Particular Redemption, The End and Design of the Death of Christ, by John Hurrian, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, paperback, 161 pages, £5.75, obtainable from the Free Presbyterian Bookroom.
Briefly, the question addressed in this book is: For whom did Christ die? More fully, Hurrian asks, “Did He satisfy divine justice for the sins of millions, who yet suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, for the same sins themselves? Or did Christ make satisfaction for a peculiar number only, who shall never come into condemnation, but enjoy eternal life, as the purchase and fruit of His death?” The book demonstrates the truth of the second alternative.
The author was born in Suffolk around 1675 and became a minister in Norfolk in 1696, before moving to London in 1724. Largely under the influence of Richard Baxter – as Rev Iain Murray’s helpful Introduction informs us – erroneous views on the subject of redemption were spreading among English Nonconformists in the 1690s. Those in Scotland who adopted these views became known as Neonomians, and Principal John Macleod’s description of their position is quoted from his Scottish Theology: “The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ was set aside as the ground of acceptance; and our new life as believers and penitents was looked upon as so much of the ground on which our acceptance is built”.
In 1730 some London merchants organised a series of lectures to oppose the errors that were gaining currency in their time. Hurrian was invited to speak four times on “The Scripture Doctrine of Particular Redemption”. He preached twice; the result is Sermons 1 and 2 in the book under review. His health was deteriorating, but he was able to write out what he had meant to preach as Sermon 3. Hurrian was unable to do anything for Sermon 4 before
his death, except write notes which, presumably, were filled out by the editor of the volume in which Hurrion’s material was published.
Hurrion took Titus 2:14 as his text, where Paul speaks of Jesus Christ as the One “who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”. He sets himself to “prove that Christ did not give Himself to redeem all men, but to redeem, and actually save, a chosen and peculiar number”.
Hurrion does so by showing that (1) “the Father’s election and the Son’s redemption are of the same extent, or relate to the same individual persons”; (2) “Christ’s redemption is absolute, certain and perfect”; (3) “Christ died to redeem all, and only those, whose debt He, as their surety, undertook to pay”; (4) “Christ’s oblation [sacrifice] and intercession relate to the same persons”; (5) “Christ did not die to procure the remission of their sins whose sins He knew beforehand were irremissable, for that would have been . . . to have died in vain”; (6) “those for whom Christ died are exempted from condemnation and shall at last be presented to God with exceeding joy”. He concludes this sermon with a shrewd reflection, “The doctrine which tends most to debase man and to exalt Christ, to take away boasting from us and to set forth the glory of God, that is the true doctrine of Christ’s redemption: for to this end is He made redemption to us”; he quotes from 1 Corinthians 1:31: “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord”.
The preacher goes on in Sermon 2 to give a further six proofs of what it was that Christ meant to bring about through His death. In Sermon 3 Hurrion goes on to answer the principal arguments against his position and, in doing so, expounds the Scripture passages that his opponents used to buttress their position: for example, passages that speak of Christ dying for the world. For instance, Hurrion notes verses where “the word world is evidently used in a restrictive, limited sense. It is said of Christ, that the world knew Him not” (Jn 1:10). And the preacher goes on to state, “By world here every individual person cannot be meant, seeing there were many that did know Christ”.
Hurrion continues this line of argument in Sermon 4. In particular, he considers the argument that universal atonement is necessary as a foundation for the free offer of the gospel, and replies, “The gospel declares Christ’s ability to save all that come to Him; that all shall be saved who do believe in Him; that it is the command of God that men believe; and that such as do not, must perish. Here is warrant enough for ministers to preach Christ to all, and encourage all their hearers to believe on Him. If they could truly tell men that Christ died for all men, yet they could not tell them that any more should be saved than actually believe; and it is certain that all who believe shall be saved. It is not my knowledge that Christ died for me that is the
ground of my believing in Him; but the command of God requiring it, and the declaration that whoever does so, shall have eternal life. Upon this, I have not only a liberty and encouragement to believe, when the gospel is preached to me, but it is my duty to do so.”
The book concludes with “Twelve Points of Application”, the second of which encourages “such as are redeemed” to think admiringly “on an all-sufficient Redeemer being appointed to undertake their cause”. Among other things they should consider that “God would have His chosen, not barely redeemed from hell, and brought to heaven; but He would have it done in such a way as should be most to His own and His Son’s honour”.
The book includes a Preface by John Elias, a noted minister in Wales; it was originally written in 1820 for a translation into Welsh of Hurriion’s book. Elias writes, “These sermons were highly prized by the defenders and lovers of the truth in London for scores of years . . . I hope they shall prove to be of great blessing to my country.” And again, “I am very pleased that one of the godly servants of the Nonconformists has been called, as one from the dead, to witness for the doctrine of redemption as it is revealed in God’s Word”. How good it would be, when such excellent material has been once again reprinted, if it would please the Lord to make it a great blessing throughout the English-speaking world, in bringing many readers to clearer and more scriptural views of this vital doctrine and in confirming others who already hold a scriptural position!
By Good and Necessary Consequence, by Ryan M McGraw, published by Reformation Heritage Books, paperback, 85 pages, £7.99 from the F P Bookroom. This little book defends one part of The Westminster Confession’s teaching on Scripture and how it should be interpreted. The Confession states: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men”. In other words, we learn about what we should believe and do in two ways: by express statements of Scripture, and from inferences drawn from these statements.
Mr McGraw describes the use of good and necessary consequence when he points to “doctrines and precepts that are truly contained in and intended by the divine Author of Scripture, yet are not found or stated on the surface of the text and must be legitimately inferred from one or more passages of Scripture” (p 3). Therefore these inferences have just as much authority as verses of Scripture.
On page 4, the author cites James Bannerman’s examples of good and necessary consequence. Genesis 1:1 plainly says that God created the heavens and the earth. But we can also draw several conclusions or inferences from this verse. First, we infer that God and nature are distinct (which refutes pantheism, or the blasphemous idea that the universe itself is God). Second, matter had a beginning and only God is eternal (which refutes materialism, the idea that matter always existed). Third, God created the world out of nothing without using any pre-existing materials.
Perhaps the most interesting point is that the Lord Jesus Himself used a good and necessary consequence to prove the doctrine of the resurrection. Mr McGraw observes that Christ could have quoted Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 26:19, or Job 19:26, which clearly refer to the resurrection. Instead He quoted Exodus 3:6, “I am . . . the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. Notice that He does not say, “I was the God of Abraham . . .”, but, “I am . . .”. From this statement the Lord Jesus infers that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, and that therefore their souls will certainly be reunited with their resurrected bodies. He even reproves the Sadducees for not drawing inferences, telling them, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (Mt 22:29).
Mr McGraw points out that, throughout the history of the Christian Church, heretics have refused to accept inferences drawn from Scripture, because this makes it easier for them to reject sound doctrine. They demand that the Church show them a verse which expressly states, for example, the full doctrine of the Trinity.1 When the Church tries to reason with them out of the Scriptures, they claim that she is depending on human reason rather than on the Word of God. But the Apostle Paul did just this in Thessalonica (Acts 17:2,3).
Finally, the author notes that sincere Christians may make the mistake of rejecting Scriptural inferences.2 “Show me,” says one, “the verse in the New Testament that says we cannot have instrumental music in public worship.” “Show me,” says another, “the verse that says that infants may be baptized.” In both cases we must compare the relevant verses and, by good and necessary consequence, learn what the Spirit teaches.
Some parts of this book are rather technical, but overall it leaves the1 A similar, but far less serious error is the rejection of the term “Covenant of Works” because the phrase does not occur in Scripture. As Francis Turretin observes, it is lawful to use words not found in the Scriptures if they help explain divine things or avoid errors.2 Interestingly, nineteenth-century Free Church ministers Robert Rainy and Robert Candlish claimed that only the express statements of The Westminster Confession should be accepted, but not what can be inferred from it. But all truth should be accepted, whether expressly stated or implied. See History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, pp 10-11.
reader impressed with the importance of the subject. We therefore commend it to our readers.
(Rev) Caleb Hembd