Clifford:

Footnote #42 reads:

William Cunningham (1805–61) flies in the face of the evidence in denying that Calvin taught universal atonement (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (London, 1862; fac. London, 1967), 397. Although he denies that it is conclusive, he cites Calvin’s isolated reply to the Lutheran divine Heshusius as ‘a very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’ (p. 396). Calvin says, ‘As he adheres so doggedly to the words [‘this is my body’], I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins?’ For a discussion of this see Daniel, ‘John Gill and Hypercalvinism’, p. 818 ff. Alternatively, once it is seen that Calvin is opposing the theory of consubstantiation, an otherwise problematic statement makes sense beside his numerous universalist statements. He is virtually asking how unbelievers (or anyone for that matter) can feed on a crucified Christ simply by eating and drinking consecrated elements; for they themselves were not actually crucified as Christ was. Calvin is simply ridiculing the idea that unbelievers feed on Christ by feeding on mere symbols. See Tracts and Treatises, ii. 527.

A. C. Clifford, Atonement and Justification (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1990), 87.

Bell:

We are still left with Calvin’s statement concerning Christ’s flesh not crucified for the wicked. Again, we must refer to the context. In this context, Calvin is refuting certain arguments of Heshusius. The main differences centre around Heshusius’ claim that Christ is spatially present in the sacrament and that not only believers eat of his flesh, but also the wicked eat of Christ’s corporeal flesh ‘by the mouth bodily without faith’.Calvin rejects these ideas and teaches instead that Christ can spatially be in one place at one time and he is now seated in heaven at the Father’s right hand. Nevertheless, he is spiritually and really present in the sacraments so that by faith and ‘the secret virtue of the Spirit we are united into one body with him’.³⁷ It is absurd, writes Calvin, to think that ‘Christ is swallowed by the mouth so that he passes bodily into the stomach’.³⁸

Calvin argues that Heshusius has failed to see that the sacrament is a matter for faith. ‘Only those who are united by faith’ benefit from the sacrament; they alone ‘truly or in reality‘ can be said to eat Christ’s flesh.³⁹ It is a matter of the work of the Spirit, and therefore, of faith. The idea that the ‘unworthy’ or the ‘wicked’ or ‘unbelievers’⁴⁰ can’ eat Christ’ is ‘unworthy of refutation’.⁴¹ Calvin does not mean that only believers partake of the sacrament, that is, that it is only offered to believers. It is, indeed offered to all, even the wicked.⁴² However, unbelievers do not truly eat Christ, rather they receive only a ‘visible sign’ and so ‘eat only sacramentally’.⁴³

Calvin stresses continually the spiritual nature of the sacrament and the fact that only by faith does one benefit from it. Only through the Spirit can one eat Christ’s flesh. In this context, he notes Heshesius’ statement that ‘Christ is present to his creatures in many ways’, and then in rapid succession counters with his own questions: How can Christ be with unbelievers? How can he be ‘spiritual food’ for their souls? How can the wicked eat Christ’s flesh which’ was not crucified for them? Then he concludes with ‘my axiom, that Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter a human body devoid of his Spirit’.⁴⁴

It is readily seen that throughout this debate, Calvin is not discussing the atonement, but rather, the necessity of the presence of the Spirit and faith for the efficacy of the sacrament. He definitely is not making a statement on the extent of the atonement. Rather he is maintaining that when faith is absent, there is no benefit for the one partaking of the bread and wine. If we accept Calvin’s statement concerning the wicked eating Christ’s flesh which was not crucified for them as a statement on the extent of the atonement, and that, therefore, not only the atonement but

the sacrament as well is only for the elect, then Calvin is, indeed, inconsistent in his thinking. For earlier, in this same discussion, he stated that the sacrament is offered to the wicked, but they reject it and so insult Christ’s body.⁴⁵ However, Calvin is not inconsistent in his thought. He has simply resorted to the use of hyperbole in his discussion of the spiritual nature of the sacrament. The series of questions posed by Calvin are rhetorical and actually represent views which Calvin himself A rejects.⁴⁶

Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance (Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1985), 16-17.   [Underlining mine; original footnote values retained; and square brackets in footnotes mine.]

________________________

³⁷Ibid, 270, 276. [c.f. Theological Treatises, 270, 277.]

³⁸Ibid, 278.

³⁹Ibid. 281.

⁴⁰All three terms are used interchangeably by Calvin in this discussion.

⁴¹Theological Treatises, 282.

⁴²Ibid, 283, ‘. . . They insult the body of Christ, inasmuch as they reject the inestimable boon which is offered them.’

⁴³Ibid, 281.

⁴⁴Ibid. 285.

⁴⁵bid; 283.

⁴⁶Cf. Curt Daniel’s excellent discussion of this difficult passage, op.cit., 817-23.

Thomas:

Proponents of limited atonement have made much of a remark of Calvin to the Lutheran Heshusius on the subject of the Lord’s Supper (e.g. Nicole, op cit., p.222), in “The Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper” (1561), in Theological Treatises, ed. and trans. J.K.S.Reid, Library of Christian Classics vol.22, London 1954, pp. 258–324: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Chirst which was not crucified for them” (p.285). There is no need, however, to understand this in any other way than to imply that the benefits of the atonement are only intended to be effective in the case of those who believe. Over against the Lutheran view that participation in the bread and wine invariably means participation in the body and blood of Christ, Calvin taught that participation in Christ is only through faith. The promise of the gospel is to all, but is only intended to benefit those who believe. Calvin’s many statements of the atonement as being for believers are in full harmony with his view that the atonement is for all, in the context of promise, and for some, in the context of election. For belief is the response both invited by the promise, and given by election. Bell, op.cit., pp.16–17, convincingly expounds this remark of Calvin to Heshusius. Cp. Commentary on John, ch.1.v.29, p.33, “Let us therefore learn that we are reconciled to God by the grace of Christ if we go straight to His death and believe that He who was nailed to the cross is the only sacrificial victim by whom all our guilt is removed.

G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement (Paternoster Publishing, 1997), 39–40, fnt 58.

Daniel:

“We now come to another important quotation from Calvin. This is the ‘very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’ to which Cunningham appeals as the only example he could find.[1] In a refutation of the Lutheran writer Heshusius on the true partaking of the Lord’s body at the Supper, Calvin offers this argument:

But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with the unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world. And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and another to be a judge. . . . Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.[2]

We cannot ignore this example, as Davenant, Morison, Douty and Kendall do.[3] Several options are open to us at the outset. First, this paragraph could teach limited atonement. If so, then either Calvin contradicts his other statements espousing Universal atonement (perhaps without knowing it) or has changed his views on the subject.[4] After all, differences and changes are not entirely without example in Calvin. The tract was written in 1561, a late work. The second option is that affirmed by Cunningham and A.A. Hodge. They feel that this proves that Calvin did not teach Universal atonement. The ‘vague and indefinite statements’ about the atonement written in ‘a more unguarded manner’[5] must be interpreted in the light of this one explicit statement. Calvin’s other statements are then interpreted as Particularist. The third option is that the quotation above does not teach Particularism, though Calvin elsewhere teaches it. The fourth option is that neither in this place nor anywhere else does Calvin assert limited atonement. We seek to prove that the last option is the correct one.

We need not go into much depth on Calvin’s views of the Supper, for that has been done by others at considerable length.[6] We do not have access to the original propositions of Heshusius, but they can be deduced from what Calvin says in reply.

Read the rest of this entry »