{"id":28897,"date":"2017-08-25T10:00:46","date_gmt":"2017-08-25T09:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/\/uk\/?p=28897"},"modified":"2021-08-02T16:46:37","modified_gmt":"2021-08-02T15:46:37","slug":"particular-redemption-introduction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/banneroftruth.org\/uk\/resources\/announcements\/2017\/particular-redemption-introduction\/","title":{"rendered":"Particular Redemption: An Introduction"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Hurrion was born in Suffolk, circa<\/em> 1675, in a period when those who had stood apart from the Church\u00a0of England after the Act of Uniformity of 1662 were undergoing\u00a0persecution. Almost the only knowledge we have of his youth is this statement: \u2018In his younger years, he was\u00a0brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.\u20191<\/a><\/sup> In this his\u00a0maternal grandfather, Edmund Whincop (1616\u201387), may well\u00a0have played a part. After being silenced at Layston in 1662,\u00a0Whincop\u2019s troubles included a five-month imprisonment,\u00a0before he was called to serve a Nonconformist congregation\u00a0at Watesfield in 1677. His grandson was only twelve when\u00a0he died, but the fact that John Hurrion was to marry Jane\u00a0Baker, daughter of a family of the Watesfield church, indicates\u00a0an ongoing connexion with that congregation. The marriage\u00a0took place in 1696, soon after Hurrion\u2019s settlement in a church\u00a0at Denton, Norfolk, where his predecessor, William Bidbank,\u00a0had served since 1662.<\/p>\n

That Hurrion was set apart for the gospel ministry about the age of twenty-one, confirms a tradition of his early\u00a0studiousness. Under what conditions his training for the\u00a0ministry had proceeded are not recorded, save that it was\u00a0\u2018partly under Mr Robinson of Walpole, Suffolk\u2019. That he was\u00a0committed to hard study is certain, and his library was by\u00a0no means confined to the Puritan period. We are told that\u00a0one of the authors whom he held in \u2018particular esteem\u2019 was\u00a0Chrysostom of Constantinople. He was to become, in the\u00a0opinion of his friend and contemporary, Abraham Taylor, \u2018As\u00a0judicious and accomplished a Divine as any that appeared in\u00a0his age.\u2019 That this was not study for study\u2019s sake is clear from\u00a0the influence of his ministry at Denton. From a weak condition at the time of his settlement, the work \u2018by the blessing\u00a0of God upon his labours was brought into a very flourishing\u00a0state. His great abilities gained him also a large share in the\u00a0affections and esteem of several other churches in that and\u00a0the neighbouring counties.\u2019<\/p>\n

By the 1690s, evangelical churches in the Nonconformist\u00a0tradition were facing new dangers. While \u2018the Glorious\u00a0Revolution\u2019 of 1688 had ended physical persecution, the\u00a0Nonconformist churches (termed \u2018Dissenters\u2019 by members\u00a0of the Church of England) were beginning to form denominations,\u00a0only to have their unity threatened from another\u00a0direction as the former biblical orthodoxy came to be challenged.<\/p>\n

In Suffolk the rise of anti-trinitarian belief had an\u00a0advocate in William Manning, said to have influenced the\u00a0Presbyterian, Thomas Emlyn, who became, possibly, the first\u00a0Nonconformist to declare himself a Unitarian. At some point\u00a0after Hurrion\u2019s settlement at Denton, Manning made strong\u00a0attempts to win him over, thinking \u2018he would be a considerable\u00a0gain to his party\u2019. His endeavours had the opposite\u00a0effect. After giving much attention to the subject, Hurrion\u2019s\u00a0whole ministry was to be characterized by emphasis on the\u00a0deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. It was his later counsel\u00a0that, \u2018whether the Trinity was opposed or no, young divines\u00a0could not take a better way to fit themselves for public service,\u00a0than to be rooted and grounded in that important doctrine\u2019.<\/p>\n

In the 1690s, anti-trinitarian belief had no spokesmen\u00a0among the Nonconformist churches in London. That development\u00a0was to await the next century, but the unity of these\u00a0churches was already disrupted in that decade by a different\u00a0deviation, more evangelical in its form, and strengthened by\u00a0the advocacy of Richard Baxter. A general esteem for Baxter\u00a0was based on the value of his well-known practical writing,\u00a0most notably, The Saints\u2019 Everlasting Rest<\/em> (1649) and The\u00a0Reformed Pastor<\/em> (1656). But in his understanding of redemption\u00a0Baxter also wrote titles which departed significantly\u00a0from the understanding of redemption as contained in the\u00a0Westminster, Savoy and Baptist Confessions.2<\/a><\/sup> His position\u00a0(largely derived from Amyraut and other writers) is succinctly\u00a0stated by Isaac Ambrose in the words, \u2018Christ died not to\u00a0bring all or any man actually to salvation, but to purchase\u00a0salvability and reconciliation so far, as that God might and\u00a0would (salva justitia) deal with them on terms of a better\u00a0covenant.\u20193<\/a><\/sup> The one \u2018condition\u2019 now to be fulfilled was \u2018faith\u2019.\u00a0The \u2018new covenant\u2019, Baxter wrote, \u2018is a general gift or act of\u00a0oblivion, or pardon, given freely to all mankind, on condition\u00a0they will believe and consent to it\u2019.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Christ\u2019s work of redemption, Baxter taught, is \u2018the beginning\u00a0of your justification\u2019. So God \u2018requireth no actual\u00a0obedience, as the condition of our begun justification\u2019, that\u00a0being done already for all people. But for justification in its\u00a0entirety, he \u2018doth require both the continuance of faith, and\u00a0actual sincere obedience, as the condition of continuing, or\u00a0not losing, our justification\u2019.5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In opposition to this belief, he names as \u2018error<\/em>\u2019 the\u00a0statement: \u2018Christ did both perfectly obey, and also make\u00a0satisfaction for sin by suffering, in the person of all the elect\u00a0\u2026 so that his righteousness of obedience \u2026 is so imputed\u00a0to us, as if we ourselves had done it, and suffered it \u2026 .\u20196<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Baxter wrote on this teaching at various points in his life\u00a0but dispute came to a head around the time of his death\u00a0in London in 1691. At this date the Nonconformist leaders\u00a0in London\u2014both those of Presbyterian and those of Congregational\u00a0persuasion\u2014had been drawing together\u00a0in a Plan of Union, and were sharing in speaking at the\u00a0Pinners\u2019 Hall lectures, an institution established by Puritan\u00a0merchants in 1672. But as Baxter\u2019s teaching resurfaced, serious\u00a0controversy ensued which ended the Union and the presence\u00a0of Presbyterians at Pinners\u2019 Hall. Sympathy for an allowance\u00a0of Baxter\u2019s views was chiefly, but not entirely, among\u00a0Presbyterians,\u00a0while Congregationalists wrote in opposition. Criticism centred on two points: (1) This was a view of justification\u00a0which saw it no longer as \u2018an act of God\u2019s free grace\u2019 (Shorter Catechism<\/em>) but as a process in which faith was to be\u00a0regarded as a continuing element. (2) Baxter\u2019s teaching on justification resulted from a different understanding of the\u00a0atonement. The confessional belief was that Christ, for those\u00a0with whom he was united by the Father\u2019s gift, rendered obedience\u00a0and suffered condemnation in their place<\/em>. Those whose\u00a0sin was imputed to Christ, are the same persons to whom his righteousness is imputed (Rom. 4:25; 5:10). Baxter denied, as\u00a0in the words above, any such correlation.<\/p>\n

Opponents of the new teaching in the 1690s were apprehensive\u00a0that its influence would be extensive, and the first thirty years of the eighteenth century justified their concern.\u00a0In Scotland, a growing number of men, who followed Baxter,\u00a0got the name of \u2018Neonomians\u2019 (\u2018new-law\u2019 keepers). In the\u00a0words of John Macleod, \u2018The righteousness of God which is\u00a0by faith of Jesus Christ was set aside as the ground of acceptance;\u00a0and our new life as believers and penitents was looked\u00a0upon as so much of the ground on which our acceptance\u00a0is built.\u20197<\/a><\/sup> In Wales there was no such early acceptance.\u00a0Howell Harris wrote: \u2018I think we all agree with the good old\u00a0Reformers\u00a0and Puritans; I hold their works in great esteem.\u00a0We do not think the Baxterian scheme orthodox.\u20198<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

By contrast, in England the idea that Christ\u2019s death did\u00a0not secure the justification of all for whom he suffered gained\u00a0widespread popularity, coalescing with Arminian belief. The\u00a0contemporary rise of anti-trinitarian belief, and growing\u00a0rejection\u00a0of Scripture as divine revelation, meant that a general\u00a0decline of evangelical belief was in progress when Hurrion\u2019s\u00a0material, reprinted in these pages, was published in 1732. It\u00a0constituted four chapters in a larger volume, A Defence of Some Important Doctrines of the Gospel: Preached at the Lime\u00a0Street Lecture<\/em>. In a Preface it was said,<\/p>\n

As error never raged with greater violence than it does in our\u00a0unhappy times, and as lukewarmness never discovered itself\u00a0more than in the present day of darkness, it never could be\u00a0more expedient than now to plead for the glorious gospel of\u00a0the blessed God.9<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is only a minimum of information on Hurrion\u2019s life\u00a0between his settlement in Norfolk in 1696 and his writing\u00a0of these pages. His ministry at Denton continued through \u00a0twenty-eight years, reported as \u2018very successful, and he was\u00a0esteemed a great blessing by all the Dissenters, in those\u00a0parts\u2019. In 1724 he was faced with the difficult decision of a\u00a0call to the church at Hare Court, Aldersgate Street, London.\u00a0He considered the prospect of wider usefulness, and he had\u00a0concern lest declining the call would result in a division of\u00a0the congregation.10<\/a><\/sup> On the other hand, he had no prevailing\u00a0desire to remove. The call was accepted but the outcome was\u00a0not altogether happy. Perhaps a division in the congregation\u00a0existed and continued. A \u2018coolness\u2019 of some towards him,\u00a0contrasted with his previous popularity, and a decline in his\u00a0health hindered his activity in pastoral visiting.<\/p>\n

On the wider scene, Hurrion\u2019s ability was recognized\u00a0by his appointment as one of the lecturers at Pinners\u2019 Hall\u00a0where he preached for the first time on June 11, 1726. Sixteen sermons which he preached there, on The Proper Divinity\u00a0and Extraordinary Works of the Holy Spirit<\/em>, were published\u00a0posthumously in 1734. In 1730 London merchants, concerned\u00a0over the general situation, initiated another lecture series and\u00a0Hurrion was one of the eight ministers chosen to take part.\u00a0Convened at Lime Street, London, these lectures started on\u00a0November 12, 1730, and continued weekly to April 8, 1731.\u00a0The subject assigned to him was \u2018The Scripture Doctrine of\u00a0Particular Redemption\u2019, on which he was due to speak on four occasions. Ill health, however, prevented him from speaking\u00a0again after he had preached twice. A publication of the Lime\u00a0Street lectures was being prepared by Abraham Taylor and\u00a0Hurrion endeavoured to help him. On December 14, 1731,\u00a0his health seriously failing, he wrote to Taylor: \u2018I have now\u00a0finished, and now send you, my third sermon: I shall go on\u00a0with the fourth as fast as I can; if possible, I would finish it next week, but I fear I shall not be able, I have been so much worse since I wrote you last.\u2019<\/p>\n

Hurrion\u2019s anticipation was correct, he got no further than\u00a0leaving notes of the fourth sermon, on which, Taylor said, \u2018I\u00a0have not made any alterations.\u2019 But he must have augmented\u00a0them for publication. It tells us much of the man that, at the\u00a0very end of life, he gave his last energies to a subject on which\u00a0he felt deeply. \u2018The delight he took in his subject\u2019, Taylor commented,\u00a0\u2018carried him above his great pain and weakness.\u2019 He\u00a0was \u2018an eminent saint\u2019, and, in dying, confessed: \u2018The death\u00a0of Christ being the fountain of our life, there is nothing more\u00a0necessary, pleasant, or useful to the Christian, than a right\u00a0apprehension and remembrance of it.\u2019 John Hurrion died on\u00a0December 31, 1731, in his fifty-sixth year.<\/p>\n

The whole of the lectures as published were orientated\u00a0towards the need for reformation and revival in the churches.\u00a0Unknown to the authors in 1732\u2014the year their volume was\u00a0published\u2014an instrument was in preparation by whom the\u00a0doctrine Hurrion defended would spring into greater public\u00a0attention. George Whitefield matriculated at Pembroke College,\u00a0Oxford, in November 1732. About three years later, he\u00a0wrote: \u2018God was pleased to enlighten, and bring me into the\u00a0knowledge of his free grace, and the necessity of being justified\u00a0in his sight by faith alone.<\/em>\u2019 He was on a course which\u00a0would lead him to challenge his friend, John Wesley, with\u00a0the question, \u2018How can all be universally redeemed if all are\u00a0not finally saved? You plainly make salvation depend not on
\nGod\u2019s free grace<\/em>, but on man\u2019s free will<\/em>.\u201911<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

It is remarkable that the re-emergence of Puritan belief\u00a0came within the Church of England where the authors of that\u00a0school had been so long discredited. Whitefield openly owned\u00a0their writings. William Grimshaw came to the doctrine of\u00a0justification through the reading of John Owen, and James\u00a0Hervey, disagreeing with John Wesley on that doctrine, drew\u00a0attention to the Important Doctrines of the Gospel: Preached at\u00a0the Lime Street Lecture<\/em>, 1732, which, he says, on final perseverance\u00a0and the imputed righteousness of Christ, gave him\u00a0the \u2018fullest view which I ever remember to have met with in\u00a0any of our English writers\u2019.12<\/a><\/sup> Hervey was not to be the last\u00a0to draw attention to the influence of the 1732 volume which\u00a0was in its eighth edition by 1824. In its main lines, Wesley\u2019s\u00a0thinking was close to Baxter\u2019s, and when Baxter\u2019s teaching on\u00a0redemption\u00a0was gaining influence in Wales in the nineteenth\u00a0century, it was Hurrion\u2019s sermons on Particular Redemption\u00a0which were translated into Welsh and published in 1820, with\u00a0a Preface by John Elias. Elias, the evangelical leader in North\u00a0Wales, regretted they had not been published earlier:<\/p>\n

These sermons were highly prized by the defenders and lovers\u00a0of the truth in London for scores of years, but were hidden\u00a0from monoglot Welshmen until the present year. There has\u00a0been, and still is, great anger in the world against the Doctrines\u00a0of Grace.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At times controversy over universal redemption has\u00a0sometimes been diverted from Scripture by criticism of the\u00a0advocates or opponents of the teaching. It is a merit of Hurrion\u2019s\u00a0exposition in these pages that personalities do not figure\u00a0in his treatment. About to enter eternity, he was occupied with\u00a0a higher concern. Nor did he question the Christian standing\u00a0of all with whom he disagreed. He knew that controversy\u00a0about grace which lacks grace is destructive. Although there is\u00a0clearer light with some Christians than with others, humility\u00a0becomes all for \u2018if any man think that he knoweth anything,\u00a0he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know\u2019 (1 Cor. 8:2).\u00a0Whitefield was of that spirit when he noted \u2018Baxter\u2019s Call to\u00a0the Unconverted<\/em>\u2019 among the books which \u2018much benefited\u00a0me\u2019, adding, \u2018as soon as the love of God was shed abroad in\u00a0my soul, I loved all of whatsoever denomination, who loved\u00a0the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity of heart\u2019.14<\/a><\/sup> Where devotion\u00a0to Christ is uppermost brotherly love can be maintained even\u00a0when believers disagree.<\/p>\n

Certainly diligence in contending for the faith is never to\u00a0be suspended, and these pages are reprinted in the prayerful\u00a0hope of a greater recovery of biblical truth today.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Of Further Interest<\/h3>\n