Truman:

If you shall reply, and say, “But God does love and Will the Conversation of everyone?” I hold this as much at least as you do: for you do not maintain that he is resolved actually to convert every man, else every man (you say yourselves) would be converted. But you hold that God gives such means through love to all, that if they did what they ought to do, and therefore could do,  they would be Converted and so saved; and that this is enough to denominate it a willing and desiring the Conversion of all. If any deny there is such a thing as understanding and willing in God properly and univocally so called, but only something we men cannot conceive of better than under the notion of understanding and willing, and therefore ought so to conceive of it. I should be far from opposing him. And I grant that this spoken of, is, to be conceived by us, as a Willing the Conversation of all: and they that say, this is not to be conceived by us as a Will properly, do contradict express Scripture, which is to be a rule of our Conceptions; and I dare say they do not consider that what ever objections they do, or can possibly, bring against men’s apprehending this as a Volition or Will, the same lie as much against what they do hold (as any man may find by trying a little), that God approves of the Conversion of them that will never turn, and their Conversion is amiable, an their refusal offensive and displeasing to him. And I cannot see that you do thus far differ from your moderate opposers, except sometimes in words: for you distinguish thus when you are to give the meaning of such Scriptures, viz., “who has resisted his Will?” He does whatsoever he will. God will have all salvos fieri with an approving Will, but will not with an efficacious Will omnes salvos facere.

But here only is the difference, you say God does not with a precise Will, intend the Conversion of any man [Certum est nullius Conversionem praeise intiendi]. And you mean by it, he intends not the Conversion of one man more than another, no further then by giving to all men, through love, power and means enough, and so leave it to themselves, which is that you call the Approving Will. Now I and your moderate opposers differ from you in this: we hold that he not only wills so far as you hold it, the conversion of all; but that he precisely intends the Conversion of some; which we use to call a decretive Will, or the Will of Purpose, as we call that you agree with us in, the will of Precept; the object of one being Event, and the other of Duty. So that here is the difference, I do not hold that God does less will the conversion of, or does less for, or is less gracious to all, than you do, I abhor such a thought; but only that God does more will the Conversion; and does more, and is more gracious to some in order to their Salvation than you do. Yea, I could (if it were worthwhile) show, that I hold he does more for, and is more gracious to all that live to years of discretion, in order to their Conversion and Salvation, than is consistent with your Principles.

Joseph Truman, A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675),  113-115.   [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal side reference cited inline; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Fuller:

LETTER II

ON IMPUTATION.

Jan. 8, 1803.

My DEAR Brother, While Mr. B[ooth] refuses to give any explanation of his conduct, there can be no intercourse between me and him. I have no objection to give the most explicit answers in my power to the questions on Imputation and Substitution. I shall therefore address them to you ; and you are at liberty to show them to whom you please.

To impute¹ signifies, in general, to charge, reckon, or place to account, according lo the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has a proper and a figurative meaning.

First: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. This, of course, is its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages:–”Eli thought that she (Hannah) had been drunken.”–”Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers, were counted faithful.”–”Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”–”Let such a one think this, that such as we are in word by letters, when we are absent, such will we be also in deed, when we are present.”–”I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.”²

Reckoning or accounting, here, is no other than forming an estimate of persons and things, according to what they are, or appear to be. To impute sin, in this sense, is to charge guilt upon the guilty in a judicial way, with a view to his being punished for it. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might not be imputed to him. Thus the man is pronounced blessed to whom the Lord imputes not iniquity: and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him might not be laid to their charge.³

In this sense, the term is ordinarily used in common life. To impute treason or any other crime to a man is the same thing as charging him with having committed it, and with a view to his being punished.

Read the rest of this entry »

Truman:

1) 5. Though Christ’s death as a satisfaction, expiation, was the cause of no more to us than this, That, if we repent and believe, we shall be justified and saved, Satisfaction and Propitiation being only for sin: yet, considering this suffering of Christ, as a highly pleasing meritorious act, as a worthy voluntary undertaking for the Honor of God we may say, Christ did merit that God should give this Faith, work this Condition, and keep it in the Elect: for all would, notwithstanding this (and the easy reasonable terms made of their interest in it) through their own willful wickedness, have perished; and he deserved that his blood should not thus far be lost, as water spilt on the ground; but that he should have some fruit of the travel of his soul, in seeing a Seed, actually to honor, venerate, and adore their Redeemer. Though I must say, for the honor of our Redeemer in this great affair, He will have some reward in those that perish in that he did a wonderful kindness for them, it being only through their own chosen refusal, that they had no benefit by it. His Goodness and Grace is not therefore no Grace because men reject it. And to do a good and gracious act, is a reward and satisfaction in it self. And you may as well maintain, That, except God be ignorant, and know not that men will reject his mercy, he cannot be righteous and just in punishing them for it: which is contrary to the knowledge of the whole world; as to say, Except God be ignorant, and know not that they will through their wicked willfulness refuse his Mercy, his Grace and Mercy is no Grace and Mercy. If one of you take a long, tedious, and hazardous journey, to dissuade your friend from something you hear he designs to do, which you know will undo him, though he willfully persist, and will not be persuaded by you, and so is undone by it; yet he is bound to thank you all his life after, and your kindness ceases not to be kindness; and you have this satisfaction and reward, You did a kind act, though he reap no benefit. And suppose you might have prevailed with him, if you had there stayed longer with him, and taken more pains; yet your kindness ceases not to be a kindness because you did not greater kindness; since that which you did, would have been enough, had it not been for his willful obstinacy: And his after-ruing of his own folly, bears a loud testimony to, and tends to the honor of your kindness, Oh that I had hearkened to my Friend! How have I hated instruction, and would not incline mine ear to him that instructed me? They in Hell, if they would and could do as befits them, or as Christ hath deserved from them, would spend time as well in admiring the love of God, and the Redeemer, in this wonderful once offered and urged Kindness, as in ruing that they lost it through their own chosen willful madness. Some go on such grounds in speaking of these things, that (holding to their way) they must necessarily deny that sinners in Hell will ever rue, and befool themselves for their loss of salvation by Christ: But if any will hold so much power in man to receive Christ, as that they will rue it as their madness, and folly, and sin, to reject him, and perish by so doing; I can from that demonstrate (as clearly as I can do any thing) that this I now speak in this digression inevitably follows. Let me but ask you this, Was there no cause for Adam (when fallen from the benefit) to thank God for making that promise, Obey and Live; when as God might have annihilated him, notwithstanding his obedience, had it not been for that promise? And do you never thank God for it, though God knew he would fall? But to return: As Christ’s sufferings did not as an expiation or satisfaction, but as a highly meritorious act, deserve or obtain, that God should give greater things to those that believe, than Adam lost, for the honor of the Redeemer, and of this great work of Redemption: so, he did deserve, that God should cause some to believe; and so from eternity his death, foreseen or undertaken, was a cause, a meritorious cause or motive why God would, that is, decreed, to make some, and so, though more remotely, such particular persons, the Elect, to accept offered mercy and Christ, which they would otherwise (as others) have rejected. Some call this, the Covenant of Redemption; but it is an immanent act, and from eternity, and an elicit act of the will; and therefore is properly a Decree, and belongs to the Will of Purpose, and not to his Legislative will, his Rectoral Will. Methinks you may see hence, how it cometh to pass that we sometimes read of Christ’s dying for the world; and in other places that he laid down his life for his sheep; sometime, tasted death for every man, died for all; sometime again, gave himself for the Church; in one place, a Savior of the body; in another, a Savior of the world. He died for the Elect and World both, so far, that whosoever should believe on him, should not perish; but for the Elect, as they which were much in his eye, being those who certainly should believe, and so be actually saved. Though God and Christ did, as one says, æque intend this satisfaction, a propitiation conditionally applicable to every one; yet he did not ex æquo, as fully intend it for to be actually applied to every man. There is much of truth in that frequently cited passage of Ambrose, Christus passus est pro omnibus, pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est. Like that, a Savior of all men, especially of them that believe.

Read the rest of this entry »

Spring:

DOCTRINE OF ELECTION
ILLUSTRATED AND ESTABLISHED.

Whatever may be our views concerning the doctrine of Election, in whatever perplexity and darkness it may to our minds be enveloped, or however strenuously we may deny it; it is evident that the Apostle Paul believed it, and has stated it with great precision in the words of our text. But my brethren,

this subject is involved in no such perplexity as is sometimes imagined. It is one of those important, plain, practical truths which must be believed and loved. In endeavoring to give as scriptural and intelligible view of this subject as I can, I propose–

To illustrate the doctrine;
To evince the truth of it, and
To vindicate it from objections.

1.  I am to illustrate, or explain the doctrine of Election.

This is the more needful, because it is sometimes identified with things that are not true, and often confounded with things that are true but which are foreign to the subject. Let us observe therefore.

1. That it is no part of the doctrine of Election, that God created a part of mankind merely to damn them. This is often said by those who wish to bring this doctrine into contempt. But it is not true. The ultimate object for which God created all men is the advancement of his own glory. He will punish multitudes of the human race, “with everlasting destruction from his presence;” but he did not bring them into being merely for the sake of punishing them. “God is love.” There is not one malevolent emotion rankling in his bosom. It is one of the foulest stains that was ever cast upon his spotless character, to admit the thought that he brought creatures into being merely for the purpose of making them forever miserable. In itself, he desires the salvation of every living man. We have his oath, “that he has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.” If he destroys the wicked, it is because their perdition is inseparable from the promotion of his own glory, and the highest good of his Kingdom, and not because it is well pleasing to his benevolent mind, or the ultimate object of their creation.

2. It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the Elect. Such a representation is an unjustifiable perversion of the doctrine, and exposes it to unanswerable questions. Though there would have been no atonement but for God’s design to save the elect, and though there could have been no designs of mercy toward the elect without an atonement; yet the doctrine of atonement and election are two distinct things. Much idle breath and illiberal crimination might have been spared, by giving them that place in the Christian system which they hold in the word of God. It has never yet been proved that Christ died exclusively for the elect. If language has any meaning, we are bound to believe that “he tasted death for every man.” One would imagine that if the Apostle had intended to put this question forever at rest, he could not have said more than he has in these memorable words: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Read the rest of this entry »