ofModern Critical Theology. Origins andProblems ofBiblical Criticism in the Seventeenth Century, trans.John Bowden (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990), 32-38. 37. Friestley, An Appeal to the Serious and Candid Professors of Christianity (1770) (Works ofjoseph Priestley, 2:385). See also J.G. McEvoy and J.E. McGuire, “God and Nature: Friestley’s Way o f Rational Dissent,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 6 (1975), 325-326; Fitzpatrick, “Toleration and Truth,” 4-5. 38. Friestley, An History of the Corruptions ٠/ Christianity (1782 ed.; repr. New York, NY/ London: Garland Fublishing, Inc., 1974), II, 440. 39. Cf. Scholder, Modern Critical Theology, 40; Geoffrey Gorham, “Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Intellectual Lifo” in Charles Taliaferro, Victoria s. Harrison, and Stewart Goetz, eds.. The Routledge Companion to Theism (New York, NY/London: Routledge, 2013), 129-130. 275
40. Priestley, Defences of Unitarianism, for the Years 1788 and 1789 (1790), in Works of Joseph Priestley, 19:108. See als() his Appeal to the Serious and Candid Professors of Christianity,in Worksof Joseph Priestley, 2:395; History ofEarly Opinions concerningjesus Christ, in Works ofJoseph Priestley, 6:33-37; Letters to the Members of the NexoJerusalem Church (Birmingham, 1791), 2. 41. Priestley, Works ofJoseph Priestley, 2:74. 42. Priestley, Works ofJoseph Priestley, 2:280. 43. Priestley, Works of Joseph Priestley, 2:280. 44. Priestley, Familiar Letters, Addressed to the Inhabitants of Birmingham (1790), in Works ٠/ Joseph Priestley, 19:250. 45. Priestley, Addresses Biographical and Historical (London: The Lindsey Press, 1922), 276. 46. Priestley, History ofEarly Opinions concerningjesus Christ, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 6:31-33. 47. Priestley, History ofEarly Opinions concerningjesus Christ, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 6:28- 29. See also History ofEarly Opinions concerningjesus Christ, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 6:30; Letters to Dr. Horsley (1783), in Works of Joseph Priestley, 18:95; ¡’(¿miliar Letters, Addressed to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, in Works ofJoseph Priestley, 19:249. 48. Priestley, Letters to Dr. Horsley, Part 7/(1784), in Works of Joseph Priestley, 18:243-244;Notes on All the Books ofScripture, in Works ofJoseph Priestley, 14:274. 49. Priestley, Letters to Dr. Horsley, Part 7/(1784), in Works of Joseph Priestley, 18:243. 50. Priestley, Notes on All the Books ofScripture, Works of Joseph, Priestley, 14:320. 51. Stephen Ford, “Coleridge and Priestley on Prayer,” Anglican TheologicalReview, 70 (1988), 353. Cf. Priestley, Familiar Letters, Addressed to the Inhabitants of Birmingham (Works of Joseph Priestley, 19:249-250). 52. Priestley, Letters to the Members of the New Jerusalem Church, 21. See also Notes on All the Books ofScripture, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 13:315. 53. Notes on All the Books ofScripture, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 13:328. 54. Quoted John G. McEvoy, “Joseph Priestley, “Aerial Philosopher”: Metaphysies and M ethodology in Priestley’s Chemieal Thought, from 1762-1781. Part 1,” Ambix, 25, no.l (March 1978), 18. 55. Priestley, Appeal to the Serious س Candid Professors ٠/ Christianity, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 2:402. 56. Priestley, Appeal to the Serious and Candid Professors of Christianity, in Works of Joseph Priestley, 2:414. 67. On this ancien régime, see especially j. C. D. Clark, English Society 1688-1832: Ideology, social structure and political practice during the ancien regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); idem, “England’s Ancien Regime as a Confessional State,” Albion, 21 (1989), 450-474. 58. On these riots, see Arthur Sheps, “Public Perception of Joseph Priestley, the Birmingham Dissenters, and the Church-and-King Riots o f 1791,” Eighteenth Century Life, 13 (1989), 46-64. 59. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Examined and Compared, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 11, 111. See also the comments by Fuller in his Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Pearce, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. Ill, 433. 60. Fuller, Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, 11, 108-242. Fuller received advice from both Abraham Booth (1734-1806) and John Fawcett (1740-1817), fellow Baptist ministers, in drawing up this treatise. See J.W. Morris, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Andrea) Fuller (London, 1816), 330-331. 61. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 11, 112. The term “aretegenic” is a neologism coined by Ellen T. Charry. See her important work By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). 62. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, 11, 160). 276
63. See also his interpretation o f Acts 7:59 in Fuller, Socinianism Indefensible on the Ground of its Moral Tendency, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 260; “D efence of the Deity o f Christ,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 698. 64. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 160. 65. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 189, 192. 66. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 192. 67. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 193. 68. Fuller, “Agreement in Sentiment the Bond o f Christian U nion,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 490, 491. 69. Fuller, “The Deity o f Christ,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 696, 697. 70. Fuller, “D ecline o f the Dissenting Interest,” in Works ofthe Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. Ill, 71. Fuller, Leading Sentiments of Mr. R. Robinson, in Works ofthe Rev. Andreiv Fuller, vol. Ill, 601. 72. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. 11, 220-233. 73. Fuller, God's Approbation of our Labours Necessary to the Hope ofSuccess, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 190. See also Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works ofthe Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. II, 183; The Backslider, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 637. 74. Fuller, Christian Steadfastness, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. I, 527. See also Calvinistic س Socinian Systems, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 183, 191-192. 75. Fuller, Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works ofthe Rev. Andreiv Fuller, vol. II, 180; Justification, in Works ofthe Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. I, 284; Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works ofthe Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. II, 183, 191-192; Defence of a Treatise entitled The Gospel of Christ, in Works ofthe Rev. Andreiv Fuller, vol. II, 458; “D ecline o f the Dissenting Interest,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 487; “The Deity of Christ,” in Works op the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. Ill, 693-697; Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 180. 76. Fuller, “Defence o f the Deity o f Christ,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 698; “Remarks on the Indwelling Schem e,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 700. See also Fuller, Letters 0 ft Systematic Divinity, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 711; “Mr. Bevan’s Defence o f the Christian Doctrines o f the Society o f Friends,” in Works ofthe Rev. Andreiv Fuller, vol. Ill, 758. 77. See, for example, his Causes ofDeclension ¿ft Religion, and Means ofRevival, in Works ofthe Rev. Andreiv Fuller, vol. Ill, 319-320, 324 and The Promise ofthe Spirit the Grand Encouragement ¿ft Promoting the Gospel, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 359-363. 78. Fuller, Socinianism Indefensible, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. II, 249. 79. See his Letters to Serapion, written in the late 350s. Athanasius died in 373. See further my The spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians ¿ft the Pneumatomachian Controversy ofthe Fourth Century (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994). 80. Fuller, Letters 0 ft Systematic Divinity, in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 711. 81. See Fuller, ؛،ﻣﺺ the True Messiah (1809), in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 219; “Passages Apparently Contradictory,” Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. I, 668; “Remarks on the Indwelling Scheme,” in Works ofthe Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. Ill, 700; “The Doctrine o f the Trinity,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, ?07-708. In the last o f these passages Fuller cites a catena o f trinitarian texts, including Matthew 28:19; lj o h n 5:7; Romans 15:30; Ephesians 2:18;Jude 20-21; 2 Thessalonians 3:5; and 2 Corinthians 13:14. 82. Fuller, “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 708. 83. Fuller, Nature and Importance of an Intimate Knowledge ofDivine Truth (1796), in Works of the Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 163-164. 84. Fuller, Letters 0 ft SystematicDivinity, in Works oftheRev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 708; “Remarks on the Indwelling Schem e,” in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. Ill, 700. Cf. Walking by Faith (1784), in Works ofthe Rev. AndrewFuller, vol. I, 124-125: “It is one thing to say that Scripture 277
is contrary to right reason, and another thing to say that it may exhibit truths too great for our reason to grasp.” Also see “Trial o f Spirits,” in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. I, 654. 85. Fuller, The Practical Uses of Christian Baptism, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. Ill, 340. The very same point had been made a quarter o f a century earlier by John Collett Ryland (1723-1792), the eccentric Baptist largely remembered today for his dam pening rebuke o f William Carey’s zeal for o^^erseas missions. Also writing in a circular letter for the Northamptonshire Association, Ryland had observed that “foe true doctrine o f the Trinity” had been “kept up in the Christian church” by the ordinance o f baptism “more than by any other means whatsoever.” See Ryland, The Beauty of Social Religion; or, The Nature and Glory ofa Gospel Church (Northampton: T. Dicey, 1777), 10, footnote. 86. Fuller, Christian Baptism, in Works of til·(’ Rev. Andreiu Fuller, vol. ID, 340. For other instances o f Fuller’s trinitarian exegesis o f Matthew 28:19, see Calvinistic and Socinian Systems, in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, vol. 11, 236; “On the Sonship o f Christ,” in Works of the Rev. Andreiu Fuller, vol. Ill, 705-706. 87. Fuller, “The Manner in which Divine Truth is Communicated in the Holy Scriptures,” Works of the Rev. Andreiu Fuller, vol. Ill, 539. 88. For the phrase “m ^ p h y sic a l mystery,” 1 am indebted to Stephen Holmes. See “The Quest for the Trinity: An Interview with Stephen R. Holm es,” Credo Magazine, 3, no.2 (April 2013), 49. 89. See his extended argument in Fuller, Letters on Systematic Divinity (Works of the Rev. Andreiu Fuller, 1, ^08-709). 90. See Basil o f Caesarea, On the Holy spirit 21.52. 91. Here is the relevant section o f G ill’s comments on this verse: “The phrase o f directing the heart to God . . . is not to be done by a believer himself, nor by the ministers o f the Gospel: the apostle could not do it, and therefore he prays “the Lord” to do it; by whom is meant the spirit o f God, since he is distinguished from God the Father, into whose love the heart is to be directed, and from Christ, a patient waiting for whom ’tis also desired the heart may be directed into; and since it is his work to shed abroad the love o f God in the heart, and to lead unto it, and make application o f it; and which is a proof o f his deity, for none has foe direction, management, and government o f the heart, but God, . . . and in th is‘ passage o f Scripture appear all the three Fersons [of the Godhead]; for here is the love o f the Father, patient waiting for Christ, and the Lord the Spirit.” See Gill, An Exposition of the Neiu Testament (1809 ed.; repr. Faris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., 1989), III, 265. See a lsojoh n Gill, The Doctrine of the Trinity, Stated and Vindicated (London: Aaron Ward, 1731), 198-199. 92. Fuller, Leading Sentimen ts of Mr. R. Robinson, in Works of the Rev. Andreiu Fuller, vol. HI, 601 27s
آلﻣﺂورلم؛ Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent. No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ۴ ٥ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author o fthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥. The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.