[Note: In this tract, James Henly Thornwell was clearly influenced by men like Turretin, in that he reads such verses as Eze 18:23, John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9,¹ and 1 John 2:2, in a strict particularist manner.² These two extracts are cited here to demonstrate the historicity of the Reformed Doctrine of General love, and the standard association made by many Reformed between that doctrine and Matthew 5:45.]

Thornwell:

1) The doctrine of election is supposed to be inconsistent with the sincerity of God in the general invitations and call of the Gospel, and with His professions of willingness that all should be saved. It is true that this doctrine is wholly irreconcilable with the idea of a fixed determination on the part of God to save, indiscriminately, the whole human race. The plain doctrine of the Presbyterian Church is that God has no purpose of salvation for all, and that He has not decreed that faith, repentance and holiness, and the eternal blessings of the Gospel, should be efficaciously applied to all. The necessary consequence of such a decree would be universal salvation. The Scriptures, which are supposed to prove that God sent His Son into the world with the specific intention of saving all without exception or limitation, it confidently believed, teach, when correctly interpreted, no such doctrine. It is often forgotten that love is ascribed to God under two or three different aspects. Sometimes it expresses the complacency and approbation with which He views the graces which His own Spirit has produced in the hearts of His children; and in this sense it is plain that God can be said to love only the saints. It is probably in this sense that the term love is to be understood in Jude’s exhortation: “Keep yourselves in the love of God.” Sometimes God’s benevolence or general mercy is intended, such as He bestows upon the just and the unjust, the evil and the good, as in Psalms cxlv. 9: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” The common bounties of Providence may be referred to this head. Sometimes it expresses that peculiar and distinguishing favour with which He regarded His elect from all eternity. In this sense, the love of God is always connected with the purpose of salvation. Again, the word sometimes denotes nothing more than God’s willingness to be reconciled to sinners in and through Christ. In regard to the love of complacency or approbation, it is manifest at once that unconverted sinners have no lot nor part in it. God is angry with them every day; ” He hateth all workers of iniquity.” The special love of God is confined exclusively to the elect. The general benevolence of God is common, but it implies no purpose of salvation at all; and therefore, in that sense, God may be said to love the reprobate and disobedient. Even the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction are borne with in much long-suffering and patience. In reference to the last, it is plain that God may be heartily willing to save sinners in and through Christ–may determine to save all, in other words, who receive the Saviour–without positively decreeing to create in all men the necessary faith. In this sense, therefore, God may be said to love sinners, for whom, however, He has no purpose of salvation. James Henly Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Jackson, Mississippi: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1961), 57-58.

2) In regard to the passages of the first class, it is manifest that where the universal epithets are to be taken in their full latitude–which, however, is not always the case–nothing more can be fairly deduced than God’s benevolence, which leads Him to bestow blessings upon all men. There is nothing specific about the character or nature of the blessings, or whenever anything specific is stated it is found to be only the common bounties of Providence that the sacred writer had immediately in view. How preposterous, therefore, from such texts to deduce a purpose of universal salvation, as though God could not send rain upon the wicked and unjust without designing to save them! It is vain to allege that such general goodness is never referred to God’s love. The Saviour settles the point Matthew v. 44, 45. There He commands His disciples to love their enemies, to bless them that curse them, to do good to them that hate them, etc. Why? “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Here the disciples are commanded to love their enemies, that they might be like God. But how does it appear that God loves His enemies? “He maketh his to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;” in other words, in other words, from the common bounties of Providence. With such a plain illustration bf the fact that God can be said to love without intending to save, it is amazing that such passages as the following should ever have been adduced to prove a purpose of universal salvation: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” I would as soon think of appealing to Romans ix. 22, because God is there said to have endured the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction with much long-suffering. James Henly Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Jackson, Mississippi: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1961), 62.

_____________________________

¹On 2 Peter 3:9, Thornwell does note and acknowledge Calvin’s unlimited reading of this verse. Further, Thornwell grants that the unlimited reading does not violate the text exegetically, but that he thinks his reading is more congruent to Peter’s intent.
²On the Ezekiel passages, Thornwell overplays Turretin’s stress on the revealed will as a passive delight. And for 1 Timothy 2:4, John 3;16, 1 John 2:2, oddly enough, Thornwell connects these verses with the offer of the gospel as if that satisfies the force of the inherent universality within the terms of these verses.

In this tract, James Henly Thornwell was clearly influenced by men like Turretin, in that he reads such verses as Eze 18:23, John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9,¹ and 1 John 2:2, in a strict particularist manner.² These two extracts are cited here to demonstrate the historicity of the Reformed Doctrine of General love, and the standard association made by many Reformed between that doctrine and Matthew 5:45.

Thornwell:

1) The doctrine of election is supposed to be inconsistent with the sincerity of God in the general invitations and call of the Gospel, and with His professions of willingness that all should be saved. It is true that this doctrine is wholly irreconcilable with the idea of a fixed determination on the part of God to save, indiscriminately, the whole human race. The plain doctrine of the Presbyterian Church is that God has no purpose of salvation for all, and that He has not decreed that faith, repentance and holiness, and the eternal blessings of the Gospel, should be efficaciously applied to all. The necessary consequence of such a decree would be universal salvation. The Scriptures, which are supposed to prove that God sent His Son into the world with the specific intention of saving all without exception or limitation, it confidently believed, teach, when correctly interpreted, no such doctrine. It is often forgotten that love is ascribed to God under two or three different aspects. Sometimes it expresses the complacency and approbation with which He views the graces which His own Spirit has produced in the hearts of His children; and in this sense it is plain that God can be said to love only the saints. It is probably in this sense that the term love is to be understood in Jude’s exhortation: “Keep yourselves in the love of God.” Sometimes God’s benevolence or general mercy is intended, such as He bestows upon the just and the unjust, the evil and the good, as in Psalms cxlv. 9: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” The common bounties of Providence may be referred to this head. Sometimes it expresses that peculiar and distinguishing favour with which He regarded His elect from all eternity. In this sense, the love of God is always connected with the purpose of salvation. Again, the word sometimes denotes nothing more than God’s willingness to be reconciled to sinners in and through Christ. In regard to the love of complacency or approbation, it is manifest at once that unconverted sinners have no lot nor part in it. God is angry with them every day; ” He hateth all workers of iniquity.” The special love of God is confined exclusively to the elect. The general benevolence of God is common, but it implies no purpose of salvation at all; and therefore, in that sense, God may be said to love the reprobate and disobedient. Even the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction are borne with in much long-suffering and patience. In reference to the last, it is plain that God may be heartily willing to save sinners in and through Christ–may determine to save all, in other words, who receive the Saviour–without positively decreeing to create in all men the necessary faith. In this sense, therefore, God may be said to love sinners, for whom, however, He has no purpose of salvation. James Henly Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Jackson, Mississippi: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1961), 57-58.

2) In regard to the passages of the first class, it is manifest that where the universal epithets are to be taken in their full latitude–which, however, is not always the case–nothing more can be fairly deduced than God’s benevolence, which leads Him to bestow blessings upon all men. There is nothing specific about the character or nature of the blessings, or whenever anything specific is stated it is found to be only the common bounties of Providence that the sacred writer had immediately in view. How preposterous, therefore, from such texts to deduce a purpose of universal salvation, as though God could not send rain upon the wicked and unjust without designing to save them! It is vain to allege that such general goodness is never referred to God’s love. The Saviour settles the point Matthew v. 44, 45. There He commands His disciples to love their enemies, to bless them that curse them, to do good to them that hate them, etc. Why? “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Here the disciples are commanded to love their enemies, that they might be like God. But how does it appear that God loves His enemies? “He maketh his to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;” in other words, in other words, from the common bounties of Providence. With such a plain illustration bf the fact that God can be said to love without intending to save, it is amazing that such passages as the following should ever have been adduced to prove a purpose of universal salvation: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” I would as soon think of appealing to Romans ix. 22, because God is there said to have endured the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction with much long-suffering. James Henly Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Jackson, Mississippi: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1961), 62.

¹On 2 Peter 3:9, Thornwell does note and acknowledge Calvin’s unlimited reading of this verse. Further, Thornwell grants that the unlimited reading does not violate the text exegetically, but that he thinks his reading is more congruent to Peter’s intent.
²On the Ezekiel passages, Thornwell overplays Turretin’s stress on the revealed will as a passive delight. And for 1 Timothy 2:4, John 3;16, 1 John 2:2, oddly enough, Thornwell connects these verses with the offer of the gospel as if that satisfies the force of the inherent universality within the terms of these verses.

Matthew 5:44-48.

This passage does not indeed deal with the overtures of grace in the gospel. But it does tell us something regarding God’s benevolence that has bearing upon all manifestations of divine grace. The particular aspect of God’s grace reflected upon here is the common gifts of providence, the making of the sun to rise upon evil and good and the sending of rain upon just and unjust. There can be no question but all without distinction, reprobate as well as elect, are the beneficiaries of this favour, and it is that fact that is distinctly stated in verse 45.

The significant feature of this text is that this bestowal of favour by God on all alike is adduced as the reason why the disciples are to love their enemies and do them good. There is, of course, a question as to the proper text of verse 44. If we follow the Aleph-B text and omit the clauses, “bless them who curse you, do good to them who hate you,” as well as the verb “despitefully use,” the sense is not affected. And besides, these clauses, though they may not belong to the genuine text of Matthew, appear in Luke 6:27,28 in practically the same form. Hence the teaching of our Lord undoubtedly was that the disciples were to love their enemies, do good to those who hated them, bless those who cursed them, and pray for those who despitefully used them and persecuted them. And the reason provided is that God himself bestows his favours upon his enemies. The particular reason mentioned why the disciples are to be guided and animated by the divine example is that they, the disciples, are sons of the Father. The obligation and urge to the love of their enemies and the bestowal of good upon them are here grounded in the filial relation that they sustain to God. Since they are sons of God they must be like their heavenly Father. There can be no doubt but that the main point is the necessity of imitating the divine example, and this necessity is peculiarly enforced by the consideration of the filial relation they sustain to God as their heavenly Father.

It is just here, however, that it becomes necessary to note the implications of the similarity established and enforced as the reason for such attitude and conduct with reference to their enemies. The disciples are to love their enemies in order that they may be the sons of their Father; they must imitate their Father. Clearly implied is the thought that God, the Father, loves his enemies and that it is because he loves his enemies that he makes his sun rise upon them and sends them rain. This is just saying that the kindness bestowed in sunshine and rain is the expression of divine love, that back of the bestowal there is an attitude on the part of God, called love, which constrains him to bestow these tokens of his lovingkindness. This informs us that the gifts bestowed by God are not simply gifts which have the effect of good and blessing to those who are the recipients but that they are also a manifestation or expression of lovingkindness and goodness in the heart or will of God with reference to those who are the recipients. The enjoyment on the part of the recipients has its ground as well as its source in this lovingkindness of which the gifts enjoyed are the expression. In other words, these are gifts and are enjoyed because there is in a true and high sense benevolence in the heart of God.

These conclusions are reinforced by verse 48. There can be no question regarding the immediate relevance of verse 48 to the exhortation of verses 44-47, even though it may have a more comprehensive reference. And verse 48 means that what has been adduced by way of divine example in the preceding verses is set forth as epitomizing the divine perfection and as providing the great exemplar by which the believer’s attitude and conduct are to be governed and the goal to which thought and life are to be oriented. The love and beneficence of God to the evil and unjust epitomize the norm of human perfection. It is obvious that this love and beneficence on the part of God are regarded by our Lord himself as not something incidental in God but as that which constitutes an element in the sum of divine perfection. This is made very specific in the parallel passage in Luke 6 :35,36 where we read, “And ye shall be sons of the Most High, because he is kind towards the unthankful and evil. Ye shall be merciful, as your Father is merciful.” This word translated “merciful” is redolent of the pity and compassion in the heart of God that overflow in the bestowments of kindness.

The sum of this study of these passages in Matthew and Luke is simply this, that presupposed in God’s gifts bestowed upon the ungodly there is in God a disposition of love, kindness, mercifulness, and that the actual gifts and the blessing accruing therefrom for the ungodly must not be abstracted from the lovingkindness of which they are the expression. And, of course, we must not think of this lovingkindness as conditioned upon a penitent attitude in the recipients. The lovingkindness rather is exercised towards them in their ungodly state and is expressed in the favours they enjoy. What bearing this may have upon the grace of God manifested in the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction remains to be seen. But we are hereby given a disclosure of goodness in the heart of God and of the relation there is between gifts bestowed and the lovingkindness from which they flow. And there is indicated to us something respecting God’s love or benevolence that we might not or could not entertain if we concentrated our thought simply on the divine decree of reprobation. Furthermore we must remember that there are many gifts enjoyed by the ungodly who are within the pale of the gospel administration which are not enjoyed by those outside, and we shall have to conclude that in respect of these specific favours, enjoyed by such ungodly persons in distinction from others, the same principle of divine benevolence and lovingkindness must obtain, a lovingkindness, too, which must correspond to the character of the specific gifts enjoyed.

John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1976), 4:114-117.

[Note: Murray is not alone in his reasoning. For example, see Owen on General Love, entry #3.]

Fuller

That God loves all mankind I make no doubt, and all the works of his hands, as such considered, fallen angels themselves not excepted; but the question is, whether he loves them all alike; and whether the exercise of punitive justice be inconsistent with universal goodness?  It is going p at lengths, for a weak  worm to take him to insist that divine goodness must be exercised in such a particular instance, or it can have no existence at all. I dare not say, there is no love, no goodness, in all the providences of God towards mankind, nor yet in his giving them the means of grace and the invitations of the gospel, though he does not do all for them which be could do, to incline them to embrace them, and has neither purposed nor provided for such an end. on the contrary, I believe these things, in themselves considered, to be instances of divine goodness, whatever the issue of them may be through men’s depravity.

 Andrew Fuller, “A Reply to the Observations of Philanthropos,” in The Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, in Eight Volumes, (Philadelphia: Printed by Anderson and Meehan, for William Collier, 1820), 1:303-4.