Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) on Universal and Common Grace

What is universal grace and what sort is it?

XV. Now we would not repeat concerning grace what we just above taught concerning love, if a manifold controversy, one that has been in every age most vexing, did not urge us to do so. There is, then, first, universal grace, by which God dispenses natural things to each and every creature and is thus named the Savior of all (1 Tim. 4:10), the one who saves beasts and men (Ps. 36:6) and takes cares that his sun rises over the field of the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45), concerning which see above [§IX]. This grace particularly confers to man his free choice and whatever sort of strength he has for natural good, and also stirs up and encourages that strength by its influence. And all these things, although they come forth from the gratuitous love of God, and thus from grace, yet in the use of Scripture, and also of all ancient orthodoxy, rarely and less properly are they called grace. For the latter tradition cautiously distinguished nature from grace against the Pelagians.

What is common grace and what sort is it?

XVI. There is, second, common grace, by which he dispenses moral goods, particularly to men, but indiscriminately, to the elect and the reprobate. To this kind of grace belong the virtues of the intellect, such as ingenuity, wisdom, and prudence (Ex. 31:3), as well as the virtues of the will, the ethical virtues (Luke 18:11), of which kind are all the virtues of pagans and unbelievers. In this number should be reckoned those things that appear more closely to approach saving things, such as are mentioned in Hebrews 6:4–5; Isaiah 58:2, and 1 Corinthians 13:1. To this pertains external calling to participation in Christ through the proclamation of the Word (Ps. 147:19–20; Matt. 20:16), and also internal calling through some sort of illumination, and all those good things which are conspicuous in temporary believers (Matt. 13:20–21).

Petrus van Mastricht, Faith in the Triune God, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester and Michael T. Spangler, vol. 2 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 353–354.

The Reformed commonly acknowledge a universal grace concerning natural things and a common grace concerning moral things, but saving grace concerning things that accompany salvation they do not allow, except as a grace proper to the elect: they acknowledge no saving grace that extends equally to each individual, not even that grace that they call objective.

Petrus van Mastricht, Faith in the Triune God, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester and Michael T. Spangler, vol. 2 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 367.

Note: Observe that van Mastricht said he believed in a sense of “universal grace,” and associated it with the “natural things” God dispenses to each and every creature. He also associated it with “the gratuitous love of God.” However, he insightfully also observed that “ancient orthodoxy,” meaning from the days of Augustine, “rarely and less properly” called such things “grace.” As he noted, “the latter [orthodox] tradition cautiously distinguished nature from grace against the Pelagians.” “Universal grace,” therefore, should not be dismissed outright, but simply and carefully distinguished (as van Mastricht did) from the aberrant meaning of the Pelagians. See Richard A. Muller, s.v. “gratia communis; gratia particularis sive specialis; and gratia universalis,” in Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 142, 143–44, 145. Some recent Reformed theologians (e.g., Jan van Genderen and Willem Hendrik Velema (Concise Reformed Dogmatics) and Robert Letham (Systematic Theology) have had no problem teaching a kind of “universal grace.” Hypothetical Universalists taught what was called a “universal objective grace,” which was deemed within the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy.

The objection of the Lutherans

I do not see what they could show in favor of this their Helen—set on fire as she was by their own Luther, and also thoroughly condemned by his hypotheses in his Bondage of the Will,⁴⁰ though the modern Lutherans, every time we have to contend with them on this issue, are desperately in love with her and kiss her passionately—except that experience itself shouts that those who are still unregenerate, equipped with nothing but their free choice, can attend to holy things, pour out prayers, and use the sacraments and other external things. But (1) we do not deny that such things can be performed by the unregenerate; rather, we deny only that this can happen by the strength of their choice, since such things are done by the aid of common grace. Next (2) we deny that this can be done by the unregenerate with the result that they do not resist the Holy Spirit. For this is nothing other than to show oneself compliant to the Holy Spirit, to desire or to embrace the grace of regeneration, which cannot come from one who is dead in sin.
_______________
40 On the allusion to Helen, note that not only was Helen alluringly attractive, but the result of an improper love for her was preventable war. In part 1, section 12 and part 2, section 1 of De servo arbitrio (lit. “On the enslaved choice”), Martin Luther mentions the destruction of Troy in connection with commitment to free choice.

Petrus van Mastricht, Faith in the Triune God, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester and Michael T. Spangler, vol. 2 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 372–373.

Neele added the following interesting historical note. During the CRC dispute with Hoeksema, et al, both parties apparently appealed to van Mastricht (and Calvin a well). From the above information, it seems the CRC was correct to do so, as van Mastricht did in fact teach common grace, and connected it with God’s love, his providential bounties, and restraining operations. As usual, the PRC historiography is seriously flawed.

The twentieth century, furthermore, witnessed appeals to Mastricht’s theology in controversy, as well as continuing interest by systematic theologians. In matters of theological controversy, Mastricht’s authority is sometimes noted, as it was in eighteenth-century New England; in addition, at the Synod of 1924, the Christian Reformed Church in North America referenced Mastricht concerning the doctrine of common grace. The Synod differed with the Revs. Hoeksema and Danhof, who appealed to Mastricht more than to Calvin, to assert the Reformed understanding of the doctrine.¹⁹³ In the works of systematic theology from Dutch theologians such as Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, E. C. Gravemeijer, Herman Hoeksema, and G. H. Kersten, but also from the Swiss Karl Barth, the TPT [Theoretico-Practica Theologia] is cited favorably, but usually only in the footnotes.¹⁹⁴
_______________
193 Acta der Synode 1924 van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk. Gehouden van 18 Juni tot 8 Juli, 1924 te Kalamazoo, Mich., U.S.A, 127–29 (Calvin), 128, 130, 133–34 (Mastricht).
194 Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1970), I/1:5, 199; I/2:310; II/1: 369f., 373, 404, 508, 516, 592, 601, 646, 731f.; II/2:83, 122, 142, 150, 371; III/2:456; III/3:72, 75, 107, 118, 178, 186, 333; IV/2:115; IV/3:17. Works with no reference index will be cited with page number; Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen: Kok, 1921); Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, with a new preface by Richard A. Muller (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); E. C. Gravenmeijer, Leesboek over de Gereformeerde Geloofsleer (Utrecht: H. Ten Hove, 1896), 1:118, 194, 254, 256, 263, 283, 293, 319, 334, 338, 342, 344, 349, 351, 362, 368, 370, 374, 376, 379, 393, 402, 408, 410, 414, 421, 422, 455; Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966), 61, 287, 447; G. H. Kersten, De Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Utrecht: De Banier, 1988, zesde druk), I:15, 25, 43, 94, 96, 97, 100, 110, 148, 150, 164, 179, 197, 207, 216, 228, 230, 244, 251, 326, 394, 412, 415; II:5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 34, 39, 42, 45, 56, 237, 255, 301, 346.

Adriaan C. Neele, “Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706): Life and Work,” in Prolegomena, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester, vol. 1 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), lxi.

Bio:
Wiki

Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) on the Threefold Love of God Toward His Creatures

The threefold love of God toward his creatures

IX. From this emerges a threefold love of God, that is, toward his creatures: (1) a universal love (Ps. 104:31; 145:9), through which he created, conserves, and governs all things (Ps. 36:6; 147:9). (2) A common love, extending itself particularly to men, certainly not to each and every individual, but yet indiscriminately to anyone, as much the reprobate as the elect, of which kind is also the love that dispenses the benefits that are mentioned in Hebrews 6:4–5 and 1 Corinthians 13:1–2. (3) A love proper to the elect, by which he dispenses saving benefits to them, benefits that accompany salvation (Heb. 6:9), which accordingly are different from nature and natural benefits. For it is most terrible to confuse nature and grace. This love is again on the one hand called an objective love, by which such goods are dispensed that indeed concern man and are aimed at him, but yet do not enter him: of such kind are the goods of election, redemption through the satisfaction of Christ, and calling to salvation through the proclamation of the gospel. Or on the other hand, it is a subjective love, which, so to speak, enters man himself, as regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and union and communion with Christ. Both of these are especially particular and proper to the elect (Rom. 8:29–30; John 1:12).

Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, ed. J. R. Beeke, trans. T. M. Rester and M. T. Spangler (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 2:351. Elsewhere, he said, “God loves the elect more than the reprobate.” Ibid., 2:118.

Note: Most likely, by the “common love” of God, van Mastricht has in view the love within the gathered assembly of the church, which is not extended to those outside of it. Within the church, in his view, there are elect and reprobate, and the benefits mentioned in Heb. 6:4–5 and 1 Cor. 13:1–2 are special benefits received by all in the assembly of the church. Nevertheless, there is a “universal love” that pertains to all of God's creatures, which does include those outside of the church. God's universal love, by implication, extends to all reprobates outside of the church, while God's common love extends "to anyone, as much the reprobate as elect" who are within the church.

Here are some related quotes:

There is in God a universal or common love by which he is inclined to do good to every creature, and so then also to man (Ps. 36:6; 1 Tim. 4:10), by external and common benefits (Ps. 17:14), and there is also a special, saving love by which he dispenses the benefits that accompany salvation, which have an unbreakable connection with salvation (Heb. 6:9).

Ibid., 2:365.

XL. Third, zeal for exploring, if we observe some propensity of God toward us, some love, grace, or mercy, whether is it only that universal propensity which is inclined to beasts as well as men (Ps. 36:6), or that common propensity which is inclined to the reprobate as well as the elect. For since (1) such great affinity is at times discerned between nature and grace, an affinity by which, in the external exercise of religion and virtues, nature frequently exceeds grace, as it is evident not only in certain of the more honorable pagans—Plato, Cato, Aristides, Scipio, Seneca, and others—but also in the church, for example, in the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:10–14); since also (2) between common and saving grace there is sometimes such great agreement, as is evident by examples (Isa. 58:2; 1 Cor. 13:1); since (3) in these things, so many and such great men have deceived themselves, and myriads of pseudo-Christians still day by day deceive themselves, taking a more agreeable and humane nature for the grace of regeneration, and common gifts for signs of saving grace (James 1:26–27; Luke 18:11; Rev. 3:17), and (4) they have not deceived themselves without danger, indeed, not without eternal destruction—for all these reasons, there is nothing more necessary than to distinguish here the things that are excellent (Phil. 1:9–10) and to make our calling and election sure, and our every saving grace (2 Peter 1:10).

Ibid., 2:378–379.

It is a distinguishing love: God loves and preserves all his works (Ps. 36:6), but in a different manner and degree (Rom. 9:13). He loves them as the works of his hands, but he does not love them as sons. And thus our love toward God should also be a distinguishing love: we should love all things on account of God, as the works of God, as the image of God, but God on account of himself, above all things (Ps. 73:25).

Ibid., 2:536.

Bio:
Wiki