Augustine (354-430):
[1] “Among all who are truly pious, it is at all events agreed that no one without true piety—that is, true worship of the true God—can have true virtue; and that it is not true virtue which is the slave of human praise … But such men, however great virtues they may possess in this life, attribute it solely to the grace of God that He has bestowed it on them—willing, believing, seeking. And, at the same time, they understand how far they are short of that perfection of righteousness which exists in the society of those holy angels for which they are striving to fit themselves” (The City of God v:19, trans. Marcus Dods, in Philip Schaff [ed.], A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, repr. 1983], p. 102).
[2] “For though the soul may seem to rule the body admirably, and the reason the vices, if the soul and reason do not themselves obey God, as God has commanded them to serve Him, they have no proper authority over the body and the vices. For what kind of mistress of the body and the vices can that mind be which is ignorant of the true God, and which, instead of being subject to His authority, is prostituted to the corrupting influences of the most vicious demons? It is for this reason that the virtues which it seems to itself to possess, and by which it restrains the body and the vices that it may obtain and keep what it desires, are rather vices than virtues so long as there is no reference to God in the matter. For although some suppose that virtues which have a reference only to themselves, and are desired only on their own account, are yet true and genuine virtues, the fact is that even then they are inflated with pride, and are therefore to be reckoned vices rather than virtues. For as that which gives life to the flesh is not derived from flesh, but is above it, so that which gives blessed life to man is not derived from man, but is something above him; and what I say of man is true of every celestial power and virtue whatsoever” (The City of God xix:25, trans. Marcus Dods, in Philip Schaff [ed.], A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, repr. 1983], pp. 418-419).
[3] “It is unthinkable that God should love someone temporally, as though with a new love that was not in him before, seeing that with him things past do not pass, and things future have already happened. He loved his saints before the foundation of the world as he predestined them; but when they are converted and find him, then they are said to begin to be loved by him, in order to state the thing in a way that can be grasped by human feeling. So too when he is said to be angry with the wicked and pleased with the good, they change, not he; just as light is harsh to weak eyes and pleasant to strong; but it is the eyes, not the light, that change” (De Trinitate, 5.17).
[4] “The love, therefore, wherewith God loveth, is incomprehensible and immutable. For it was not from the time that we were reconciled unto Him by the blood of His Son that He began to love us; but He did so before the foundation of the world, that we also might be His sons along with His Only-begotten, before as yet we had any existence of our own. Let not the fact, then, of our having been reconciled unto God through the death of His Son be so listened to or so understood, as if the Son reconciled us to Him in this respect, that He now began to love those whom He formerly hated, in the same way as enemy is reconciled to enemy, so that thereafter they become friends, and mutual love takes the place of their mutual hatred; but we were reconciled unto Him who already loved us, but with whom we were at enmity because of our sin. Whether I say the truth on this, let the apostle testify, when he says: ‘God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ [Romans 5:8]” (Homily on John 17:21-23).
Jan Hus (c. 1369-1415): “it is an evident mark of the severity of punishment that God puts off punishment till after death and does not punish them in this life in any other way but permits them to wander about in mundane prosperity as reprobates who are not reproved” (The Church, trans. David S. Schaff [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915], p. 278).
Martin Luther (1483-1546): “Therefore, since love of oneself remains, it is quite impossible for a human being to love, speak, or do justice, even though he may simulate all these things. It follows that the virtues of all philosophers, indeed of all human beings, whether jurists or theologians, are virtues in appearance, but really vices” (Lectures on Hebrews, in J. Pelikan [ed.], Luther’s Works [St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1968], 29:119).
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560): “And our sophists are not yet ashamed to teach righteousness of works, satisfactions, and philosophical virtues. Let us grant that there was some kind of constancy in Socrates, chastity in Xenocrates, temperance in Zeno. Still, because they were in impure minds—indeed, because these shadows of virtues arose by love of oneself from selfishness, they ought not to be counted but as vices” (Loci Communes, trans. by W. Pauck in Melanchthon and Bucer [London: SCM, 1969], pp. 33-34).
Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590): “Temporal good things are indeed indiscriminately bestowed in a greater or less degree on all, whether elect or reprobate, but they are given in a covenant way and as blessings to the elect only” (Absolute Predestination [London: Silver Trumpet Publications, 1989], p. 44).
Robert Rollock (c.1555-1599): “What meaneth that joy that the faithful find in their hearts, accompanying the benefits that cometh from Him, but that the Lord giveth His benefits cheerfully? for if the LORD gave thee them not cheerfully, but in anger and wrath, and threw them to thee as to a reprobate, thou wouldest never have joy in the receiving of them. There is not such a thing, as a reprobate can have joy in the giver, or ever have his mouth open with true thanksgiving to the Lord to say once, I thank thee: Why? Because the Lord giveth him not His benefits in love, but in anger” (Certain sermons, upon several texts of Scripture, eds. Henry Charteris and William Arthur [Edinburgh: Andro Hart, 1616], p. 270).
Thirty-Nine Articles (1562, 1571): “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin” (Article 13).
Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641): “Thesis XX. However, this does not alter the fact that the doctors of our Churches justly assert that nothing can flow forth from an unregenerate human being but sin and damnable things, and that in spiritual matters, like in repentance and justification, etc., not any free choice is left at all (except an idle name) … Thesis XXIII. Since good works follow justification and presuppose an infused faith and love, it is clear how the glorious deeds (as they are commonly entitled) of Scipio and other heathens must be judged. For they lack the pure source (fonte), namely faith (fide), and their goal (fine), namely the honor of God. How can anyone dignify these, I ask, to call them good?” (quoted in Willem J. Van Asselt, Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post Reformation Thought [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010], p. 132).
Richard Sibbes (1577-1635): “God oftentimes giveth a great deal of way to his greatest enemies. God useth a stratagem of retiring; he seems to retire and give liberty to his enemies, but it is to triumph and trample upon them with greater shame. He will tread them to dust afterward” (The Marriage Feast, Sermon 4 in Works, vol. 2).
Thomas Adams (1583–1653): “Christians shall have enough; they shall never be in such a needy state, but whatever is necessary for them in all the earth they shall have it. ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof;’ and he hath said, that those that seek him shall not want any thing that is good, Psa. xxxiv. 10. If the whole world can supply them out of all its store they shall be supplied. What they have, they have a better and further title to, than any others in the world. Though the dominion be not founded in grace, yet, by grace, it is established. What they have descends upon them not barely by providence, but by promise, Heb. i. 2. Christ is heir of all things, and they are fellow heirs with Christ. A little coming from the promise hath more in it than the greatest abundance that is only handed down by common providence; that which comes in from the promise, comes in with a blessing; if thou hast but a handful, thou hast a blessing in thy hand; if thou hast but a corner, thou hast a blessing in thy corner. A little from love is a great blessing. Thou hast God in every morsel thou eatest, and in every drop that thou drinkest; a drop from heaven will turn the bran into the finest flour, and thy water into wine” (Heaven Opened [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979], pp. 52-53).
David Dickson (1583-1663):
[1] “However he giveth the wicked and violent persecutor to have a seeming prosperity, while the godly are in trouble, yet that is no act of love to them: for the wicked, and him that loveth violence, his soul hateth … All the seeming advantages which the wicked have in their own prosperity, are but means of hardening them in their ill course, and holding them fast in the bonds of their own iniquities, till God execute judgment on them: upon the wicked he shall rain snares … Whatsoever be the condition of the wicked for a time, yet at length sudden, terrible, irresistible, and remediless destruction they shall not escape: fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest is the portion of their cup” (Commentary on the Psalms [Edinburgh: Banner, 1959], vol. 1, p. 51).
[2] “This is the second part of the psalm [Ps. 69]; wherein the prophet, as a type of Christ, by way of imprecation against his malicious enemies, prophesieth of the vengeance of God against all obstinate adversaries, and malicious persecutors of him, whether in his own person or in his members; and denounceth ten plagues, or effects of God’s wrath, to come upon them for their wickedness. The first whereof is this, God shall curse all the comforts of this life unto the obstinate adversaries of Christ, and of his followers: all these comforts shall serve to harden their hearts to sin, and lengthen their life therein, till they fill up the measure of their iniquities: let their table become a snare before them. The second plague is, all the means appointed for men’s conversion and salvation shall turn for the aggravating of their sin and just damnation: and as all things work together for the good of those that love God, so shall all things work for the woe and torment of God’s enemies: that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. The third plague is, they shall not perceive the true intent of God’s work, nor consider the day of their visitation: let their eyes be darkened, that they see not. The fourth plague is, there shall be no peace to the wicked, but as even in laughter their heart shall be sorrowful; so also their conscience for fear shall never dare to abide the light of the Lord’s word, to be examined by it; and even in their greatest prosperity they shall have perpetual secret fear, smother it as they will: make their loins continually to shake. The fifth plague is, the threatened wrath of God shall be fully executed against them, and never depart from them when it is once poured out: pour out indignation on them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. The sixth plague is, the curse of God shall be on their houses and posterity, and the place they have dwelt in shall be abhorred: let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents” (A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Banner, 1959], vol. 1, pp. 419-420).
[3] “Whence [i.e., from Ps. 73:4-10] learn, to the wicked – God for His own holy ends useth to give health of body, long life, little sickness, and a quiet death … yet God doth not love them, nor approve any whit more of them for this” (A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Banner, 1959], vol. 1, p. 446).
[4] “The last refuge of brangled faith, is God himself manifesting his will in his word and ordinances; no settling or satisfaction of doubts in divinity but by the Scriptures: it was too painful for me until I went unto the sanctuary of God [Ps. 73:16-17]; that is, till I consulted the Scriptures, and considered what God had revealed in his church by his ordinances: this satisfied and settled him. The Lord hath revealed in Scripture what shall be the end and close of men’s course, who study not to walk according to his direction, how prosperous soever they may seem to be; and because the felicity of men is not to be known by God’s outward dispensation of worldly comforts or crosses, therefore man’s end must determine the difference: then understood I their end” (A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Banner, 1959], vol. 1, pp. 451-452).
[5] “The wicked may for a time spring up, flourish in worldly prosperity, as here is presupposed; but this springing up and flourishing is of short continuance, and subject to sudden alteration: they spring up, and flourish as the grass. The end of the temporal prosperity of the ungodly, is perdition: they shall be destroyed for ever, yea, their very prosperity (by its fomenting their sinful lusts, and hardening their hearts against God’s word,) becometh a means to draw on their everlasting perdition, and that in God’s righteous judgment against those who have preferred earth to heaven, their bodily lusts unto the salvation of their souls and bodies: for, when the wicked spring up as grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed for ever [Ps. 92:7]” (A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Banner, 1959], vol. 2, p. 369).
Thomas Vicars (1589-1638):
[1] “If an unregenerate man can do any good thing before his conversion, then all his doings are not sin, but he may do something that is pleasing to God. But the unregenerate can do nothing to please God, ‘for without faith it is impossible to please Him’ (Heb. 11:6), and again all his works are sinful, ‘for whatsoever is not of faith is sin’ (Rom. 14:23). They may appear glorious in outward show, but bring them to the touch-stone of God’s Word and they will prove to be nothing but splendid sins, as Augustine calls them” (Quoted in The Standard Bearer, vol. 14, no. 15 [May 1, 1938], p. 360).
[2] “We Protestants teach and affirm that there is in the unregenerate no natural power, no strength of free-will, nor any faculty to do ought that is good, but is only led by his corrupt nature to that which is evil till God by His grace works a change by an effectual and unresistable call” (Quoted in The Standard Bearer, vol. 14, no. 18 [June 15, 1938], p. 426).
William Greenhill (1591–1671): “Choice accomplishments, with outward glory and greatness, are no arguments of God’s grace, or God’s special favour towards men. Heathens, and the worst of men, have had these; the prince of Tyrus, who blasphemously said he was a god, he sealed up the sum; he was a complete prince, he had choice endowments, he was full of wisdom, perfect in beauty, he had outward glory and greatness as much as any, he was seated in a paradise, he glistered with pearls and precious stones, he had as choice music as was to be had; yet notwithstanding all these, he was a wretched man, under the curse of God, and was to die the death of the uncircumcised. What vanity is it, therefore, to pride ourselves in any human excellences, to set our hearts upon, or confide in, any outward glory or greatness!” (An Exposition of Ezekiel [Edinburgh: Banner, 1994], pp. 618-619).
Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661): “God save me from a draught of water without Christ! Peace and deliverance from the sword, without Christ and the gospel, are linked and changed to the curse of God … You may have the earth, peace, and the creature, and the devil to salt them to you with the curse of God. Judas had the bag at his girdle, but withal, the devil in his heart … All mercy—that is, graced mercy, is to be sought in Jesus Christ; every mercy is mercy, because it is in Christ” (The Trial and Triumph of Faith [Edinburgh: Banner, 2001], p. 105).
Thomas Brooks (1608–1680): “No man knows the heart of God stands toward him by His hand. His hand of mercy may be toward a man when His heart may be against that man, as you see in the case of Saul and others. And the hand of God may be set against a man when the heart of God is clearly set upon him, as you may see in Job and Ephraim. No man knows either love or hatred by outward mercy or misery; for all things come alike to all, to the righteous and the unrighteous, to the good and to the bad, to the clean and to the unclean. The sun of prosperity shines as well upon brambles of the wilderness, as fruit-trees of the orchard; the snow and hail of adversity light upon the best garden, as well as upon the stinking dunghill or the wild waste. Ahab’s and Josiah’s ends concur in the very circumstances. Saul and Jonathan, though different in their natures, deserts, and deportments, yet in their deaths were not divided. Health, wealth, honours, crosses, sicknesses, losses, are cast upon good men and bad men promiscuously. ‘The whole Turkish empire,’ says Luther, ‘is nothing else but a crust cast by Heaven’s great Housekeeper to His dogs.’ Moses dies in the wilderness as well as those that murmured. Nabal is rich as well as Abraham; Ahithophel wise as well as Solomon, and Doeg is honoured as well as Saul, as well as Joseph and Pharaoh” (quoted in I. D. E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury [Edinburgh: Banner, 1977], p. 227).
William Jenkyn (1613–1685):
[1] “All the care of God toward the wicked is but as the provision that a jailer bestows upon his prisoner, to keep him alive against the day of execution; so that a sinner’s preservation is not only common, but cursed” (An Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude [Beaver Falls, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, n.d.], p. 57).
[2] “Be not taken with what thou has in gift, but what thou hast in love. In receiving every mercy imitate Isaac’s jealousy, and say, Art thou that very mercy, that mercy indeed which comes in the blood of Christ? Art thou sent from a Father, or a Judge? What do I receiving, if I shall never be received? It is infinitely better that God should correct thee so as to awaken thee, than by prospering to let thee sleep in sin till it be too late to arise. It was better for the prodigal to be famished home that furnished out” (An Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude [Beaver Falls, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, n.d.], p. 81).
William Gurnall (1616-1679):
[1] “Will God give more to him on whom all is lost that he hath formerly bestowed? Indeed he doth do good to the evil and unthankful, but it is not a gracious return of their prayers, but an act of common providence, of which they will have little comfort when he brings the bounty of his providence in judgement against them, to aggravate their sins and increase their torment” (The Christian in Complete Armour [London: Blackie and Son, 1865], p. 1304).
[2] “God forgives, then He gives; till He be merciful to pardon our sins through Christ, He cannot bless or look kindly on us sinners. All our enjoyments are but blessings in bullion, till Gospel grace and pardoning mercy stamp and make them current” (quoted in I. D. E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury [Edinburgh: Banner, 1977]).
John Owen (1616-1683):
[1] “All mercy is special and purposive, and is the true source of the remission of sins–a thing about which no word occurs in the whole Bible and any passage dealing with those who do not have the benefits of the Word of God. Salvation is only in Christ. Even our opponents admit that Christ is not revealed in God’s works of providence! Considering that true mercy–published and revealed from the bosom of the Father by Christ–is the fount of all saving faith and repentance, we can distinguish this from all loose and mistaken concepts of ‘mercy’ displayed by the general work of God in providence; and, having done so, we gladly let the point drop, since we here have nothing to prove but the one great truth of mercy only in and through Christ” (Biblical Theology [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994], p. 74).
[2] “Perhaps another objection might be advanced in this fashion, ‘The very fact that God bestows good things upon sinners suggests His willingness to be appeased and, in fact, is an advertisement of His willingness.’ But, just what ‘good things’ are we talking about? We can only understand these as being all of one class, that is, necessities of life. Are these temporal and not spiritual goodnesses? Then we can quickly discount this argument. We know that time and again God allows worldly good things to pass to the very people that He hates, whom He has a fixed determination to punish, and whom He has declared to be reserved for eternal punishment and destruction (Psalm 73:4-12, 18-20). Note carefully—things which are good in themselves, but bestowed in such a way as to make it impossible to determine whether they are given in love or hatred, cannot reveal any facet of God’s character (Ecclesiastes 9:1-2). God gives good temporal things to the wicked. Why conclude that He is attempting to beguile them into realizing that He can be appeased? Far rather, as sovereign, He is fattening them for the coming day of slaughter!” (Biblical Theology [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994], p. 78).
Thomas Manton (1620–1677): “Oh! it is a sad thing not to have a name in Christ’s prayer. There is a great number left out; and if you will know who they are, they are called ‘the world.’ It presseth us to come out of that state where we are in this danger. Men that are now worldly may be in the roll of God’s election, but it is no comfort to them. ‘I pray not for the world’ [John 17:9]; so it is expressed; and as long as thou art worldly, thou canst take no comfort in Christ’s intercession. Certainly this should be an effectual consideration with the people of God, to cause them ‘to keep themselves unspotted from the world,’ James 1:24. These have the benefit of Christ’s prayers. A christian should never be quiet till he be clearly out of that number which is excepted. Christ hath a constant enmity and antipathy against mammon; there must be a separation from the world, and a contempt of earthly things, before we can have an interest in him. The world maketh a sport of these things; but what can be more terrible than to be shut out of Christ’s prayers? He curseth those for whom he doth not pray; and that is the reason why men that are besotted with the world do always wax worse and worse” (An Exposition of John Seventeen [London: Banner, 1959] p. 146; italics added).
Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686):
[1] “It is ill with the wicked in this life. A wicked man that hears me will hardly think so, when he has the affluence and confluence of outward comforts. When he eats the fat, and drinks the sweet, he will hardly believe the minister who tells him that it shall be ill with him. But it is so. For is it not ill with that man that has a curse, yea, the curse of God hanging over him? Can that man thrive that lives under the curse of God? Floods of wrath hang over the head of a wicked man; he is heir to all the plagues written in the book of God. All God’s curses are the sinner’s portion, and if he dies in his sin, he is sure to have his portion paid him. Woe unto the wicked! Every bit of bread he has carries with it a curse; it is like poisoned bread given to a god. Every drop of wine he drinks, he swallows down a curse with it. Woe unto the wicked! There is a curse in his cup, and a curse upon his table. God says woe unto him. We read that Belshazzar ‘drank wine … and commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem … and the king and his princes, his wives and concubines drank in them’ (Dan. 5:2-3). Belshazzar was very jovial; in the midst of his cups he was merry. But woe unto the wicked! ‘In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him.’ Woe was written on the wall. Let a sinner live till he come to an hundred years of age, yet he is cursed. his grey hairs have a curse on them (Isa. 65:20)” (Sermons of the Great Ejection [London: Banner, 1961], pp. 126-127).
[2] “A wicked man has a civil title to the creature, but no more; he has it not form the hand of a father; he is like one that takes up cloth at the draper’s, and it is not paid for; but a believer has a good title to every foot of land he has, for his Father has settled it upon him … Esau had the venison, but Jacob got the blessing. While the wicked have their meat sauced with God’s wrath, believers have their comforts seasoned with a blessing. Ps. lxxiii 30, 31:30, 31” (The Lord’s Prayer [Edinburgh: Banner, 1999], pp. 13, 14).
[3] “Whatever we have, if it do not come in the way of prayer, it does not come in the way of love; it is given, as Israel’s quails, in anger” (The Lord’s Prayer [Edinburgh: Banner, 1999], p. 196).
[4] “They who can say, ‘our Father,’ can say ‘our bread.’ Wicked men that have a legal right to what they possess, but not a covenant-right; they have it by providence, not by promise; with God’s leave, not with his love” (The Lord’s Prayer [Edinburgh: Banner, 1999], p. 203).
[5] “Earthly things are no signs of God’s love: he may give the venison, but not the blessing; but when he seals up forgiveness, he gives his love and heaven with it” (The Lord’s Prayer [Edinburgh: Banner, 1999], p. 224).
[6] “If God lets men prosper a while in their sin, his vial of wrath is all this while filling; his sword is all this time whetting: and though God may forbear men a while, yet long forbearance is no forgiveness. The longer God is in taking his blow, the heavier it will be at last. As long as there is eternity, God has time enough to reckon with his enemies. Justice may be as a lion asleep, but at last the lion will awake, and roar upon the sinner. Do not Nero, and Julian [the Apostate], and Cain, now meet with God’s justice?” (A Body of Divinity [London: Banner, 1970], p. 90).
Francis Turretin (1623-1687):
[1] “… there is granted a manifold moderation in the exercise of [divine] justice either in time (by delay) or in persons (by transfer) or in degree (by mitigation) … Justice demands necessarily that all sin should be punished, but does not equally demand that it should be punished in the very person sinning or at such a time and in such a degree … [God’s justice] is an essential property requiring in its exercise and egress the intervention of [His] free will, to determine the mode, the time, the degree and the persons upon whom it wills to inflict punishment … This is true of [divine] justice which indeed necessarily demands that every sin should be punished, but not that every sinner should be punished immediately (or in this or that degree)” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 236, 240; italics added).
[2] “The certainty of God’s grace cannot be gathered from the external state (whether prosperous or adverse–in which sense the wise man says, ‘No man knoweth either love or hatred’ [Ecc. 9:1], i.e., cannot know from external events which happen equally to the good and bad whether he is in the favor or under the displeasure of God) … the wicked can and ought to know that they deserve hatred while they continue in their sins: and believers can know from faith and piety that they are the sons of God and consequently in his favor and love” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, p. 337).
[3] “… if Christ had a special regard for some (as given to Him of the Father) their election must necessarily be conceived antecedently to the decree of the mission of Christ. Since the primary scope of His mission was altogether the salvation of them, they for whom He came must be supposed to have been elected (before His mission was considered). For Christ was not sent that they might be chosen, but (on the contrary) He came that He might present Himself for them. Otherwise the elect ought to be for the world because Christ would be sent as Redeemer for them, not the world for the elect. Nevertheless, all the benefits which all other men obtain ought to be ascribed to the elect (for whose sake the heavens and earth continue, and which will perish at once when their number shall be made up; for whose sake equally Christ appeared and the gospel is preached). Hence it is evident that the mission of Christ could not be decreed without those at the same time being designated for whom alone He would come and for whose sake He was elected and foreordained as Mediator and head from eternity” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, p. 426).
[4] “… the conservation of the world depends upon the conservation of the church, since for no other reason does he [i.e., God] sustain the world than to collect from it the number of the elect, of whom the body of the church is composed. Thus the church could not wholly perish without the world itself (which is preserved on account of her) perishing” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, pp. 42-43).
Matthew Poole (1624-1679):
[1] “And although God give children and other outward comforts to ungodly men in the way of common providence, yet he gives them only to his people as favours, and in the way of promise and covenant” (Comm. on Ps. 127:3).
[2] “No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them; no man can judge by their present and outward conditions or dispensations of God’s providence whether God loves or hates them, for whom he loves he chastens, and permitteth those who he hates to prosper in the world. And this translation and interpretation agreeth well with the following verse” (Comm. on Ecc. 9:2).
John Flavel (1628-1691): “Forgiveness is not only a mercy, a spiritual mercy, but one of the greatest mercies a soul can receive from God, without which, whatever else we have from God, is no mercy to us” (The Works of John Flavel [Edinburgh: Banner, 1968], vol. 1, p. 369).
Ezekiel Hopkins (1633-1690): “Providence is an act of God, whereby, according to His eternal and most wise counsel, He preserves and governs all things, and directs them all to their ends, but chiefly to His own glory. It is necessary for our hearts to be well established in this truth, that we may acknowledge God with praise for the good that comes to pass, and embrace the bad with patience. Some doubt God’s providence when it can be seen that the wicked flourish, and the godly are often exposed to poverty, contempt, and reproach. Wicked Dives feasted every day, while Lazarus starved at this glutton’s gate entertaining the dogs with licking his sores. Did God’s particular care furnish the glutton’s table, and only give scraps to His child? This question has been a problem of all ages. Actually this is an affirmation, not a contradiction, of God’s providence. The world has always hated God’s children, but God sustains them amidst the rage and hatred of their enemies. Though continually oppressed, they are never rooted out of the world. We see the power and care of Almighty God to keep a bush unconsumed in the midst of fire. When He brings calamity on His own children it is for their trial. What wicked men possess of this world is all that they can ever hope for. The inequality of providence in this life will be cleared up at the Day of Judgment. Blessings of this life may not be mercies, but snares. O never call Dives’ delicious fare ‘good things’, if it ends in torment! Was it good for him to be wrapped in purple who is now wrapped in flames? Lazarus’ sores are not evil if he now lies in Abraham’s bosom. In that day, all will be made plain. God may bless one by affliction, and curse another by prosperity. Nothing is truly good but promotes eternal happiness” (Works, III:371-372).
Thomas Vincent (1634-1678): “Grace does not grow in the garden of nature, there being no seed of it to be found therein. It is neither a natural power, such as that of the understanding, will, conscience, memory, or affections, which are to be found in all the children of Adam by nature; neither is it connatural, such as original righteousness was in Adam before his fall; neither is it a habit acquired by the multiplicity of acts, whereof there are some dispositions in nature, such as the habits of arts and sciences, and moral virtues. Grace is a pure stream which cannot spring forth from the polluted fountain of nature. Job. 14:4: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” You never saw figs grow upon thorns or grapes upon thistles. The souls of all the fallen children of men, being wholly corrupt and depraved with original sin, it is impossible that this good should be effected by the power of nature. Some, by the strength of natural power, cultivated by education and learning, may attain much knowledge in the mysteries of nature, and by studying the Scriptures they may attain a notional knowledge of divine mysteries; but the excellency of these mysteries is hidden from them. They still remain without the spiritual discerning of the things of the Spirit without the teachings of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). Natural men may, through observance and diligence, attain a great accomplishment as to many moral virtues, and hereby shine with some kind of luster in darker parts of the world; but by no natural power or industry can they attain unto any truly sanctifying and saving grace. The stream cannot be raised up to a greater height than the spring lies from whence it arises. And that which is natural cannot by any natural power be elevated unto that which is supernatural” (The Good Work Begun in the Day of Grace Performed Until the Day of Christ, ed. Don Kistler [1672; Morgan PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998], pp. 14-15).
William Wishart (1660–1729): “True it is that wicked men do usually prosper in their outward worldly condition: Yet there is what may abundantly vindicate and clear the justice of God in this matter. For, 1. There are other judgments and punishments besides outward afflictions. Even the very prosperity of wicked men is their judgment: It destroys them [Prov. 1:32; Improbo bene esse non potest – Cicero, Parad. 2]. It is but a seeming prosperity, and not such truly. It is a curse to them: They are thereby prepared for the day of slaughter [Jer. 12:3]. All their enjoyments are salted with a curse: Cursed is their basket and their store [Deut. 28:17]: Their very blessings are curses [Mal. 2:2]. Their table proves a snare to them [Ps. 69:22], God gives them riches to their hurt [Ecc. 5:13]; to be fuel for their pride, prodigality, luxury, intemperance, and other evils; so that they are thereby blinded, and hardened, and strengthened in their wickedness: and these are the sorest judgments) [James 5:5]. 2. The execution of visible judgments is only suspended for a time. As some are God’s elect, and therefore not to be cut off in their unregenerate state: So he endures also with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction [Rom. 9:22]. They are like malefactors condemned to death, only reprieved for a time. And God suspends the execution for just and wife reasons: Either because he hath some belonging to the election of grace to bring out of their loins; or, because he hath service for them in the way of his providence about his church and people; or because his people are sheltered under their wings. 3. Judgment, though delayed, will at last be executed. Tho’ it be not suddenly executed, yet it is surely executed: As a chimney long foul will be fired at length. God will at length shew himself a just and righteous God. And the longer judgment be delayed, it will be the more severe when executed. Justice may, like a lion, seem to be asleep; but at last it will awake, and roar on the sinner. Hence the Lord threatens, I have long time holden my peace, I have been still and refrained myself, now will I cry like a travailling woman, I will destroy and and devour at once [Isa. 42:14]. God hath an eternity wherein to punish impenitent sinners. Hence Abraham is brought in speaking to the rich glutton, Son, remember that thou in thy life-time received thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: But now he is conforted, and thou art tormented [Luke 16:25]. 4. The greater their outward prosperity be, their judgment will be the more terrible for their manifold abuse of it. They are lifted up on high, that their fall may be the greater. Their ingratitude for, and manifold abuse of his mercies, will furnish a severe indictment against them. While wicked sinners abuse God’s patience toward them, they treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God [Rom. 2:5]” (Theologia, or Discourses on God, delivered in 120 Sermons, Volume 1 [1787], Sermon 42; italics original).
Thomas Halyburton (1674-1712): “If it be not in those few and rare instances of the early efficacy of sanctifying grace, all that which is looked on as good is really not more but the fruit of education, custom, occasional restraints, freedom from temptation, or perhaps a natural temper influenced by some of those, and by the constitution of the body, to somewhat of opposition to those grosser actings of sin which make the most noise in the world. In a word, whatever there is of this, except in the rare instances before-mentioned, is but sin under a disguise” (Faith and Experience [Aberdeen: James Begg Society, 2005], p. 21).
John Gill (1697-1771): “virtue in general here [is] not mere moral [virtue], but Christian virtues, which are the fruits of the Spirit of God, and of his grace; and differ from the other, in that they spring from the grace of God, are done in faith, by the assistance of the Spirit of Christ, and by strength received from him, and in love to him, and with a view to the glory of God; whereas moral virtues, as exercised by a mere moral man, spring from nature, and are performed by the mere strength of it, and are destitute of faith, and so but ‘splendida peccata,’ splendid sins, and proceed from self-love, from sinister ends, and with selfish views” (Comm. on II Pet. 1:5).
James Fisher (1697–1775):
Q.16. Why do we say, Give us our daily bread? – why do we call it OURS?
A. Because whatever measure or proportion of outward blessings God in his providence thinks fit we should receive is properly OURS, whether it be more or less, 1 Tim. vi. 8, – “Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content.”
Q.17. Since both the godly and the wicked have their daily provision from God, what difference is there as to the manner in which the one and the other hold their outward comforts?
A. There is a wide difference as to the manner in which the godly and the wicked hold their outward comforts, whether we consider their respective right and title, their present employment, or their future expectation.
Q.18. What is the difference as to their respective right and title?
A. The wicked have only a civil and common right, but the godly have besides this a spiritual and covenant right also, 1 Tim. iv. 8.
Q.19. What is the difference as to their present enjoyment?
A. The godly have God’s blessing on what they presently enjoy, but the wicked his curse. In this respect “a little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked,” Psal. xxxvii. 16.
Q.20. What is the difference as to their future expectation?
A. The godly have the good things of this world as pledges of the far better things of another; but the wicked have them as their whole pay, for they “have their portion in this life,” Psal. xvii. 14.
Q.21. What should we pray for in order to have the comfortable use of the good things of this life which God may confer upon us?
A. That we may enjoy his blessing with them.
Q.22. Why is the blessing of God necessary to all our outward comforts?
A. Because, without this, none of them could reach the end for which they are used; our food could not nourish us, nor our clothes warm us, nor medicines, however skilfully applied, give any relief from our ailments, Job xx. 22, 23.
(The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained on Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. & A. 104)
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758): “There is a certain measure that God hath set to the sin of every wicked man. God says concerning the sin of man, as he says to the raging waves of the sea, Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further [Job 38:11]. The measure of some is much greater than of others. Some reprobates commit but a little sin in comparison with others, and so are to endure proportionately a smaller punishment. There are many vessels of wrath; but some are smaller and others greater vessels; some will contain comparatively but little wrath, others a greater measure of it. Sometimes, when we see men go to dreadful lengths, and become very heinously wicked, we are ready to wonder that God lets them alone. He sees them go on in such audacious wickedness, and keeps silence, nor does anything to interrupt them, but they go smoothly on, and meet with no hurt. But sometimes the reason why God lets them alone is because they have not filled up the measure of their sins. When they live in dreadful wickedness, they are but filling up the measure which God hath limited for them. This is sometimes why God suffers very wicked men to live so long; because their iniquity is not full: Genesis 15:16, ‘The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.’ For this reason, also God sometimes suffers them to live in prosperity. Their prosperity is a snare to them, and an occasion of their sinning a great deal more. Wherefore God suffers them to have such a snare, because he suffers them to fill up a larger measure. So, for this cause, he sometimes suffers them to live under great light, and great means and advantages, at the same time to neglect and misimprove all. Everyone shall live till he hath filled up his measure. While men continue in sin, they are filling the measure set them. This is the work in which they spend their whole lives; they begin in their childhood; and if they live to grow old in sin, they still go on with this work. It is the work with which every day is filled up. They may alter their business in other respects; they may sometimes be about one thing, and sometimes about another; but they never change from this work of filling up the measure of their sins. Whatever they put their hands to, they are still employed in this work. This is the first thing that they set themselves about when they awake in the morning, and the last thing they do at night. They are all the while treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God [Rom. 2:5]. It is a gross mistake of some natural men, who think that when they read and pray they do not add to their sins; but, on the contrary, think they diminish their guilt by these exercises. They think, that instead of adding to their sins, they do something to satisfy for their past offenses; but instead of that, they do but add to the measure by their best prayers, and by those services with which they themselves are most pleased. When once the measure of their sins is filled up, then wrath will come upon them to the uttermost. God will then wait no longer upon them. Wicked men think that God is altogether such a one as themselves [Ps. 50:21], because, when they commit such wickedness, he keeps silence. ‘Because judgment against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the children of men is fully set in them to do evil’ [Ecc. 8:11]. But when once they shall have filled up the measure of their sins, judgment will be executed; God will not bear with them any longer. Now is the day of grace, and the day of patience, which they spend in filling up their sins; but when their sins shall be full, then will come the day of wrath, the day of the fierce anger of God. — God often executes his wrath on ungodly men, in a less degree, in this world. He sometimes brings afflictions upon them, and that in wrath. Sometimes he expresses his wrath in very sore judgments; sometimes he appears in a terrible manner, not only outwardly, but also in the inward expressions of it on their consciences. Some, before they died, have had the wrath of God inflicted on their souls in degrees that have been intolerable. But these things are only forerunners of their punishment, only slight foretastes of wrath. God never stirs up all His wrath against wicked men while in this world; but when once wicked men shall have filled up the measure of their sins, then wrath will come upon them to the uttermost” (“When the Wicked Shall Have Filled up the Measure of Their Sin, Wrath Will Come Upon Them to the Uttermost,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Edinburgh: Banner, 1974], vol. 2, pp. 122-123).
Adam Gib (1714-1788):
IV. The mediatory kingdom of our Lord Jesus is not of this world, and this holds true concerning the same, absolutely or in all respects. Thus, though his mediatory kingdom is in this world and the things of it are things in this world, yet no outward things whatsoever, considered as things of this world or worldly things, can be justly looked upon as belonging to his Mediatory kingdom, or as belonging to Him upon a right of donation and purchase. Nor was such a donation and purchase either needful or competent to Him who is over all, God blessed for ever. But the gracious and supernatural ordering of outward material things unto gracious and supernatural ends in a channel of love and favour to his people, and with a subserviency to the purposes and glory of free grace in their salvation, all such ordering of these things, or these considered under the formality and in the channel of such gracious orderings, are of a quite different consideration, being not of this world (though in it) or not of a worldly nature. And thus, according to our [Westminster] Confession of Faith (Chap. 5:7), the providence of God, after a most special manner, takes care of his Church and disposes all things to the good thereof.
V. There can be no proper enjoyment of any benefits from Christ, as benefits of his mediatory kingdom, but in a way of communion and fellowship with Him, by faith. Thus, no common material benefits, as enjoyed by wicked men or unbelievers, can be looked upon as benefits of his mediatory kingdom, or as the fruits of his purchase. These material benefits, in the most general consideration thereof, do proceed from God as the great Creator and Preserver of the world, in which respect they are common to men and beasts. But more particularly, they always come to men in some Covenant-channel. They come to wicked men, or unbelievers, through the broken Covenant, in the channel of its curse. And so, whatever material goodness be in these things to them as suited to their fleshly nature, like the goodness thereof unto beasts, yet there is no spiritual goodness attending the same; no divine love, but wrath. Whereas on the other hand, these benefits come to believers through the Covenant of Grace in the channel of its blessing. And so they enjoy these benefits in a way of communion with Christ, as benefits of his mediatory kingdom.
VI. We are not to conclude that whatever belongs to Christ as Mediator is the matter of his purchase and the fruit of his death. Or, there are some things which belong to Him as Mediator and yet are not purchased by his death. Incarnation belongs to Him as Mediator, but He did not purchase the same. Nor did He purchase his mediatory offices, while all his purchase was made in his exercising one of these offices, with which the other two are inseparably connected. And in like manner, his exercise of these offices belongs not to the matter or fruit of his purchase. But all these things are to be considered as properly flowing from the sovereign transaction and agreement in the Counsel of Peace for bringing about his purchase and effectuating the ends thereof. Thus particularly, the outward dispensation of gospel ordinances, which belongs to the exercise of Christ’s prophetical and kingly offices, is not the purchase of his death. But all the gracious effects of these ordinances, or the saving benefits which flow in that channel as terminating upon his own people, are the purchase and fruits of his death unto them, while, with respect to others, they are not enjoyed, but rejected benefits.
VII. No things can be properly reckoned the purchase of Christ or the proper fruits of his death, but such things as the vindictive justice of God could not immediately admit of without a satisfaction. All venting of the love of God upon guilty sinners by receiving them into a state of pardon and favour, or all that immediately pertains to their salvation, with the glory of Christ and free grace thereby, all this belongs to the purchase of Christ and the proper fruits of his death, being what vindictive justice could not immediately admit of without a satisfaction. But vindictive justice could require or admit of no satisfaction in order to a preserving the natural world in its natural course after the fall, seeing that very justice in the curse of the broken Covenant necessarily required that preservation of the world for the production of the seed who had sinned and fallen in the first Covenant-head. And vindictive justice can require or admit of no satisfaction in order to the conferring of outward material benefits upon wicked men or of any outward benefits enjoyed by them, seeing their enjoyment of these benefits does not withdraw them from vindictive justice but leaves them under wrath and is actually cursed unto them through a channel of wrath, ripening them for destruction. So that vindictive justice leaves full room, in this case, for the exercise of divine wisdom, sovereignty and long-suffering, without requiring or admitting of any satisfaction in order thereunto. In a word, all doctrine about the shedding of Christ’s blood for any of these things in order whereunto vindictive justice did not, and could not, require or admit of a satisfaction, is at best but a doctrine about the vanity of his blood-shedding, and [is] injurious to the glory of that mystery.
(“Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom and Common Benefits” in The Present Truth: A Display of the Secession Testimony [Edinburgh, 1774], vol. 2, Appendix 2, Section 4, pp. 299-302)
Charles Bridges (1794-1869):
[1] “The fool may seem to be spared from judgment. But his prosperity is his destruction. (Job, xxi. 11-13. Ps. lv. 19; lxxiii. 3-20. Jer. xii. 1-3. Luke, vi. 24, 25; xii. 16-20; xvi. 19-24. Jam. v. 1-5. Examples of Israel.—Deut. xxii. 15-25. Jer. xxii. 20-22. Hos. xiii. 6-9. Amos, vi. 1-6. Babylon.—Isa. xlvii. 7-9. Moab.—Jer. xlviii. 11-15. Sodom.—Ezek. xvi. 49. Tyre.—Ezek. xxvii. 2, 25-27.)” (A Commentary on Proverbs [Edinburgh: Banner, 1994], p. 12; italics Bridges’).
[2] “The Christian is the only enviable person in the world. The seeming blessings of evil men are God’s heavy curses; and the smart of the stripes is a favour too good for them to enjoy. To judge wisely of our condition, it is to be considered, not so much how we fare, as upon what terms. If we stand right with heaven, every cross is a blessing; and every blessing a pledge of future happiness. If we be in God’s disfavour, every one of his benefits is a judgment; and every judgment makes way for perdition.* Instead of envying sinners in their successful wickedness, dread their character more than their end, and rejoice that your Father never counted the poor vanities of this world a worthy portion for you” (A Commentary on Proverbs [Edinburgh: Banner, 1994], pp. 444-445; italics Bridges’).
[3] “The Lord’s outward dispensation proved therefore neither his love nor his hatred [Ecc. 9:1-2] … The inward work is the real demonstrative evidence. A large portion of outward prosperity may be dealt out to the wicked. (Ps. lxxiii. 2-12.) Yet where is the child of God who would envy this lot, or who would change for it the lowest experience of his Father’s love?” (Exposition of Ecclesiastes [Edinburgh: Banner, 1985], p. 213; italics Bridges’).
Alexander Paterson: “We may here observe the difference with respect to the manner in which the righteous and the wicked hold their outward enjoyments. The title which the wicked have to outward enjoyments is only a common right, there being nothing in it to show that they are the Lord’s; whereas the right which believers have is a special right–a title founded upon the covenant, or it is a spiritual right which they have to daily bread. The wicked have their portion in this life; whereas godliness hath the promise, not only of this life, but also of that which is to come. The wicked have nothing but outward enjoyments; they want the blessing of the Lord on their basket and their store; whereas the righteous have his blessing along with what they enjoy; and this makes their comforts doubly valuable” (A Concise System of Theology [London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1869], p. 367).
William S. Plumer (1802-1880): “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places [Ps. 73:18]. In Moses’ last great sermon we have the same idea: ‘Their feet shall slide in due time,’ Deut. xxxii. 35; compare Ps. xxxv. 6. In Job xxvii. 7, 8; Ps. xc. 5, the same doctrine is taught, though in different language. Many parallel passages are found in the sacred writings given to the church before or during the time of Asaph. Surely, by some rendered only, as in v. 1; Ps. lxii. 1. Slippery places, literally slipperinesses, or smoothnesses. Set, in v. 28 and often rendered put. Here in Hebrew it is in the future, wilt set. See Introduction, § 6. The common version doubtless gives the sense. Thou castedst them down into destruction. Castedst, literally hast caused them to fall. Destruction, plural destructions, only here and in Ps. lxxiv. 3, where we read desolations. The latter rendering is followed by many. Their fearful elevation makes their fall the more dreadful. ‘When the wicked spring as the grass, and when the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.’ The ox is fattened for the slaughter” (Psalms: A Critical and Expository Commentary with Doctrinal and Practical Remarks [Edinburgh: Banner, 1975], p. 81; italics Plumer’s).
John Kennedy of Dingwall (1819-1884): “The third article in the Declaratory Statement [of 1892] is as follows:– ‘That the doctrine of Man’s Total Depravity, and of his loss of “all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” is not held as implying such a condition of man’s nature as would affect his responsibility under the law of God and the gospel of Christ, or that he may not experience the strivings and restraining influences of the Spirit of God, or that he cannot perform actions in any sense good; though such actions, as not springing from a renewed heart, are not spiritually good or holy, and consequently are not such as accompany salvation.” If by this it was intended to modify, or tone down, or to adapt to the taste of whole-hearted men, the Confession doctrine of man’s total depravity, then, however inconsistent this may be with the [Westminster] Confession of Faith, it is quite in harmony with the preceding articles in the Statement. Those who are enamoured of the doctrines of universal love, universal atonement, and universal grace, cannot receive in its entireness the Confession doctrine of sin. They cannot but be disposed to modify it. The state of feeling that disposes to the former must demand the latter. At first, the attempt to modify will be done with a trembling hand – first attempts will be marked by hesitancy and will not apparently go very far. This is the characteristic of the third article in the Statement. There is scarcely anything declared in it that does not seem to be said in the Confession. But why should it be deemed necessary to say that the Confession doctrine of Man’s Total Depravity ‘is not held as implying such a condition of man’s nature as would affect his responsibility,’ unless the authors of the Statement held that the depravity was not total, and that this was required in order to preserve the responsibility. The Confession has neither declared nor insinuated that rational life has not survived the fall, and its authors were wise enough to know that on this, and not on his spiritual condition, man’s responsibility rests. But the authors of the Statement could not see that the utter bondage of the will to sin does not impair the responsibility of him who is enslaved. Reason and conscience survive to act, and these, though spiritually corrupted, are the pillars on which man’s responsibility is placed. But what they dare not formulate in a plain statement, they insinuate in a hazy one – that there must be some reserve of spiritual power unaffected by, ere responsibility could survive, the fall. Why add that a man, notwithstanding of his depravity, may ‘experience the strivings and the restraining influences of the Spirit of God’? Is this not as well, and more briefly said in the Confession, which declares that the non-elect ‘may have some common operations of the Spirit’? Was the alteration intended as a step nearer to the doctrine of ‘gracious ability’ bestowed on all who hear the gospel? If not, why was it necessary to make the statement at all? And why was this followed up by another seeming repetition of the words of the Confession, in what is said about the actions of unrenewed men? The repetition here is, however, much less exact. The divergence from the language of the Confession here is manifestly intended to serve a purpose. There is a real and wide difference under the seeming correspondence. In the Confession all ‘works done by unregenerate men’ are declared to be ‘sinful.’ The authors of the Statement do not say so – they cannot, they dare not, say so, while saying that they may be in some sense ‘good.’ True, they say that they cannot be ‘spiritually good or holy,’ but still they declare that these actions are in some sense good. What a contrast they present in their Statement to what the Westminster divines have given us as their deliverance on this subject! The latter remembered that, when speaking of men’s actions, they were speaking of what must not be dissociated from the state of the heart out of which they spring. They would not, therefore, call the works of the unregenerate in any sense good. ‘As to the matter of them,’ they say that ‘they may be things which God commands, and of good use to themselves and others; but because they proceed not,’ they add, ‘from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.’ Such is the masterly deliverance of the Confession, and this is what is to be laid aside, in order to find a place for the crooked weakling, brought forth in the Declaratory Statement. The men who dared, to this extent, to modify the doctrine of the Confession, regarding total depravity, and who, in doing so, have shewn their incompetence, as well as indicated their Pelagian tendencies, will not stop short of removing more of what the Confession teaches regarding man’s ruin by the fall. Their successors may remove it all” (Signs of the Times [Scotland: James Begg Society, 2003], pp. 31-34).
Philip Schaff (1819-1893): “Even the much-lauded patriotism of the heroes of ancient Greece and Rome was only an enlarged egotism” (History of the Christian Church [USA: Hendrickson, repr. 1996], vol. 2, p. 371).
James Walker (1821-1891): “It was a part of his [i.e., Fraser of Brea’s] scheme that Christ had purchased ‘common benefits,’ the ordinary temporal blessings of life, and that it is through His grace that the world is sustained as it is, and that all its bounties are enjoyed by mankind. At different times and in different forms this question has been debated in the Scottish Churches. [James] Durham has an essay, in which he considers whether any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, may be said to be the proper fruit of, or purchase of, Christ’s death. And he answers decisively in the negative. The native fruits of Christ’s death, he says, are not divided, but they all go together. So that for whom He satisfied and for whom He purchased anything in any respect, He did so in respect of everything. There may be certain consequences of Christ’s death of an advantageous kind which reach wicked men. But that is a mere accident. Nay, to the wicked there may be given common gifts, by which the Church is edified and the glory of the Lord advanced; but these belong to the covenant redemption, as promised blessings to God’s people. It is argued, further, that it is very doubtful whether, looked at in every point of view, it can well be said that it is a blessing to men who yet reject the Son of God, that they have the morally purifying influences of Christianity, and are more or less affected by them in their character, or by any such blessing as can be said to fall from the tree of life. So, too, thought Gillespie, and so thought Rutherford. In the [John] Simpson [or Simson] trial the subject came up in another shape. Simpson [who was charged with Aryan, Sicilian and Arminian errors] maintained that there was in nature a dim revelation of grace. That the wrath of God did not straightway overtake sinners; that the sun shone, and the showers fell, and the harvests still came round to supply the wants of men,—was this not, in its measure, a revelation of grace? Did it not speak faintly of the cross? If so, it can only be the cross-grace. But the idea was decisively rejected by the evangelical divines of the day, who, indeed, made Simpson’s doctrine one of the points of the libel. [Thomas Halyburton] handles the question in his own way in a famous excursus of his Natural Religion,—on God’s government of the heathen world. ‘Is that government,’ he asks, ‘in any sense one of grace?’ He answers in the negative. Remarkable indeed it is, that the guilty should be spared from generation to generation. But who knows all the reasons God may have for that? As Adam stood the representative of the race of mankind, is it not fitting that all whom he represented should come into existence, and bear their part in the great responsibility? Why should only a part of mankind live, and sin, and suffer, and others involved in the great transaction as well as they never come into existence? Besides, some of the chosen ones may still belong to those to whom He exercises this forbearance, or, as it were, this holy connivance in their sins. Not any law of grace, but the law of creation, the law of works, unretracted, unmitigated, reigns everywhere outside the gospel realms; and even by that law, although its penalties are meanwhile suspended, a certain outward order can be still preserved, and a certain system of external rewards and punishments comes in … A fair representation of the old Scottish doctrine may be given in the words of the old Seceder, who has elaborately written on this point: ‘There can be no proper enjoyment of any benefits from Christ, as benefits of His mediatorial kingdom, but in a way of communion and fellowship with Him by faith. Thus, no material benefits, as enjoyed by wicked men or unbelievers can be looked upon as benefits of His mediatorial kingdom, or as the fruits of His purchase. These material benefits, in the most general consideration thereof, do proceed from God as the great Creator and Preserver of the world, in which respect they are common to men and beasts. But more particularly, they always come to men in some covenant channel. They come to wicked men, or unbelievers, through the broken covenant, in the channel of its curse; and so, whatever material goodness be in these things to them, as suited to their fleshly nature, like the goodness thereof unto beasts, yet there is no spiritual goodness attending the same, — no divine love, but wrath. Whereas, on the other hand, these benefits come to believers through the covenant of grace in the channel of its blessing; and so they enjoy these benefits in a way of communion with Christ, as benefits of His mediatorial kingdom’” (The Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750 [Edinburgh: Knox Press, repr. 1982], pp. 83-85; italics Walker’s).
Charles Ross (c. 1831–1892): “Not a blessing comes from the hand of a holy and just God, but comes through the mediation and intercession of his Son” (The Inner Sanctuary [London: Banner, 1967], p. 189). Since Christ only prays for His elect (Isa. 53:12; Zech. 1:12; Luke 22:32; 24:50-51; John 17:9; 24; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 2:16-18; 4:14-16; 7:24-25; 9:24, 28; I John 2:1), though God gives the reprobate wicked many good things in this life, there are no divine blessings for them.
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): “[A]scribed to God … its object [i.e., the object of grace] is never creation in general or heathendom, but only His people” (The Doctrine of God, trans. William Hendriksen [Great Britain: Banner, repr. 1991], p. 207).
Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949): “Righteousness is the opposite of sin, and as the reference to God is inseparable from the conception of sin, so the reference to God is in precisely the same manner inherent in the idea of righteousness. To put it very plainly: If there were no God to see and judge and punish, one might perhaps still continue to speak of good and evil, meaning thereby what is beneficial or injurious, subject to the approval or disapproval of men, but it would be meaningless to speak of sin on such a supposition. And so, by equal reasoning, while what is commonly called good might without the existence of God be conceivable in the world, yet it could not properly bear the name of righteousness, for the simple reason that, in order to deserve this name, according to the biblical way of thinking, it needs first to be placed in the light of the divine nature, the divine will, the divine judgment” (Grace and Glory [Grand Rapids, MI: The Reformed Press, 1922], pp. 43-44).
“In his book Wat is de Hemel? (What Is Heaven?) [Klaas] Schilder [1890-1952] had already corrected Abraham Kuyper’s views on ‘common grace.’ During the press debate of the 1930s his criticism sharpened, as did the opposition from the side of those who loathed any criticism of Kuyper … Also in scholarly addresses after the Second World War, Schilder concerned himself with the question of whether the expression common grace was theologically justifiable. Despite later criticism by Dr. J. Douma, I am of the opinion that Schilder correctly answered this question in the negative” (Jelle Faber, “Klaas Schilder’s Life and Work,” in Always Obedient [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1995], pp. 9, 11).
Gary North (1942-): “The question arises: How does God view those who are not predestined to eternal life? Does He regard them with some degree of favor, or none, during their earthly lives? Do they as ‘creatures as such’ or ‘men as such’ become the recipients of his love or favor, ‘after a fashion’? Is the unregenerate vessel of wrath in some way the object of God’s favor to ‘clay in general’? The Synod of 1924 said yes. Hoeksema said no. Hoeksema was correct” (Dominion & Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987], pp. 204-205).
Jack B. Scott: “How does he [i.e., Job in Job 21:7-16] deal with the argument of his friends that prosperity in this world indicates God’s favor and suffering and hardship show his displeasure? … He [i.e., Job] is bothered by the prosperity of the wicked, as was the psalmist (Ps. 73). Nevertheless he understands that their prosperity is not the necessary result of what they have done. He rejects their opinion that prosperity indicates God’s favor” (Wise and Otherwise: An Introduction to the Bible’s Wisdom Literature [Philadelphia, PA: Great Commission Publications, 1986], p. 160).
Stephen Larson: “I have been following your articles ‘He Shines in All That’s Fair’ (Standard Bearer, March 15-May 15, 2002) with great interest, and as a believer in Jesus Christ find them most edifying. I would, however, like to offer a comment about the acceptance of this perverse doctrine of common grace. I would readily grant that we have seen the fruition of false doctrine come to its ugly head in the devastation of the Christian Reformed Church, and its uncritical acceptance of the doctrines of this world (and, conversely, the rejection of the true gospel of grace). I would also grant that common grace and the attendant doctrine of the ‘free offer of the gospel’ have made inroads and are generally accepted within conservative Presbyterian and Reformed Churches (one of which, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I represent). And I believe that I have just reason to be concerned about the eventual effects of such inroads. Nonetheless, I do not believe that in our churches this doctrine has taken on the near-confessional status that it seems to have attained in the CRC. It is true that our General Assembly approved a report supporting the free offer of the gospel. Yet, in twenty-five years of ministry I do not recall ever hearing a question about common grace or the free offer during our presbytery exams. You may not fully appreciate this comment if your system for receiving ministers approximates that of the CRC, where the seminary is given the primary responsibility for examining candidates for the gospel ministry. In the OPC we give an exhaustive theological exam on the floor of presbytery for all candidates for the gospel ministry, often lasting many hours. If the free offer, or common grace, is an important doctrine, one would expect at least a question or two about them, and yet, I have heard none. Naturally, as an opponent of common grace, I do not always appreciate this. In fact, I think that an acceptance of common grace and its worst implications has led to our present controversy about the days of creation, for we argue on a less-than-biblical basis when we accept conclusions from non-Christian scientists. I would indeed like to see us take a clear and unequivocal stand against common grace and all that is implies. Keep up the good work!”
John Frame: “Scripture never uses [the Hebrew words] chen or charis to refer to his blessings on creation generally or on non-elect humanity” (The Doctrine of God: a Theology of Lordship [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002], pp. 429-430).
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC): “First, our confessional standards [i.e., the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism] do not use the term ‘Common Grace’ … and the concept of Common Grace does not appear to be present in our standards either” (“‘Common Grace’ and ‘Well-Intended Offer,'” 2004).
Dr. William Edgar: “Great as he was, I consider Kuyper’s movement to be a dead end for American Reformed Christians for both theological and political reasons. Politically, Kuyper worked within the bounds of a small continental European nation, with a homogeneous society and a political tradition that have little in common with the American Empire, an offspring of the British Empire. Theologically, Kuyper’s movement used a flawed concept of ‘common grace’ as the basis for cooperation between believers and nonbelievers in the public arena, a concept that continues to bear bad fruit both in the Netherlands and in churches of Dutch descent in this country, because it has been used to blur the antithesis between believer and unbeliever, and between Revelation and human efforts to grope for the truth” (“Reformed Systematic Theology Textbooks: Hand Maiden to the Enlightenment Privatization of Faith,” in Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal, vol. 2, issue 2 [Spring 2016], p. 8).
Robert Letham: “The idea of common grace is a theologoumenon (theological opinion) and does not have confessional status” (Systematic Theology [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], p. 650; italics Letham’s).
Cornelis Pronk: “The fear of Old Calvinists concerning neo-Calvinism, namely, that it would result in fundamental changes in theology, has come to pass … there can be no doubt that [Abraham] Kuyper’s conception of common grace has had a negative effect upon theology, including the doctrine of salvation” (“Neo-Calvinism’s Biblical Story Line [2],” The Messenger, vol. 67, no. 4 [April, 2020], pp. 14, 15).
C. Matthew McMahon:
[1] “Grace is not common, it is particular, found in the special covenant pact men may have in Jesus Christ alone. Genesis 6:8 states, ‘But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.’ Not everyone at that time found grace, only Noah did. It was particular to him. Proverbs 3:34 says, ‘Surely he scorns the scornful but gives grace to the humble.’ The scornful do not receive grace, but God gives grace to the humble. It is not found in anyone other than in God through Jesus Christ, as John 1:17 says, ‘For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ It is only through the Lord Jesus Christ that men may find grace. The Bible never mentions the term ‘common grace’ or a likeness to that term. Whenever grace is mentioned, it is always in connection with redemption … [Louis] Berkhof’s definition of common grace said, it is ‘those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or, those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure it seems good to Him.’ This is not grace. Where does grace come from but Jesus Christ? Nowhere do the Scriptures propagate an idea that the seed of the serpent may be ‘granted grace’ in any real sense of the word” (The Two Wills of God Made Easy: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [USA: Puritan Publications, 2016], pp. 63-64).
[2] “The sustaining of [the non-elect’s] existence is not a gracious act. It is a decretive means by which they store up wrath and judgment against the Creator for the day of wrath [cf. Gen. 15:16; I Thess. 2:16]. It is for these reasons that I think the term of common grace is ill founded and conveys a wrong impression of God’s will” (The Two Wills of God Made Easy: Does God Really Have Two Wills? [USA: Puritan Publications, 2016], pp. 77-78).
These quotations touch on various aspects of the common grace controversy and are not designed to imply that all these authors never make erroneous statements on this subject or that all their writings are always entirely consistent on this point.
