My intention in this post is to answer one question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Whether or not the author of the Heidelberg Catechism taught common grace in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism will decisively answer this question.
Did Ursinus teach Common Grace?
The following is a non-exhaustive collection of quotes from Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism that will answer the question at hand. As his commentary explains and expounds on the actual Heidelberg Catechism, it goes without saying that his commentary conveys the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism.
“The wisdom of man reasons and concludes differently, as is evident from the objection which we often hear: He who withdraws, in the time of temptation, that grace, without which it is not possible to prevent a fall, is the cause of the fall. But God withdrew, from man, his grace, in the trial through which he was called to pass, so that man could not but fall. Therefore, God was the cause of the fall of man.
Ans. The major proposition is true only of him who withholds grace, when he is obligated not to withdraw it; who takes it from him who is desirous of it, and does not wilfully reject it; and who withholds it out of malice. But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him; and who does not therefore, withhold it because he envies the sinner righteousness and eternal life; but that he may make a trial of him to whom he has imparted his grace. He who thus forsakes any one, is not the cause of sin, even though it necessarily follows this desertion and withdrawal of grace. And in as much as God withheld his grace from man in the time of his temptation, not in the first, but in the last manner just described, he is not the cause of his sin and destruction; but man alone is guilty for wilfully rejecting the grace of God.” (p. 34-35)
Ursinus speaks of a grace that is “withdrawn”, “not preserved” and “rejected”. This grace cannot be said to be the effectual saving grace given by God to only His elect.
“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)
Ursinus called the sufficiency of the atonement “grace”. Also note, that Ursinus explicitly states that the “benefits of Christ [are] offered in the gospel” to those who “perish” and “reject”. Further, Ursinus believes that the offer of Christ in the gospel to the non-elect is an act of God’s grace.
“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)
Again, Ursinus stated that the “grace of Christ” is “freely offered” to those who “reject that grace”.
“Hence the devils are said to tremble, because they do not apply to themselves what they know of God; that is, they do not believe that God is to them what they know him to be from his word, merciful, gracious.” (p. 114)
Ursinus stated that the devils do not believe what they know him to be to them from His word: merciful and gracious to them. They know that He is gracious to them, but they do not believe it.
“The evils of guilt as far as they are such, that is, sins, have not the nature of that which is good. Hence God does not will them, neither does he tempt men to perform them, nor does he effect them or contribute thereto; but he permits devils and men to do them, or does not prohibit them from committing them when he has the power to do so. Therefore these things do indeed also fall under the providence of God, but not as if they were done by him, but only permitted. The word permit is therefore not to be rejected, seeing that it is sometimes used in the scriptures. … (Gen. 20:6; 31:7. Ps. 105:14. Acts 14:16.)
But we must have a correct understanding of the word lest we detract from God a considerable portion of the government of the world, and of human affairs. For this permission is not an indifferent contemplation or suspension of the providence and working of God as it respects the actions of the wicked, by which it comes to pass that these actions do not depend so much upon some first cause, as upon the will of the creatures acting ; but it is a withdrawal of divine grace by which God (whilst he accomplishes the decrees of his will through rational creatures) either does not make known to the creature acting what he himself wishes to be done, or he does not incline the will of the creature to render obedience, and to perform what is agreeable to his will. Yet he, nevertheless, in the meanwhile, controls and influences the creature so deserted and sinning as to accomplish what he has purposed.” (p. 153-154)
Here, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. In permitting man to sin (providentially, not morally), God withdraws His grace; God’s grace cannot be withdrawn if it was never active. Ursinus believes that God’s providential restraints of sin are acts of His ‘grace’.
“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)
Once again, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. The referencing of Romans 9 puts it beyond doubt that the reprobates are included in Ursinus affirmation that it is of God’s grace that he providentially restrains sin in the non-elect.
Ursinus on the Free Offer of the Gospel and Related Doctrines:
I demonstrated above that Ursinus taught what is known as the free offer of the gospel, and further that he attributed the free offer of Christ to all men to God’s grace. The following quotes from Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism further prove that Ursinus held to the fee offer of the gospel, and saw no problem with God desiring things that He did not decree:
“By the heart we are to understand the affections, desires, and inclinations. When God, therefore, requires our whole heart, he desires that he alone should be loved above everything else; that our whole heart should be stayed on him, and not that a part should be given to him and a part to another.” (p. 24)
“But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him.” (p. 35)
“We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. So he also exercises great mercy towards the faithful, for he has, from his mercy alone, without being bound by any law or merit on our part, given his son, and subjected him to punishment for our sake. We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.).” (p. 69-70)
“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)
“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)
“God s mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accommodates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those who are called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies, and such as are unworthy of his regard. Obj. 1. But God seems to take pleasure in avenging himself upon the ungodly. Ans. Only in as far as it is the execution of his justice.” (p. 127)
“The natural law, the knowledge of general principles natural to men, the difference between things honest and base, engraven upon our hearts, teach that there is a providence: for he who has engraven upon the heart of man a rule or law, for the regulation of the life, has a regard to the actions of men. God now has engraven such a rule upon the heart of man, and desires us to live in conformity thereto. Therefore he must also govern the lives, actions and events of his creatures. “The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts.” (Rom. 2:15.)” (p. 148)
“There are four terms in this syllogism, for in the major proposition, the want of righteousness signifies the desertion and withdrawal of grace actively, which is a most just punishment of the creature sinning, and is thus from God; whilst in the minor it is to be understood passively, signifying a want of that righteousness which we ought to possess, which, when it is willingly contracted and received by men, and exists in them contrary to the law of God, is sin which is neither wrought nor desired by God.” (p. 159)
“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)
“God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation.” (p. 292)
“As the gospel is the savour of life unto life when it is believed, and is the savour of death unto death when it is despised, so Christ, when he is eaten, quickeneth, and when he is despised, judgeth. Christ now is despised, when he is offered to the unbelieving in the word and sacraments, and is rejected by their unbelief.” (p. 428)
“On account of the general command of God with respect to guarding against the profanation of the sacraments, both in the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God would not allow wicked and obstinate offenders to be included among the number of his people, but required them to be excluded from their fellowship. Much less would he permit them to come to the sacraments of his church. “The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger,) the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off” (Num. 15:30, 31.) God did indeed desire all to come to the Passover, that is, all the members of his church; but he did not regard the rebellious and obstinate as included in the number of those who were in covenant with him. Hence he commanded them to be excluded from his people.” (p. 442)
“Because he desired that the incestuous man “be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5) that is, he desired him to be dealt with in such a manner, that notwithstanding his life might be prolonged, and he repent, his flesh might be subdued by sincere contrition, the old man mortified, and the new man quickened. Hence he did not desire that he should be put to death.”(p. 458)
“There are four classes of things concerning which men give commandment. These are, first, divine precepts, which God desires, that men should propose unto themselves for their observance, not, however, in their own name, but by the authority of God himself, as being the ministers and messengers, and not the authors of these precepts.” (p. 519-520)
“Obj. 2. The Holy Scriptures attribute to God the different members of the human body, and thus declare his nature and properties. Therefore it is also lawful to represent God by images. Ans. There is a difference between these figurative expressions used in reference to God, and images; because in the former case there is always something connected with those expressions which guards us against being led astray into idolatry, nor is the worship of God ordinarily tied to those figurative expressions. But it is different in regard to images, for here there is no such safeguard, and it is easy for men to give adoration and worship to them. God himself, therefore, used those metaphors of himself figuratively, that he might help our infirmity, and permits us, in speaking of him, to use the same forms of expression; but he has never represented himself by images and pictures; neither does he desire us to use them for the purpose of representing him, but has, on the other hand, solemnly forbidden them.” (p. 527)
“Obj. 6. All that is necessary is, that men should not, by the preaching of the gospel, have images in their hearts. Therefore it is not necessary that they should be removed from our churches. Ans. We deny the antecedent; because God not only forbids us to have idols in our hearts; but also before our eyes, seeing that he does not merely desire us to be no idolaters, but to avoid even the appearance of idolatry, according as it is said; “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (1 Thess. 5:22.).” (p. 534)
“The preface is contained in the words, Oar Father which art in heaven. This again consists of two parts: a calling upon the true God contained in the words, Our Father, and a description of the true God expressed by the words, Who art in heaven. Christ will have us to pray in this way, because God desires to be called upon with due honor, which consists, 1. In true knowledge. 2. In confidence. 3. In obedience. Obedience comprehends true love, fear, hope, humility and patience.” (p. 626)
“Neither ought the magistrate to whom it belongs to inflict punishment, to remit it except for just and weighty reasons; for God desires that his justice and law should be put into execution.” (p. 653)
“That which is good, and which accompanies afflictions and the cross, we should not pray for deliverance from; but afflictions and the cross itself, which are evil in themselves, being destructive to our nature, from these we should pray for deliverance, as Christ himself also prayed when he said, Let this cup pass from me, that is, let it pass from me in as far as it is a destruction and evil, in which sense the Father himself did not desire it. But in as far as the death of Christ was a ransom for the sins of his people, in so far both Christ and the Father desired it; ‘Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ (Matt. 26:39.)” (p. 656)
Conclusion:
There are more affirmations of common grace in Ursinius’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism; I did not even go into how common grace relates to the covenant and the sacraments in the theology of Zacharias Ursinus, and I only included quotes where the word ‘grace’ was explicitly used.
To answer our initial question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Yes. This is clearly demonstrated from Zacharias Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.
Appendix:
Of course, Ursinus’ affirmation of common grace is completely in line with historic Reformed Theology; to give three examples:
John Knox said, "After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children.” (On Predestination, p. 87)
Westminster Divine, Robert Harris said, "There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."
John Calvin said, “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 3:3)
