Bullinger:

Paul in his second chapter to the Ephesians saith: “We were by nature the sons of wrath, even as others.” In which words he pronounces that all men are damned. For all those that are damned, are worthy of eternal death, and all such with whom God hath good cause to be offended, he calls the sons of wrath, after the proper phrase of the Hebrew speech. For the wrath of God doth signify the punishment which is by the just judgment of God laid upon us men. And he is called the child of death, which is adjudged or appointed to be killed. So also is the son of perdition, &c. Now mark, that he calls us all the sons of wrath, that is, the subjects of pain and damnation, even by nature, in birth, from our mother’s womb. But whatsoever is naturally in all men, that is original: therefore original sin makes us th sons of wrath; that is, we are all from our original corruption made subject to death and utter damnation. This place of Paul for the proof of this argument is worthy to be remembered.

Bullinger, Decades, 3^rd Decade, Sermon 10, p., 396. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Polhill:

God, by turning a virtual or ordinative will, does will the turning and salvation even of the very pagans. According to that will, God would (as I have laid down) be seen in every creature, sought and felt in every place, witnessed in every shower and fruitful season, feared in the sea-bounding sand, humbled under in every abasing providence, and turned to in every judgment. Thus the very Philistines saw by the light of nature; “Give glory to God,” say they, “peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you,” (1 Sam. vi. 5). Also, the Ninevites’ counsel was, to cry mightily to God, and turn from their evil ways; who can tell,” say they, “if God will turn and repent,” (Jonah iii.8 , 9). In a word; the meaning of all God’s works is ” that men should fear before him,” Eccl. iii. 14). The goodness and patience of God leads them to repentance, (Rom. ii. 4). Hence the apostle tells us, ” The Lord is long-suffering to us ward, not willing that any should but that all should come to repentance,” (2 Peter iii. 9). Mirus hic erga humanum genus amor, saith Calvin on the place, quod omnes vult esse salvos, et ultro pereuntes in salutem colligere pnratur est. God, in indulging his patience and long-suffering to men, doth virtually will their repentance and salvation. I know some interpret this place otherwise: God is long-suffering to us, that is, the agapetoi, in the former verse, not willing that any, viz. of us,) should perish, but that all,(vis., of us,) should come to repentance. But I conceive that there is no necessity at all that the text should be so straitened, nor yet congruity for longsuffering towards the beloved, that they, who have already repented, should come to repentance. Neither does this answer the scope of the place, which asserts, that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, upon this ground, because of his long-suffering: and his long-suffering extends to all, and in that extent its true end and scope is to lead them to repentance and salvation. Wherefore, the meaning is, God is long-suffering to us, not to us beloved only, but to us men, not willing our perdition but repentance. The true duct and tendency of his long-suffering is to lead men to repentance and salvation; and, therefore, in willing that long-suffering, he doth virtually and ordinatively will their repentance and salvation.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 210-211. [Some spelling modernized, and underlining mine.]

de l’ Espine:

Having shown by all the chapters and discourses going before, that the Apostates are without God, without Mediator, without law, without faith, without sacraments, it does follow thereof immediately, that they are also without the Church. For, as there is but one God, one creator and redeemer of the world [1 Tim. 2:5.]: so there is but one people which he has chosen and set apart and reserve them for himself, to sanctify them [Psal. 74:2.] and make then an everlasting covenant with them, to rule and govern them by his word and Spirit, and to defend them from all their enemies, even from death [Hos. 2:19.]: of whom he will also be particularly known, and called upon, served and worshiped in spirit and truth [John 4:24.].

M. Iohn de l’ Espine, An Excellent and Learned Treatise of Apostasie (Imprinted at London by Thomas Vautrollier dwelling in the Black-friers near Ludgate, 1587)  186b-187a. [Marginal references cited inline; some spelling modernized; pagination irregular; and underlining mine.]

Durham:

1) Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ’s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ’s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy and that Christ’s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at. James Durham, Christ Crucified: The Marrow of the Gospel in 72 Sermons on Isaiah 53 (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 2001), 343-344. [Underlining mine.]

2)

Concerning the nature and difference of saving and common Grace

In this Epistle, there is a large commendation of this Angel’s practice: which is not only given to him in respect of the matter of his actions; but in respect of the qualifications of them: as, first, that he did not only suffer for, and have patience in, that which was materially right; but that he suffered for Christ’s Name sake: and that he did not

only hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans; but did it with a respect to Christ: which is here added, to difference the sincerity of these actions from others that are materially good also: for, no question, there may be much suffering, which is not commendable before Christ. And certainly many others, even among heathens, did hate these Nicolaitans, who yet cannot be thought to be alike comprehended under this commendation. This therefore that is added, for my Name’s sake, must be to show the sincerity and graciousness thereof, as that which did put a difference between their sufferings and patience, and the sufferings of others. And it doth imply, that this qualification, was that mainly, which made the Lord take notice thereof. It is therefore, the same on the matter with that, Matth. 5.11, of being persecuted for Christ’s sake, to which the promise is made, vers. 12. and the same, with that 1 Pet. 4.13. of being made partakers of Christ’s sufferings, and of being reproached for his Name: which being an evidence, and part of blessedness in these places, cannot be conceived but to imply sincerity; without which, suffering itself, even where the cause is good, would be of no weight as to that end. We do therefore conceive these words undoubtedly to be added, to point out that wherein their sincerity consisted, and wherewith the Lord was especially well pleased: from which we may gather these Doctrines.

First, That there is a great difference between an action morally or materially good, and that which is gracious, and as such acceptable to God. I t is not simply suffering and hatred, which the Lord commends here; but suffering and hatred so and so qualified. Hence we will find frequently in the Scripture, difference made between these, to do that which is good upon the matter, and to do it with a perfect heart. In actions therefore, there are these three to be distinctly considered, 1. The act itself, as it is natural, suppose an act of hatred, love, grief, etc. 2. As the act is moral, and is directed toward an object that is agreeable to the Law, that is, to love that which is good, and to hate that which is evil, and so forth: both which, in many respects, may be in hypocrites, who may do that which is materially good. 3. We are to consider an act as gracious, that is, when not only the thing for the matter is agreeable to the will of God, as suppose, one were acting, or suffering for a truth; but also when that is done in the manner that the Law requires, and with a suitableness thereunto: and so one suffers not only for a truth; but as a Christian he carries himself in his suffering for the same: it is this last which makes the difference, and which the Lord doth especially take notice of, and commend by this qualification, that it is done for his Name’s sake.

Secondly, We gather, that this difference, wherein the graciousness of the act doth consist, is not to be inquired for in any intense degree of the act itself, whether positive or comparative (at least only) but it is to be inquired for in the nature and kind thereof, to wit, in respect of positive qualifications concurring therewith, and having influence thereon: For, this commendation, is not given upon the degree; but from the nature of these acts: it is not commendable hatred, because it is in such an intense degree positively: nor comparatively, because it hates these errors more than it doth hate truth; but because in their hatred of these errors, they conform themselves to Christ’s hatred of them. And likewise by that commendation for Christ’s Name sake, is not holden forth any degree either of their labor, or patience simply, nor yet comparatively, that they labored more, or did suffer more for that which is materially good, than they did for any other thing; or, because their patience was for degree more than their impatience; but, that there was a peculiar respect to the Lord’s Name both in their labor and patience.

If it be asked, What this is, which beside the moral rectitude of the act, must concur for the making of it to be accounted gracious?

Read the rest of this entry »