Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) on the True Meaning of Imputation (Part 1)

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.

Andrew Fuller (1754-1815): On the Nature of True Penal Substitution As Precluding Pecuniary Satisfaction (Part 2)

Fuller:

LETTER III.

ON SUBSTITUTION.

Jan. 12, 1803.

My dear Brother, Whether Christ laid down his life as a substitute for sinners, was never a question with me. All my hope rests upon it; and the sum of my delight in preaching the gospel consists in it. If I know any thing of myself, I can say of Christ crucified for us, as was said of Jerusalem: “If I forget thee, let my right hand forget: if I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!”

I have always considered the denial of this truth as being of the essence of Socinianism Mr. B[ooth] professes, “in his juvenile years, never to have hoped for salvation but through a vicarious sacrifice.” But, if he allow himself to have believed this doctrine when he was an Arminian, it is rather singular that I, who am not an Arminian, as he himself acknowledges, should be charged with denying it. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself, but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But, perhaps, Mr. B. considers “a real and proper imputation of our sins to Christ,” by which he seems to mean their being literally transferred to him, as essential to this doctrine; and, if so, I acknowledge I do not at present believe it.

For Christ to die as a substitute, if I understand the term, is the same thing as his dying for us, or in our stead, or that we should not die.

The only subject on which I ought to have been here interrogated is, “The persons for whom Christ was a substitute; whether the elect only, or mankind in general.” On this question I will be as explicit as I am able.

Were I asked concerning the gospel, when it is introduced into a country. For whom was it sent? I should answer, if I had respect only to the revealed will of God, and so perhaps would Mr. B., It is sent for men, not as elect, or as non-elect, but as sinners. It is written and preached, “that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they might have life through his name.” But, if I had respect to the secret will or appointment of God as to its application, I should say. If the divine conduct in this instance accord with what it has been in other instances, he hath visited that country “to take out of it a people for his name.”

Joseph Truman (1631-1671) on the Removal of Legal Obstacles

Truman:

8. Lastly, “That he might be just, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus; or, that is of faith of Jesus, ton ek piseos Iesus, that is, of the Christian faith.

God set not forth Christ to due merely for this end, that Sinners might be justified without any more ado, only be sinners. Some have said, “Be but sure of this, that you are sinners, and you may believe you are justified.” The immediate effect of this Satisfaction, as satisfaction, and which is an essential consequent of a satisfaction to Justice, is only this, ‘That, that obstacles being removed, he might be left at liberty to act in the pardon of sinners, in what way, and upon what terms he pleased.’ The immediate effect is, ‘That God might be just, though he should pardon sinners;’ that he might pardon salva justitia; not that he must pardon them, come what will of it; or be unjust: not that sinners should ipso facto be pardoned, the price being undertaken or paid, and accepted. The Justice of God, as a flaming sword, obstructed all treating with us upon any terms of reconciliation whatsoever; and this would have been an eternal bar to all influences and effluxes of favor and bounty whatsoever. Now this Justice being satisfied (as I have before made out) and this bar and obstacle removed, Divine Grace and Benignity is left at liberty freely to act how it pleases, and in what way, and upon what terms and conditions it thinks meet.

Joseph Truman, The Great Propitiation; or Christ’s Satisfaction and Man’s Justification by it, Upon His Faith; that is Belief of, and Obedience to the Gospel (London: Printed by A. Maxwell, for R. Clavell, in Cross-key Court in Little Britain), 86-87. [Some spelling modernized, some reformatting, and underlining mine.]

Joseph Truman (1631-1671) on Christ Suffering the Tantundem, not the Idem of the Law’s Punishment

Truman:

Object. Here the Antinomians object: What do you talk of terms and conditions? Is it not injustice to refuse immediately to justify the party; immediately to pardon and acquit the offender for whom the price was paid? And is it not injustice to set them terms and conditions of their benefit by the price paid for their Justification and Salvation, so as without the performance of them they shall have no benefit by the said price?

Answ. It is not injustice. That which misleads Men, and makes them think otherwise is, their looking to God as if he was properly a Creditor; whereas he is Governor, our sins are not properly debts owing to God, but so called Metaphorically because in some things alike, they subject us to danger and trouble as debts do; and they look upon Sinners as Debtors, and Christ was a Surety properly. Get these things well into your minds, and you may see through these mists.

First, Labor to understand this, that the case here is not properly the case of Debtors, but of offending Subjects; and God is not to be looked upon properly as a Creditor, but as a Rector, Governor, Legislator; and the person Christ sustained, and the part he acted in his Sufferings, was not in a strict sense (though figuratively once so called) that of a Surety paying the debt it self, and discharging the Bond by paying the very thing itself in the Obligation; but of a Mediator, expiating guilt, and making reparation to Justice some other way, than by the execution of the Law; yea, endeavoring that the Law, the Legal threat, might not be executed, by making amends for the non-execution of it.

Secondly,  Get this into your minds; that the Sufferings of Christ were not properly an execution of the Law (though they may be figuratively so called) but a Satisfaction to Justice, that the Law-threat might not be executed. The Sufferings of Christ were not the very individual things threatened: for it threatened the offenders should die and be damned. “Cursed is everyone that continues not,” &c. “In the day thou eats, thou shalt die.” So that it was not Christ was threatened, but we; for he was not the offender. His Sufferings therefore were not idem, but tandundem, not proper payment, but a valuable consideration, or you may call it a refusable payment, though it be not properly payment at all; not solution, or payment in the strictest sense; but a Satisfaction in the strictest sense. The essence of which lies in this, that it is justly and refusable. In payment of Debts, the most Laws admit payment by a Substitute, and take it as all one account of law, whosoever pays it, so it be but paid; yea, in many cases though it be by another without Debtors knowledge; it was paid by the same person in Law, though not by the same natural person: and if any Laws do lay any stress on the person of the Debtor, so that it shall be judged no payment except paid in person, such are hard laws, and against natural equity; so that  though payment should justly according to such Municipal Laws be refusable: But it is quite otherwise in all Law and natural Equity in the case of obedience and punishment: For here the Laws do justly and equitably determine the very person that shall obey or suffer; and allow not any delegation, as doing or suffering by another; so that if another suffer, it is not the same in Law; if the penalty be suffered by another natural person, it is suffered by another person in Law: And here, Dum alius solvit, aliud solvitur; therefore such suffering of another contrary to Law may be a satisfaction that the Rector may with honor not execute the Law, but cannot possibly by an execution of the Law, the idem, the same threatened.

Joseph Truman, The Great Propitiation; or Christ’s Satisfaction and Man’s Justification by it, Upon His Faith; that is Belief of, and Obedience to the Gospel (London: Printed by A. Maxwell, for R. Clavell, in Cross-key Court in Little Britain), 87-73.  [Some spelling modernized, some reformatting, and underlining mine.]

Jerome Zanchi (1516–1590) on All Men are Bound to Believe in their Election in Christ.

Zanchi:

The fifth Question

Whether every singular man be bounden to believe that he is one of the elect: and how he may be persuaded hereof. To this we will answer in two propositions, because it consists of two parts.

The first proposition.

Every man is bounden, by God’s commandment, to believe that he is elected, and predestinated to eternal salvation in Christ: but especially he, who is a professor of faith in Christ.

I say every man: even the reprobate, who never shall believe. For to all it is said, “Hear him:” that is, believe the Gospel [Math. 17:5.]. And of the wicked especially it is said, “The Spirit shall reprove the world, of sin, because they believed not in Christ,” [Joh. 16:9.]. And marvel not at this, that all are bound to believe though they cannot believe. For all are bounden to love God with all their hearts, to repent, &c., but all neither shall, nor can do this. Now if all be bounden to believe in Christ, then that they are elected in Christ. For these are inseparable: and who so doubts of the one calls into question the other. But for the proof of this proposition, mark: As man is commanded personally to repent, so by his own faith to be believe the whole Gospel. Both which are comprised in that speech of Christ, “Repent, and believe the Gospel,” [Mark 1:15.]. Now the Gospel does not only teach that Christ is a Savior only of the elect, &c., but that all such as are saved in him were so elected in him before the world was. Wherefore as every man is bounden to believe in his own salvation by Christ, so also his own election in Christ: and therefore because these benefits belong only to the elect, for whom they were prepared. Now that Christ belongs only to the elect it is plain. “This is my blood which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins,” [Luk. 22:20]. “Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many,” [Hebr. 9:25.]. “I pray for them,” that is, for the elect: “I pray not for the world,” that is, the reprobate. Will he spill his blood for them, for whom he will not spend his breath? nay the sacrifice of his body was only for them, for whom was the sacrifice of his lips. But excellently says the Apostle, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s chosen? it is God that justifies,” [Rom. 8:33.].  Whom? Even those chosen ones of God. So then whereas we read that Christ died for all, we must by all understand, all of the elect: for there is a universality of them: and that he died for the world, we must understand such only as are saved. For there is mundus salvandorum, a world of the saved: and mundus damnandorum, a world of the damned. Again only the elect have their sins forgiven: and so consequently saved by Christ: whom he has predestined (says Paul), them (alone) he has called (effectually), and whom he has called, them (alone) has he justified [Rom. 8:30.]. And blessed be God, says the same Apostle, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ: even as he has elected us, &c [Eph. 1:3.]. But why were we blessed? because says he, God has elected us alone to such blessings. Besides, eternal life belongs only to them. For whom he “has predestined, them also” (alone) “has he glorified.”  They shall sit at Christ’s right hand for whom it is prepared [Rom. 8:31.].  Inherit the kingdom prepared for you [Math. 20:25.], shall Christ say, at the last day.  Wherefore every man is bounden to believe this even for himself. And are we not moreover commanded to believe that god in love through his Son has given unto us eternal life? “So God loved the world,” &c., Joh. 3:16. “As thou hast loved me, so hast thou loved them,” says Christ, Joh. 17, But, “me hast though loved before the foundation of the world,” v. 24. “He loved us first,” says John, that is, from eternity, and that in Christ [1 Joh. 4:16.]. Therefore says Paul, it was said, “according to the purpose of God, Jacob have I loved,” [Rom. 9:13.]. We are besides in the gospel commanded to believe, and call upon God as our Father: can we do this without assurance of our election? “Fear not little flock,” says Christ, “it is your Father’s pleasure to give you the kingdom,” [Luk. 12:32.]. If you would not fear you must believe your election. For what is it else to have a kingdom given us, but to be elected unto salvation? if you do fear, you obey not the commandment of Christ. Why then say you, “I can believe that my sins are indeed pardoned in Christ: but that I am elected personally I cannot believe? is it because it is said, “the Lord knows who are is, and no man knows the mind of God,” &c. [2 Tim. 2:19.]. Why neither knows you whether your proper sins are forgiven, and whether Christ died particularly for you, by that kind of knowledge, of certainty of science [notitia & certitudine scientiae.] But I know say you this other, that is, that Christ died for me, by the knowledge, and certainty of faith. Why and this only is that knowledge and certainty of election which we do require in this place. But where says you does the Scripture set this down, that you particularly shall be saved. We read that Christ died for us, that the promises of salvation are universal. And because these promises exclude none, therefore are we to believe them. And the like may be said of election: that as out of the universal promises of redemption, you assume a particular: so must you out of the universal of elections: and the rather, because nowhere the Scripture does exclude you. If you object that the promises of election are not universal, because it is said, “Many are called but fire are chosen.” I answer, that indefinite propositions must be thought universal. And if this were a good reason, then the propositions of redemption should not be universal, because it is said that he “died for many.”  True then it is, that all are bounded to believe their particular election, without which assurance, there can be no assurance of faith in Christ. “For faith is only proper to the elect,” [Tit. 1:1.]. And, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” [Act. 13:48.]  Another reason is this. You must either be persuaded of your election, or else not be persuaded at all, or at the least doubt. Says you that you must be persuaded? Why it is the thing that we do teach. That not at all: or that you must doubt? Why are we commanded the contrary in the Word. And God will have man to believe him without doubting. Nay this is a most pernicious conceit, not to be persuaded of your election. For as the persuasion of God’s good favor, and election, makes man to love, trust in, and give thanks to God: yea to contemn the world, and suffer all adversities: so to doubt of God’s mercy causes quite the contrary. You will not love, you dare not trust, you cannot give thanks unto him, who has not as you fear been so good to you, as to many thousands in the world. Is this then so pernicious to your soul? O I beseech you, flee it: is the contrary so sovereign for your salvation? O I pray you embrace it.

[Girolamo Zanchi] Live Everlasting: Or The True Knowledge of One Iehova, Three Elohim and Jesus Immanuel: Collected Out of the Best Modern Divines, and compiled into one volume by Robert Hill, ([Cambridge:] Printed by Iohn Legat, printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And are to be sold [in London] at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Church-yard by Simon Waterson), 538-540. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; side-headers included; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: Worldcat and Wing identify this as as: “Largely a translation and abridgement of Zanchi, Girolamo. De natura Dei. Zanchi is identified in the side-note on page 655—STC…” I have inserted Zanchi’s name in the title as a reflection that because: 1) as noted, this is largely a translation of Zanchi’s work; 2) because it quite probably does reflect Zanchi’s theology; 3) because Wing attributes the authorship to Zanchi, and Hill as the translator; and 4) from the opening “Epistle Dedicatory” (3^rd page) Hill identifies a work by Zanchi as the principal text upon which this work is based. Lastly, I actually suspect this is a much more reliable translation than Toplady's briefer translation from the same work. 5) For more on Zanchi, with an attempt to explicate the complexity of his views on the nature and extent of the atonement, see: G.M., Thomas,  The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (UK: Paternoster: 1997), 87-99.]