Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) was one of the most important Christian theologians in the last 200 years. Tom Nettles writes of Andrew Fuller in his new book, The Baptists: “Fuller’s insights were pertinent, not only to his own day, but were of such timeless nature that every generation of Christians could profit.” It is with this in mind that I offer to you Fuller’s thoughts on toleration.

Toleration is a buzz-word in the world today, and it is so often thrown out in reference to Christians. The definition of toleration, however, is no longer clear. And just when you think you understand it you might be charged with intolerance. There have been helpful things written about tolerance lately, especially from a Christian perspective. However, the most helpful thing I have found was written some 200 years ago.

Along with William Carey, Fuller helped to begin what we know of as the modern mission movement. In fact Fuller’s Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation gave the movement its theological impetus. As the Baptist Mission Society sent Carey, and others, to India they began to be charged with intolerance. The charge came from other British leaders in India that were claiming that the Baptists were seeking to coerce the Hindus or Muslims to follow Christ, something that Fuller and the missionaries knew was impossible. However, those making the charge were calling for the government to censure the missionaries and not allow them to evangelize any longer.

Fuller’s answer to this charge can be found in his Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India. To answer the charges of those that would wish to redefine toleration, Fuller writes:

I have observed with pain, sir, of late years, a notion of toleration, entertained even by some who would be thought its firmest advocates, which tends not only to abridge, but subvert it. They have no objections to Christians of any denomination enjoying their own opinions, and, it may be, their own worship; but they must not be allowed to make proselytes . . . They do not propose to persecute the Christians of India, provided they would keep their Christianity to themselves; but those who attempt to convert others are to be exterminated. Sir, I need not say to you that this is not toleration, but persecution. Toleration is a legal permission not only to enjoy our own principles unmolested, but to make use of all the fair means of persuasion to recommend them to others. The former is but littler more than might be enjoyed in countries the most distinguished by persecution; for few would wish to interrupt men so long as they kept their religion to themselves. Yet this is the whole of what some would wish to allow . . . In former times, unbelievers felt the need of toleration for themselves, and then they generally advocated it on behalf of others; but of late, owing perhaps to the increase of their numbers, they have assumed a loftier tone. Now, though for political reasons all men must be allowed to follow their own religion, yet they must not aim at making proselytes. Men who have no belief in the Christian religion mat be expected to have no regard for it; and where this is the case, the rights of the conscience will be little respected.

This is most definitely a timely word for Christians today. In a world where unbelief is growing bolder and bolder, the charge of intolerance will be quickly laid at the feet of those that seek to make converts. As Christians this “persecution” must not discourage us from the task at hand. It did not discourage Fuller or Carey, who continued to preach the Word with boldness and power. Lord thank you for their example.