Understanding Calvin’s argument against Heshusius

Stephen L. Costley, (c) 2007

In the Calvin v. the Calvinists dispute, the issue is this: did Calvin teach limited atonement? That is the question. For those who argue that Calvin did teach limited atonement, the evidence with the strongest prima facie appeal is the statement Calvin made in his tract against Heshusius. Here is the statement:

But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with 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 of Christ which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins?

Calvin, Theological Treatises, 285. (You can also find the tract against Heshusius online. All quotations in this article, unless otherwise noted, are taken from this tract.)

The person who insists that Calvin taught limited atonement sees vindication for his position in Calvin’s questions: “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?” Clearly here, they say, if nowhere else, Calvin is telling us that there are some men for whom Christ was not crucified.

Many take this statement to be such a clear and forceful statement of Calvin’s doctrine of the extent of the atonement that they interpret all of Calvin’s other statements on the question in light of this “clear” statement.

I put “clear” in quotes above because I don’t wish to be misunderstood as suggesting that the limited atonement advocates have accurately interpreted Calvin’s statement. In fact, they have horribly misinterpreted it. The limited atonement supporter sees Calvin’s question as rhetorically teaching that there are some men, viz., the wicked, for whom Christ did not die. His flesh was “not crucified for them” and his blood was “not shed to expiate their sins.”

But the question is not as simple as it is normally presented.

This paper consists of three parts. In the first part I will give six reasons why I reject the idea that Calvin was teaching the doctrine of limited atonement in the famous Heshusius statement. In the second part I will provide an alternative for understanding Calvin’s statement. This alternative provides a fully satisfying explanation of Calvin’s statement, an explanation which takes into account the context of Calvin’s theology as a whole, his theology of the Lord’s Supper, and his particular argument against Heshusius. In the third part I will suggest that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper revealed in the Heshusius tract is actually a forceful argument against the idea that Calvin could have held to the doctrine of limited atonement.

Part I – Six reasons why the Heshusius quote does not teach limited atonement

In this section, I give six reasons why the idea that Calvin taught limited atonement in the famous statement cannot be true.

1) The Context of Calvin’s Work

First, the comment is out of keeping with Calvin’s theology. As far as I know, this comment is not repeated in any other place in Calvin’s corpus. In fact, Calvin contradicts this idea in many places. For example:

Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ’s death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom he gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God’s children who will be partakers of Christ. The evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ as nothing else than by His death to gather the children of God into one (Jn 11:52). Hence we conclude that the reconciliation is offered to all through Him, yet the benefit is peculiar to the elect, that they may be gathered into the society of life.

Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 148-9. Emphasis added.

According to this quote from Calvin, Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the world, a world that has the elect and the reprobate mixed up together in it. And this reconciliation is offered to all, though benefitting only the elect. This idea runs throughout Calvin’s theology and throughout his works. For Calvin to say seriously in response to Heshusius that Christ was not crucified for the wicked would be simply fantastic; it is completely out of keeping with the mass of his statements on the subject.

2) The Immediate Context

My second reason for rejecting this interpretation of Calvin’s words is that it is out of keeping with what Calvin said in the tract against Heshusius itself. Consider this statement from the tract where Calvin defends himself against a charge from Heshusius:

Still he insists, and exclaims that nothing can be clearer than the declaration, that the wicked do not discern the Lord’s body, and that darkness is violently and intentionally thrown on the clearest truth by all who refuse to admit that the body of Christ is taken by the unworthy.

He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.

There are two points here. First, Calvin makes the obvious statement that “the sins of the world were expiated.” Limited atonement advocates will balk at this and insist that by “world” here Calvin does not mean every man. But there is no reason to suppose this.

The second point is that Calvin admits here that in the Lord’s Supper, Christ is given to the unworthy, and asserts that these unbelievers are justly condemned for rejecting Christ’s sacrifice. The unworthy are given Christ, but they earn a deserved condemnation for rejecting Christ’s sacrifice. This second point throws light on the meaning of Calvin’s statement that “the sins of the world were expiated.” The unworthy are condemned because they reject the sacrifice that was for them.

3) “Wicked” doesn’t mean “non-elect”

Look at Calvin’s statement again. Does Calvin say that he would like to know how the non-elect (or the reprobate) eat the flesh of Christ offered in the Lord’s Supper?

No. He asks how the wicked eat the flesh of Christ. Calvin does not here distinguish between elect and reprobate, but between believers and unbelievers, between worthy and unworthy partakers. There is no hint of Calvin’s argument treating of the unworthiness of the non-elect. Rather Calvin argues of the unworthiness of unbelievers.

It will eventually be pointed out that the end of the same paragraph in which the famous quote is found contains a distinction between elect and reprobate:

When he afterwards says that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Saul, we must send him to his rudiments, that he may learn how to discriminate between the sanctification which is proper only to the elect and the children of God, and the general power which even the reprobate possess. These quibbles, therefore, do not in the slightest degree affect my axiom, that Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.

“Clearly,” the limited atonement advocate will say, “Calvin has the distinction between elect and reprobate in his mind.”

But this is a sloppy approach. Careless readers often will look simply for the proximity of words rather than a connection of meaning and argument. The words “elect” and “reprobate” appear on the same page, and all analysis is at an end. “Context,” they will cry. They eagerly stamp their presuppositions on any mention of right-sounding words regardless of grammar and reason.

But any sensible reader will see that in the sentence about Saul, Calvin speaks of the difference between elect and reprobate with respect to the presence of the Holy Spirit, not with respect to who is a worthy partaker and who not. That such is the case is conclusively proved by the last part of the concluding sentence: “Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.” The unbelieving (even if elect) have not Christ’s Spirit and therefore cannot participate in the spiritual benefits of the Lord’s Supper.

4) The Limited Atonement Argument is Out of Place

The limited atonement advocates are representing Calvin as saying something like this: “since Christ has died only for the elect, I should like to know how the non-elect can spiritually participate in the Lord’s Supper.” But this argument would mean less than nothing to Heshusius, since Heshusius would have denied limited atonement.

As Curt Daniel points out, the introductory phrase, “I should like to know” is a flourish by Calvin indicating a rhetorical question. It poses a problem for his opponent, a question to which Heshusius ought to give a satisfactory answer. Calvin is essentially demanding an accounting of Heshusius. Obviously then, Calvin is, by these words, introducing an argument based on principles espoused by Heshusius himself. If Calvin is arguing from a limited intention in the atonement to a limited spiritual partaking of the Lord’s Supper, then the argument would be meaningless to Heshusius. Under the limited atonement presupposition, Heshusius would feel no obligation to answer.

Rather than feeling an obligation to answer, the argument would itself have provided a strong refuge for Heshusius. Since, as is conceded by all concerned, Heshusius did not hold to limited atonement, using limited atonement as an argument against his darling doctrine of Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and wine would have done more to confirm him in his belief than to move him from it. A limited atonement argument would have been like red meat to him. He would have attacked Calvin mercilessly on the point. We can imagine him saying, “Of course you have a defective view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, for you have a defective view of Christ’s work on the cross! Your corrupt doctrine of the atonement corrupts your view of the Supper.”

I will go a step further. If — hypothetically speaking — Calvin were using limited atonement as an argument against Heshusius’s view of the Supper, he would certainly have expounded on it fully. We would have more than just a passing reference in a rhetorical question (which is itself ironic in tone). No, the dispute would have been heated. Heshusius certainly would have goaded Calvin on the point (probably in strongly ironic language), which would have provoked Calvin to respond at length (and in kind). The fact that no such dispute appears in the tract — that limited atonement makes no appearance anywhere else in the dispute — itself indicates that this is not the basis on which Calvin makes his challenge.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, Roger Nicole says that Calvin’s argument is out of place here, but believes this is in favor of the limited atonement advocate.

Cunningham appears to be the first who referred to the following text of Calvin as reflecting a presumption of definite atonement. “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.”

This passage, found in a treatise on the Lord’s Supper destined to refute the fiery Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius, is rendered stronger by the fact that Heshusius, in good Lutheran fashion, did believe in universal atonement and therefore would not find Calvin’s argument persuasive at this point. But Calvin was so strongly oriented here that he appears to have forgotten that Heshusius would not share his presuppositions!

Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall 1985).

But Nicole is just wrong-headed here. Calvin’s statement interpreted as an assertion of limited atonement is out of place. That ought to make Nicole question his interpretation of Calvin rather than confirm him in it. Instead Nicole has decided that Calvin “appears to have forgotten” the position of his opponent.

Important digression on Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s SupperImportant digression on Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper

Before I can go into reasons five and six, we must delve into Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s Supper as revealed in his argument with Heshusius.

The argument that Calvin had with Heshusius related almost exclusively to the Lutheran doctrine that Christ’s body is present in the elements of the Eucharist. Any other differences (e.g., the ubiquity of Christ’s body and whether unbelievers partake of Christ in the observance of the Supper) are directly related to that fundamental difference. Apart from this difference, Calvin and Heshusius have a great deal in common.

For example, Calvin believed that worthy partakers do indeed partake of Christ’s body in the Eucharist. (All the quotes that follow in this section are taken from the tract against Heshusius.)

[I]t is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ….

Unbelievers who partake of the Lord’s Supper are eating damnation to themselves.

It is indeed true, that contumely is offered to the flesh of Christ by those who with impious disdain and contempt reject it when it is held forth for food….

And later in the tract, speaking of the condemnation due to unbelievers who partake unworthily of the Lord’s Supper, Calvin answers Heshusius as follows:

[A]s they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.

It seems natural, then, for Calvin to hold that as unbelievers eat damnation to themselves in their unworthy eating, Christ’s body is actually offered to them in the Supper.

[W]e maintain, that in the Supper Christ holds forth his body to reprobates as well as to believers….”

* * *

he is certainly offered in common to all, to unbelievers as well as to believers.

Indeed, Christ is given to unbelievers in the Supper.

[Heshusius] might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy….

On all these points Heshusius and Calvin are in agreement. (These same sentiments can be found in the Institutes as well.) For now it is important to notice in summary that Calvin and Heshusius agree on this point, that Christ is offered — nay, given — to unbelievers in the Lord’s Supper.

And now, having seen that much of Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, I offer my fifth reason for rejecting the idea that Calvin used limited atonement as an argument against Heshusius.

5) The Limited Atonement Argument Refutes Calvin’s Theology of the Lord’s Supper

The limited atonement proponents have Calvin saying the following: since Christ did not die for the wicked, how could they eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ which was not crucified and shed for them? It isn’t for them, so they can’t partake of it.

But if Calvin is really using limited atonement to refute Heshusius’s theology, then his is a Pyrrhic victory, for his own theology of the Lord’s Supper is refuted at the same time.

Keep in mind that Calvin holds that the flesh of Christ is offered and given to unbelievers in the Lord’s Supper. If Calvin were actually using limited atonement as an argument against Heshusius, the very question that Calvin posed to Heshusius could be posed to Calvin himself. How could Christ’s flesh be offered or given to the reprobate (as Calvin believed) when his flesh was not crucified for them? How could Christ’s blood be given to them to drink if it were not shed for them? Calvin did not miss such an obvious point as this.

It seems clear to me that this is not at all what Calvin had in mind. Calvin is not using limited atonement as an argument, whatever else he might mean by his statement.

6) Calvin argued against Christ’s local bodily presence in the elements of the Lord’s Supper, not against unlimited atonement

The dispute between Calvin and Heshusius was not the atonement, it was Christ’s local bodily presence in the Eucharistic elements. Calvin himself states the matter in contention as follows:

Hence it follows, that our dispute relates neither to presence nor to substantial eating, but only as to the mode of both. We neither admit a local presence, nor that gross or rather brutish eating of which Heshusius talks so absurdly when he says, that Christ in respect of his human nature is present on the earth in the substance of his body and blood, so that he is not only eaten in faith by his saints, but also by the mouth bodily without faith by the wicked.

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that Calvin does not dispute Christ’s presence in the elements, but the mode of His presence in the elements. The local bodily presence of Christ in the elements brings up two other issues, viz., Christ’s bodily presence on earth and the wicked’s partaking of Christ by physical ingestion. These are the issues that Calvin addresses in the tract, and that is the dispute; it is not the extent of the atonement. Naturally we would expect Calvin’s arguments to address the issue of Christ’s bodily presence, not the irrelevant (to the dispute) issue of the extent of the atonement.

Then what does the quote mean? What is really going on here?

Part II – How to understand the Heshusius quote

The problem with the high Calvinists’ understanding of Calvin’s tract against Heshusius is that — given their understanding of it — the quote they rely on is so jarringly out of place. It doesn’t fit with Calvin’s theology or with his argument against Heshusius. Here is the quote again, along with a larger portion of the context.

It is worth while to observe in passing, with what acuteness he disposes of my objection, that Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit. His answer is, that as the words of Paul are clear, he assents to them. Does he mean to astonish us by a miracle when he tells us that the blind see it? It has been clearly enough shown that nothing of the kind is to be seen in the words of Paul. He endeavors to disentangle himself by saying, that Christ is present with his creatures in many ways. But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with 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 of Christ 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.

I am going to review this passage to illustrate the substance and method of Calvin’s argument against Heshusius. In so doing we will (if I attain my objectives) have a brief survey of the entire tract.

Calvin’s Irony

To begin the review of the passage, note the irony Calvin used in addressing Heshusius and his arguments.

It is worth while to observe in passing, with what acuteness he disposes of my objection, that Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit. His answer is, that as the words of Paul are clear, he assents to them. Does he mean to astonish us by a miracle when he tells us that the blind see it?

Notice the heavy-handed irony of Calvin here. He suggests that for Heshusius to see the words of Paul clearly would be akin to the blind seeing. But “blind” is one of the kindest adjectives Calvin used of Heshusius in the entire tract! In the very first line of the tract Calvin calls him “petulant, dishonest, rabid.” Later in the very same first paragraph he addresses Heshusius’s arguments as coming “from another sink.” Further on, Calvin accuses him of seeking “fame by advancing paradoxes and absurd opinions.” One could go on at further and more humorous lengths. Calvin certainly was not above making Heshusius the object of obloquy. (One wonders if Calvin were not inspired by the spirit of Luther in answering the Lutherans!)

Besides mocking Heshusius himself at every turn, Calvin shows Heshusius’s doctrine in the most unfavorable light. At one point he says, “If Christ is in the bread, he should be worshipped under the bread.” He compares Heshusius’s doctrine of the Eucharist unfavorably to the Roman Catholic doctrine. Calvin says:

[Heshusius] vindicates himself and the churches of his party from the error of transubstantiation with which he falsely alleges that we charge them. For though they have many things in common with the Papists, we do not therefore confound them together and leave no distinction. I should rather say, it is long since I showed that the Papists in their dreams are considerably more modest and more sober.

Early on in the tract, Calvin engages Heshusius at some length on whether Christ’s flesh is bitten by teeth. Calvin asks, “Why should he be so afraid of the touch of the palate or throat, while he ventures to assert that it is absorbed by the bowels?”

I point all of this out to show that in making his challenge to Heshusius regarding the wicked eating the flesh of Christ that was not sacrificed for them, Calvin intended to show Heshusius in the worst possible light. He was not engaging in irenic philosophical dispute. He was charging Heshusius with gross absurdities and inconsistencies. We should not be surprised at Calvin’s calling up grotesque images and ideas in his criticism of Heshusius — the more grotesque the better, one imagines. What comic irony would there be in charging Heshusius with violating a principal that he did not hold?

Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit.

Going back to the paragraph we’re analyzing, Calvin makes this objection:

It is worth while to observe in passing, with what acuteness he disposes of my objection, that Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit.

Calvin makes this objection in response to the idea that the wicked partake of Christ’s flesh in the Lord’s Supper. Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit, Calvin says, and thus merely eating the flesh of Christ apart from the Spirit of Christ is impossible. The reader should keep in mind that Calvin did hold that Christ’s flesh, or His body, is present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. The difference between Calvin and Heshusius on this point is that Heshusius held to a physical presence, whereas Calvin held that this presence, though substantial, is spiritual and mysterious. Calvin says in this tract,

it is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ….

Heshusius relies on wooden literalism

The substance of Heshusius’s argument — as related by Calvin — is summed up in the next sentence:

His answer is, that as the words of Paul are clear, he assents to them.

Heshusius relies on a strictly literal reading of 1Corinthians 11:24, “this is my body.” For Heshusius, the literal meaning of the words answers all objections. It is important to recognize his heavy-handed literalism to understand both the issue in dispute and Calvin’s arguments. This is why Calvin asked questions of Heshusius throughout the tract regarding the physical nature of the flesh of Christ in the elements: is the flesh chewed with the teeth? how long is it retained in the body? and such like.

It is also important to understand that Heshusius insists on the literal meaning of the words. We will come to this again later.

The benefits of the Supper enjoyed only by faith

The next section of this passage contains the part of the dispute between Calvin and Heshusius related to the spiritual benefits of the Lord’s Supper and how one might partake of those benefits:

His answer is, that as the words of Paul are clear, he assents to them. Does he mean to astonish us by a miracle when he tells us that the blind see it? It has been clearly enough shown that nothing of the kind is to be seen in the words of Paul. He endeavors to disentangle himself by saying, that Christ is present with his creatures in many ways. But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world.

Emphasis added. In these sentences, Calvin focuses on the difference between the literal presence of Christ’s body in the elements and the spiritual benefits that must be enjoyed by faith. And that is how we can understand the italicized sentence above. Since, by Heshusius’s own principles, the wicked do not benefit by Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, Calvin drives home the point that faith is required to enjoy the benefits promised in the Eucharist. This is Calvin’s main thrust. Faith is required to enjoy the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice offered in the Eucharist, not Christ’s bodily presence. Thus, though unbelievers are offered these benefits, they do not receive them because they have no faith.

On this point Calvin has reduced Heshusius to an absurdity using principles that Heshusius himself espouses. Heshusius believes that the wicked do partake of the flesh of Christ, but receive no spiritual benefit from this partaking. That being the case, Heshusius has oddly separated the flesh of Christ from His Spirit. Calvin’s argument in this paragraph is about Heshusius’s strange doctrine regarding the flesh of Christ; it has nothing to do with the extent of the atonement.

The critical sentenceThe critical sentence

And now, at last, we come to the critical sentence. But this time we come to it fully prepared. Here it is.

And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, 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?

First we note the reference to Heshusius’s literalism: “as he adheres so doggedly to the words….” Calvin is setting us up for another reductio ad absurdum relying on Heshusius’s clumsy dependence on the literal meaning of words.

“I should like to know….” Calvin uses these words to introduce his challenge to Heshusius. As I noted previously (reason four), this challenge must be on principles Heshusius would agree to or Calvin’s argument would be meaningless.

“how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ….” Clearly Calvin is speaking of the local bodily presence of Christ’s flesh in the bread, as opposed to the spiritual benefits. Calvin has already posed the question related to the spiritual benefits of the Lord’s Supper in the previous sentence. Now he passes to the physical eating. This is the main point in dispute. It should not surprise us to see the bodily presence of Christ in the elements as the subject of a reductio ad absurdum when the bodily presence is the principal bone of contention between the two men.

“which was not crucified for them?” And here we are. In what respect does Calvin see Christ as not crucified for the wicked? The point is, that Calvin is saying Heshusius believes this. As Curt Daniel has pointed out, Calvin often used this rhetorical form beginning with the phrase “I should like to know” in other places in his corpus. Calvin is not saying that he holds this position. He is saying that Heshusius holds this position and challenges him to produce a reason for holding this absurdity.

What Calvin refers to here is the Lutheran opposition to the Roman Catholic Mass, in which Christ’s flesh is indeed seen as crucified. (Calvin shares Heshusius’s opinion on this point, of course, but he has a reasonable explanation for it in his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.)

In Lutheran theology, this point is referred to in at least two of their confessional documents. In Luther’s Large Catechism, in the section titled “The Sacrament of the Altar,” we find this statement:

Therefore also it is vain talk when they say that the body and blood of Christ are not given and shed for us in the Lord’s Supper, hence we could not have forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament. For although the work is accomplished and the forgiveness of sins acquired on the cross, yet it cannot come to us in any other way than through the Word.

“They say,” that is, the Roman Catholics say. Lutheran doctrine explicitly denies that the body and blood of Christ are “given and shed for us in the Lord’s Supper….” The work, the Lutherans hold, was accomplished on the cross, not in the Eucharist. This is further reinforced in the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIV, where private masses are condemned and Christ’s once sacrifice for sin is asserted.

For Christ’s passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not for guilt only, but also for all other sins, as it is written to the Hebrews, 10:10: ‘We are sanctificed through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all.’

Augsburg Confession XXIV

Thus Lutheran theology specifically denies that the body of Christ, though locally and bodily present in the Eucharist, is sacrificed in the Eucharist. I suggest that it is this that Calvin refers to in his famous challenge. Calvin is asking how the wicked eat the flesh of Christ, which, though physically present in the bread, has not been sacrificed.

To reinforce this, we may also recall Paul’s words in 1Corinthians, which Heshusius insists upon so doggedly: “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you….” Notice that Paul’s formula refers both to Christ’s presence in the elements and his crucifixion. Since Heshusius insists so strongly on a literal meaning of the words “this is my body,” how can he account for his retreat from the literal meaning of “which is broken for you”? If Heshusius were consistent in his literal interpretation, Christ’s flesh must be offered as a sacrifice as in the Catholic Mass. He insists upon “this is my body,” but doesn’t insist on “which is broken for you.” As Calvin suggested earlier in the tract, the Catholics are “considerably more modest and more sober.”

Thus we have come to a satisfactory understanding of Calvin’s challenge, which involves no contradiction to his own theology, uses Heshusius’s accepted principles for a reductio ad absurdum argument, is in keeping with the tone of the dispute between the two men, and addresses the matter that is actually being debated between them. Whereas the limited atonement argument, as suggested by the high Calvinists, meets none of those criteria.

Part III – The Heshusius tract proves Calvin didn’t teach limited atonement

In Part III, I wish to consider whether the Heshusius tract can answer for us the question of Calvin’s doctrine of the extent of the atonement. Consider the question of the sincerity of the offer of the gospel to sinners. The sincerity of the gospel offer is tied by some (myself included) to the universality of the atonement. If Christ’s sacrifice were not for all, then the gospel is not for all and could not be offered to all.

If we understand Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s Supper, we surely think of an offer of the gospel. For Calvin, the Lord’s Supper was the best picture of the gospel, and the sacrament was, he said, offered or given to believer and unbeliever alike. How would this doctrine be affected by a doctrine of limited atonement? Keep that question in mind as we review some important concepts from Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper.

The substantial presence of Christ in the elements

As we saw in examining the Heshusius tract, Calvin believed that Christ is substantially present in the elements of the Eucharist.

[I]t is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ….

One should note that Calvin says not only that Christ is given to us in the Supper, but that Christ’s flesh — his body and blood — is given to us in the Supper. Such is the mystery that Calvin treats of in his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: the substantial — but not material and local — presence of Christ’s flesh in the elements.

I do not restrict this union to the divine essence, but affirm that it belongs to the flesh and blood, inasmuch as it was not simply said, My Spirit, but, My flesh is meat indeed; nor was it simply said, My Divinity, but, My blood is drink indeed.

The offer of Christ in the elements

This presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements is an offer to believers and unbelievers alike to partake of the benefits of his atonement. I have three quotations from the tract to that effect. Quote number one:

Still [Heshusius] insists, and exclaims that nothing can be clearer than the declaration, that the wicked do not discern the Lord’s body, and that darkness is violently and intentionally thrown on the clearest truth by all who refuse to admit that the body of Christ is taken by the unworthy.

He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy….

Quotation number two:

It is indeed true, that contumely is offered to the flesh of Christ by those who with impious disdain and contempt reject it when it is held forth for food; for we maintain, that in the Supper Christ holds forth his body to reprobates as well as to believers….

And number three:

[I]n [the sacraments] accordingly we obtain possession of Christ, and spiritually receive him with his gifts: nay, he is certainly offered in common to all, to unbelievers as well as to believers.

In the Lord’s Supper, Christ is presented as the life-giving sacrifice for sins

The third point in my argument is that according to Calvin, the Supper presents Christ as the lamb slain for our sins. The observance is not merely a memorial or a duty to be performed, but a picture of the gospel and an offer of the benefits of it. Because of the sacrifice that the Supper portrays, the sacrament gives life to all who partake in faith.

Calvin shows that by partaking, believers are given spiritual life and are substantially fed through the elements. He says:

But it is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ….

But Calvin opposes Heshusius’s insistence on the physical presence of Christ’s body in the elements:

[Heshusius’s] expression is, that the very substance of the flesh and blood must be taken by the mouth; whereas I define the mode of communication without ambiguity, by saying, that Christ by his boundless and wondrous power unites us into the same life with himself, and not only applies the fruit of his passion to us, but becomes truly ours by communicating his blessings to us, and accordingly conjoins us to himself in the same way in which head and members unite to form one body.

Note carefully in this quote that Calvin makes a close connection between the observance of the Eucharist and the application of the benefits of the atonement. According to Calvin, the benefits of Christ’s passion are applied through participation in the Supper. The communion observance communicates Christ’s life to us. (How fearful, then, the consequences of the neglect of or the exclusion from this observance. And is that not the point of church discipline —excommunication — which is named for the exclusion from the Lord’s Supper?)

Next, let’s return to a quote already given above in part. Here Calvin answers Heshusius’s charge that Calvin’s doctrine fails to take into account that the unworthy are condemned for their failure to discern the Lord’s body in the Supper:

He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.

Again take note that in their contempt for the Supper, the wicked set at nought the lamb of God. Also note that in rejecting the offer of the Supper, unbelievers set at nought the atoning work of Christ. So close is the connection between Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and his doctrine of the atonement.

The Supper is not a sham offer

Here I have only one quote from the tract:

In our Agreement it is twice or thrice, distinctly stated, that since the testimonies and seals which the Lord has given us of his grace are true, he, without doubt, inwardly performs that which the sacraments figure to the eye, and in them accordingly we obtain possession of Christ, and spiritually receive him with his gifts….

This idea is not popular in the reformed community in America. It is certainly not popular among the Baptists and apparently not so popular among most Presbyterians. But Calvin plainly taught that the promises of the sacraments are more than merely signs or symbols.

In this article I have limited myself to quotations from the tract against Heshusius, but all of the arguments here could have been sustained from sentiments expressed in the Institutes or Commentaries. The reader might consult Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17. Or take a look at Calvin’s commentary on 1Corinthians 11.

Limited atonement antithetical to Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s SupperLimited atonement antithetical to Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper

Let me state this in a somewhat controversial manner, noting that, ironically, I am myself a Baptist. Apart from the Federal Vision sympathizers, most Presbyterians have a Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper. They certainly don’t have Calvin’s view. This may be due, in part, to the incongruity between the common doctrine of limited atonement and Calvin’s view of the Supper. How could one hold to Calvin’s view of the Supper and seriously preach limited atonement as it is commonly preached? (It is also interesting to me that the Federal Vision men hold to a strict version of limited atonement.)

Imagine a church service on a Sunday when the Supper is to be observed. Imagine this particular Sunday coinciding with a sermon on limited atonement. Imagine the irony, then, when the minister presents Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: that Christ’s crucified flesh is substantially present in the Supper; that in offering the elements Christ offers himself to all; that those who by faith feed on the elements feed on Christ; that in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, “by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ.”

It just doesn’t fit.

Concluding thoughts

I take my final quote from Calvin’s Institutes:

For these are words which can never lie nor deceive – Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy at the sacrament consists in these words, It is broken for you; it is shed for you.

Institutes 4.17.3

The idea that there must be a universal expiation behind a universal gospel offer is appealing at an intellectual level, but it is also susceptible to evasions. Evasion is not really possible (at least it becomes more difficult) when the doctrine is given tangible expression in the Lord’s Supper. Here is Christ really; here is a real offer, an offer to believer and unbeliever alike; here is the application of the benefits of the atonement; here is the reality of a table set, a feast spread; here is the banquet to which all are invited. Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper seems utterly incompatible with the kind of limited atonement often held in Calvinistic circles today.

Stephen L. Costley, stevelco@aol.com
Posted with permission

See also Calvin on the unlimited expiation and redemption of Christ.

 

Many today often cite Calvin’s famous words to Tileman Heshusius, where Calvin says, “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?” to prove that Calvin did not believe in an unlimited atonement or expiation.¹ This is the only direct statement from the corpus of Calvin’s writings that can and has been adduced to argue this. The following is a compilation of extracts from various sources, including Calvin himself, which seek to respond the claim that this single statement effectively proves that Calvin held to strict limited atonement or limited expiation.

The original quotation from Calvin with some context:

Does he mean to astonish us by a miracle when he tells us that the blind see it? It has been clearly enough shown that nothing of the kind is to be seen in the words of Paul. He endeavors to disentangle himself by saying, that Christ is present with his creatures in many ways. But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with 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 of Christ 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. When he afterwards says that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Saul, we must send him to his rudiments, that he may learn how to discriminate between the sanctification which is proper only to the elect and the children of God, and the general power which even the reprobate possess. These quibbles, therefore, do not in the slightest degree affect my axiom, that 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

Source reference: “Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in Order to Dissipate The Mists of Tileman Heshusius,” Selected Works of John Calvin, 2:527.

Extract from Curt Daniel³
Curt Daniel on Calvin and Heshusius

“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.⁴ 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.⁵

We cannot ignore this example, as Davenant, Morison, Douty and Kendall do.⁶ 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.⁷ 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’⁸ 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.⁹ We do not have access to the original propositions of Heshusius, but they can be deduced from what Calvin says in reply.

Being a Lutheran, Heshusius taught consubstantiation. This means that all who eat the bread and drink the wine at the Table do actually eat and drink Christ, for Christ is really present in, with and under the elements. Calvin, of course, does not accept Christ’s presence at the Table in this way. Christ is spiritually present, says Calvin, and therefore linked with the Word rather than with the elements. This is what Calvin is seeking to prove in the tract. Since Christ is present only in a spiritual sense, He is eaten only in a spiritual sense. And that spiritual eating is done by faith alone. No man truly eats (receives) Christ except through faith.¹⁰ Unbelievers therefore do not eat Christ at all. They are, however, judged by Christ at the Table for their lack of faith. Their judgement for daily lack of faith is compounded when they partake of the elements because the Sacrament is the ultimate expression of personal communion between a believer and his Lord. An unbeliever pretending to be a believer thus insults Christ Himself. Christ certainly is present at the Table but He judges unbelievers because of their unbelief, not because they eat the elements and Himself.

Other passages in Calvin’s work bear special relevance to the interpretation of the passage in question. One is in the Institutes. There Calvin deals with the question of unbelievers ‘eating Christ’: ‘However, I should like to know from them how long they (the wicked) retain it (the true body of Christ) when they have eaten it’.¹¹ Note the same introductory phrase, ‘I should like to know. . . .’ In the Institutes quotation, what follows the introductory phrase is something that Calvin denies–that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ. He is not accepting that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ; the inquiry is rhetorical. We feel, therefore, that the instance with Heshusius must be interpreted as parallel in form and content.¹² In the Institutes quotation, the second clause (that the wicked eat and retain Christ) is asserted by the protagonist; in the Treatise quotation the second clause (that the wicked eat the flesh which was not crucified for them) is asserted by Heshusius, not by Calvin.

When Calvin says that Heshusius ‘adheres so doggedly to the words’, he refers to the Lutheran exegesis which interprets literally Scriptures like ‘Take, eat, This is my body’, (Matt. 26:26) and the verses in John 6 (esp. vss. 35, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56). It is on the basis of this literalising that Heshusius asserts that even the wicked eat Christ. But Calvin does not interpret these verses literally but spiritually. What Calvin is denying is that these verses are interpreted literally and that the wicked eat Christ. He is not denying that the flesh of Christ was crucified for the wicked. Lutherans such as Heshusius, of course, did not deny Universal atonement. Something else, therefore, is being said about the atonement and those for whom Christ died.

Cunningham probably wishes to insert a comma after ‘flesh’, viz.: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh, which was not crucified for them’. This would make a subordinate clause with a separate assertion, as if there were possibly two sentences: ‘. . . how the wicked can eat the flesh. The flesh was not crucified for them’. But that is not what Calvin is saying. This punctuation would make it more probable that it was Calvin who was making the assertion in the second clause of the inquiry. But we have argued that this clause belongs to Heshusius. What then is he saying?

To answer this we turn to another important parallel. In his Commentary on I. Cor. 11:24, Calvin notes:

. . . the Supper is a mirror which represents Christ crucified to us, so that a man cannot receive the Supper and enjoy the benefits, unless he embraces Christ crucified.¹³

Here Calvin says that true eating is dependant upon embracing Christ crucified. Often he defines this as believing that Christ was crucified for oneself. For instance:

For it is not enough that Jesus Christ suffered in His person and was made a sacrifice for us; but we must be assured of it by the Gospel; we must receive that testimony and doubt not that we have righteousness in Him, knowing that He has made satisfaction for our sins.¹⁴

Calvin says the same thing in his comments on Mark 14:24, which describes the Last Supper:

So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that the world is redeemed by the blood of Christ, but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.¹⁵

Calvin says that the faith which truly partakes of Christ’s body at the Table is the same faith which justifies.¹⁶ This faith is grounded in the Gospel and the atonement. We are to renew that faith at the Table by faith in the Word about the cross. This means that we again believe that Christ satisfied for our sins and thereby covered them. This is embracing Christ crucified: believing that Christ died for us. Without this faith, there is no true partaking at the Table. This is contrary to the Particularist theory. Particularism denies that saving faith believes that Christ was crucified for oneself; consequently it further denies that this conviction is necessary for the true partaking of Christ at the Table. This represents a radical departure from Calvin on the Sacrament of the Supper.

We would paraphrase the words in the Treatise quotation as follows: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ if they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them’. It is Heshusius, not Calvin, who claims that a person can truly eat without this faith. This is not to make Heshusius a Particularist. Not at all. But Heshusius and Particularists share the conviction that one need not believe that Christ was crucified for oneself in order to partake truly of the Supper and Christ.

What about Calvin’s words here about the Spirit? How do we explain them? Calvin is simply saying that there is no true eating without the Spirit within oneself, for the plain reason that there is no faith without the Spirit. This is also brought out in the Commentary on I Cor. 11:27. There Calvin argues that without the Spirit, no one truly eats Christ.¹⁷ Some weak believers eat unworthily but they still do eat, for even weak believers have the Spirit and are united to Christ.¹⁸ The wicked may have historical faith that Christ died but this is not enough truly to partake of Christ. But this is not disputed by Cunningham.

Cunningham’s only support, then, actually teaches the very opposite. Calvin taught that one must believe that Christ died for oneself and that the only way we can know this is for the Gospel to tell us. Though the Gospel does not specify individuals (this man or that man) or particular men, it does say that Christ died for all men. The believer knows that he is a man and therefore that Christ died for him. Saving faith accepts this. The conclusion is that without a Universal atonement no man can know by the Gospel that Christ died for him. In this sense we can agree with Kendall’s introductory sentence to his first chapter: ‘Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509–64) is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men.’”¹⁹

Relevant sources from Dr. Daniel’s Bibliography

Barclay, Alexander The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Glasgow, 1927.

Bell, Merton Charles, Jr., Saving Faith and Assurance of Salvation in the Teaching of John Calvin and Scottish Theology. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1982.

Calvin, John, Letters of John Calvin. 4 vols. Edited and translated by Jules Bonnet. New York, 1858, 1972.

Calvin, John, Tracts and Treatises. With a short life of Calvin by Theodore Beza. 3 vols. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Edited by Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, 1958. See pp. 215 – 216 below from Calvin’s other works cited.

Cunningham, William, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation. Edinburgh, 1862, 1967.

Doyle, Robert Colin, The Context of Moral Decision Making in the Writings of John Calvin–the Christological Ethics of Eschatological Order. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1981.

 

Helm, Paul, Calvin and the Calvinists. Edinburgh, 1982.

Hodge, Archibald, A., The Atonement. London, 1868.

Kuiper, R.B., For Whom Did Christ Die? Grand Rapids, 1959.

Lane, A.N.S. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance’, Vox Evangelica, vol. XI, 1979, pp. 32–54.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins, Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, 1907.

Wallace, Ronald S., Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Edinburgh, 1953.

 

Alan Clifford on Calvin and Heshusius²⁰

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.”

 

G. Michael Thomas on Calvin and Heshusius²¹

Footnote #58 reads:

“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.”

Tony Byrne comments:

It is interesting how some high Calvinists immediately, as if unconsciously, take the term “wicked” and convert it into “non-elect”. It doesn’t even seem to occur to them that they slide right into thinking of the “wicked” as the “non-elect” in dealing with this quote. In their desperation to use this single Calvin citation to demonstrate their continuity with him on the atonement, they don’t even pause to consider the fact that the unbelieving elect are also “wicked” prior to faith, even as the rest (see Eph. 2:3). The ones that are not wicked are not the elect as such, but the believing elect. The “wicked” are the unbelievers, whether elect or not.

The high Calvinist template or strict particularist presupposition gets stamped on the data as if they’re not even epistemologically self-aware. And, contrary to Cunningham, they found everything upon this one quote.

 

Final Argument:

Many cite this one comment from Calvin as proof that Calvin held to a limited expiation and redemption. The problem is, Calvin is more complex than often imagined. Only two pages earlier in this tract, Calvin says this:

Still he insists, and exclaims that nothing can be clearer than the declaration, that the wicked do not discern the Lord’s body, and that darkness is violently and intentionally thrown on the clearest truth by all who refuse to admit that the body of Christ is taken by the unworthy. He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.²²

Calvin’s use of the phrase “sins of the world” reflects the common usage of Calvin’s contemporaries, who used this phrase to denote an unlimited expiation and imputation of sin. This can be easily documented from the writings of Bullinger, Zwingli and others of the same period. For example, Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession.

Second Helvetic Confession:

Imputed Righteousness. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5:19 ff.; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us. [Chapter XV “Of the True Justification of the Faithful.”]

Bullinger in his Dacades is patently clear that by the phrase “sins of the world” he means the sins of all men:

To be short, when we say and confess that Jesus Christ is the priest or bishop of the faithful people, we say that; that Christ is our chosen and appointed teacher and master, to govern and teach his universal church, to make intercession for us, and to plead all our suits faithfully before the Father in heaven; which is the only patron, mediator, and advocate of the faithful with God; who by the sacrifice of his body is the perpetual and only satisfaction, absolution, and justification of all sinners throughout the whole world…

He never sacrificed in the temple at the holy altars either of incense or of burnt-offerings. He never used priestly garments, which were figurative; whereof I spoke when I expounded the ceremonial laws [Heb. 8]. Therefore, when he would sacrifice for the satisfaction of the sins of the whole world, he suffered without the gate, and offered himself a lively and a most holy sacrifice, according as in the shadows or types, prophecies and figures foreshewed in the law of Moses: whereof in like manner I have entreated in the discourse of ceremonial laws… And that only sacrifice is always effectual to make satisfaction for all the sins of all men in the whole world… Christians know that the sacrifice of Christ once offered is always effectual to make satisfaction for the sins of all men in the whole world, and of all men of all ages: but these men with often outcries say, that it is flat heresy not to confess that Christ is daily offered of sacrificing priests, consecrated to that purpose. Decades, 4^th Decade, Sermon 7, vol 2, pp., 285-286, 287, and 296. [His reference to these men is to Rome’s priests and to the Mass.]

There is no direct evidence from Calvin that when he used the phrase “sins of the world,” or like phrases, that he assumed any limitation, whereby the expiation was only for the sins of the elect or something like that. On the contrary, we have such amazing statements as this from Calvin’s pen:

Let us mark then, that he [Job] was not possessed or oppressed with such a despair as he utters here, but that God made him to feel his goodness in some sort. We see this yet much better in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ He says, Why has thou forsaken me? And indeed he is there in extremity, as the party that bears the burden of all the sins of the world. Therefore it was requisite that for a while Jesus Christ should feel himself as it were forsaken of God his Father. But yet nevertheless he had a comfort to the contrary as he showed by saying, “My God, my God” (Matt 27:46). Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 35, Job 9:16-22, p., 161.

So we must take careful note of these words of the prophet when he says that the correction of our peace was on our Lord Jesus Christ; seeing that by his mediation God is satisfied and appeased, for He bore all the wickednesses and all the iniquities of the world.Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, Sermon 3, 53:4-6, p., 74.

Therefore we must repair to our Lord Jesus Christ, for it is he that hath borne all our burdens, as I have alleged already. Truly the redeeming of us did cost him dear, and if we seek heaven and earth throughout for the price of a ransom, we shall not find any other than him, that is able to pacify God. Then had we never been sanctified, except the son of God had given himself for us. And in very deed the prophet Isaiah shows how he bear our burdens. ( Isaiah 53:4, 5) Namely that he felt the pains of death, and that the Father was fain [pleased] to wreak himself upon him, as though he had been an offender and guilty of all the sins of the world. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 39, 6:2-5, p., 836/597.

One could simply assert that by the terms “world” and “whole world” in all these examples, and in any other examples, Calvin simply meant the elect or some equivalent concept. But that would be an assertion without any evidence. Indeed, the evidence is clear that he meant all sins of the whole world:

He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. Calvin. Romans 5:18

But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. But devout minds are sometimes carried beyond the consideration of men, and led to fix their eye on the glory of God, and the kingdom of Christ. The glory of God, which is in itself more excellent than the salvation of men, ought to receive from us a higher degree of esteem and regard. Believers earnestly desirous that the glory of God should be promoted, forget men, and forget the world, and would rather choose that the whole world should perish, than that the smallest portion of the glory of God should be withdrawn. Calvin, Galatians, 5:12.

Whenever, therefore, we hear this designation applied to the devil, let us be ashamed of our miserable condition; for, whatever may be the pride of men, they are the slaves of the devil, till they are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ; for under the term world is here included the whole human race…

“But that the world may know.” Some think that these words should be read as closely connected with the words, “Arise, let us go hence,” so as to make the sense complete. Others read the former part of the verse separately, and suppose that it breaks off abruptly. As it makes no great difference in regard to the meaning, I leave it to the reader to give a preference to either of these views. What chiefly deserves our attention is, that the decree of God is here placed in the highest rank; that we may not suppose that Christ was dragged to death by the violence of Satan, in such a manner that anything happened contrary to the purpose of God. It was God who appointed his Son to be the Propitiation, and who determined that the sins of the world should be expiated by his death. In order to accomplish this, he permitted Satan, for a short time, to treat him with scorn; as if he had gained a victory over him. Christ, therefore, does not resist Satan, in order that he may obey the decree of his Father, and may thus offer his obedience as the ransom of our righteousness. Calvin, John, 14:30-31.

We can extend the force of this point with the following quotations:

Since then, this robber was a man disapproved of by all, and God called him so suddenly, when our Lord made effective for him His death and passion which He suffered and endured for all mankind, that ought all the more to confirm us…. But though our Lord Jesus Christ by nature held death in horror and indeed it was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgment-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for He was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble himself to such condemnation for our sakes… Calvin, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 9, Matt 27:45-54, pp., 151, and 155-156.

 

Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief. And especially the ministers of the word ought to be moved by this feeling of grief, because, being appointed to keep watch and to look at a distance, they ought also to groan when they perceive the tokens of approaching ruin. Calvin, Isaiah 22:4.

And lastly:

However, St. Paul speaks here expressly of the saints and the faithful, but this does not imply that we should not pray generally for all men. For wretched unbelievers and the ignorant have a great need to be pleaded for with God; behold them on the way to perdition. If we saw a beast at the point of perishing, we would have pity on it. And what shall we do when we see souls in peril, which are so precious before God, as he has shown in that he has ransomed them with the blood of his own Son? If we see then a poor soul going thus to perdition, ought we not to be moved with compassion and kindness, and should we not desire God to apply the remedy. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, Sermon 47, 6:18-19, pp., 684-5.

Returning to the famous Heshusius quotation, we could posit that Calvin at this point simply contradicted himself in the space of 2 pages. Yet that seems hardly plausible in the light of the evidence. The most plausible solution therefore is to adopt the combined responses of Daniel, Clifford, Thomas, and Byrne and recognize that in this one comment there is no evidence that Calvin held to a limited expiation and imputation of sin, and a limited redemption. And so, as Cunningham rightly says, there is no weight to this single comment from the pen of John Calvin.

______________________

¹The reader should note that unlimited atonement is defined by this writer to mean that the sin and sins that are due to any man, and therefore every man were imputed to Christ. Hence this is an unlimited expiation and imputation of sin. By the terms limited atonement or limited expiation, this writer defines as the idea that only the sin and/or sins due to the elect were imputed to Christ, hence limited imputation.
²For online reference, see: http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/142calvin_b13.htm.
³Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), p. 817–823. The following extract is taken from: R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, (Oxford: Paternoster Press, 1977), pp., 231-238.
⁴Reformers, p. 396. This is probably one of the ‘explicit statements’ Engelsma refers to without quoting (p. 75). After stating that ‘This is a very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement,’ Cunningham adds ‘But it stands alone-so far as we know-in Calvin’s writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it’ (Reformers, p. 396). This seems to contradict what he said earlier on the same page: ‘We do not find in Calvin’s writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the atonement, or the number of those for whom Christ died’. And later on the same page: ‘He has not usually given any distinct indication, that he believed in any limitation as to the objects of the atonement’. Some critics might be forgiven for supposing that it is Cunningham and not Calvin who fails to give distinct and consistent affirmation on the subject in question. Note further that in dismissing Daille’s evidence he castigates him with respect to ‘consistency’ (p. 401). The quotation is mentioned in Lane, p. 30; A A Hodge, The Atonement, p. 360; Helm, Calvin, p. 21; Letham, vol. I, p. 126; Bell, pp, 15-17; and others. It strikes us as very strange indeed that those such as Cunningham could search so widely among the many writings of Calvin-as we assume they have-and can only produce this solitary quotation which, from their point of view, is obscure at best. Cunningham may sense the embarrassment of this difficult situation by confessing that it stands alone and should not weigh for much. It would be stronger still if in fact this is the only hint at all in which Calvin touches on the whole }softlinequestion of extent. This is why we again stress the absolute importance of repeated, explicit quotations. Surely to argue on the basis of this solitary quote, no matter what it means, against the flood of the rest of the testimony is precarious at best.
⁵ We quote from the Tracts and Treatise (CTS edition), vol. II, p. 527. This was the translation available to Cunningham and Hodge, although the former quotes the Latin and the latter offers what seems to be his own translation. Lane and Helm refer to the more recent translation in J.K.S. Reid, Theological Treatises, p. 285.
⁶Kendall briefly refers to Cunningham’s article but has been chided in reviews for failing to discuss this quotation. Cunningham: ‘We do not recollect to have seen it adverted to except by a single popish writer’ (Reformers, p. 396).
⁷Lane seems to imply this (p. 30) as well as Strong (p. 778)-only the latter does so in reverse, that Calvin changed from Particularism to Universalism. In this, Strong is followed by those such as Baker who rely on his evidence, which has been shown to be faulty.
⁸Hodge, The Atonement, pp. 359 – 360. Cf. Helm, Calvin, p. 13. Is it possible that Calvin’s ‘unguarded manner’ is due to his less Scholastic approach? Kendall and others contend that Particularist Calvinists rely on Scholastic logic. Crisp’s bold style is certainly not Scholastic; we feel that it has more in common with that of Luther and that of Calvin. See Chapter 11 above.
⁹Three notable studies should be consulted; McDonnell, John Calvin, the Church and The Eucharist; Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament; and Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. See also the relevant sections in the biographies and general studies of Calvin. Fortunately, Calvin himself wrote at length on the subject, so the researcher has a plethora of material to study.
¹⁰Cf. Institutes, IV, 17, 33; Comm on John 6, etc. Though we eat Christ by faith, faith itself is not the eating (Comm on John 6:35), for ‘spiritually to eat the flesh of Christ is something greater and more excellent than to believe’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 553) and ‘eating differs from faith, inasmuch as it is an effect of faith’ (ibid., p. 283).
¹¹IV, 17, 33. In at least two other places in his works Calvin uses this phrase ‘I should like to know’ with reference to the Supper. ‘I should like to know to what end Christ invites us to partake of his flesh and blood in the Supper, if it be not that he may feed our souls’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 378). Note that the second clause includes what Calvin denies (‘if it be not . . .’). Later he says this: ‘I should like to know whether, according to them, this communion belongs indiscriminately to unbelievers as well as to believers’ (ibid., p. 415). Again he rejects what is in the query, for Calvin holds that the communion belongs only to believers.
¹²In the Treatises quotation, Battles/Reid correctly omit the question mark which the CTS translator inserts. Both are, in fact, sentences which are rhetorical enquiries. Recognizing the form of the construction, we feel, is vital. For example, Alan Clifford (in private correspondence) exegetes the passages differently from ourselves while denying that the passage restricts the atonement in the way thought by Cunningham and Helm. Clifford feels that the clause ‘as he adheres so doggedly to the words’ means that ‘the flesh’ in the second clause refers to the literal element in the Supper rather than that which was crucified for them. He paraphrases the passage thus: ‘If our Lord’s words are to be taken literally, are we to imagine that the actual bread and the actual wine about which he spoke were crucified? How can the wicked (or anyone else for that matter) eat that “blood” since the elements themselves were not “crucified” for their sins. Christ himself was crucified for them, not the symbolic elements.’ Clifford sees the debate at this juncture as centering around Consubstantiation rather than faith, if we understand him rightly. There is something to be said for his interpretation, but we feel it does not do full justice to the rhetorical construction, the flow of Calvin’s argument, or the parallel passages. Doyle seems to follow our interpretation: ‘Calvin is using a stunning piece of hyperbole, which for its potency depends, in turn, on a belief in a universal scope of the atonement’ (p. 277). And yet Doyle hesitates on this, adding that this is a ‘blunt denial’ that Christ died for the wicked and that ‘here Calvin flatly contradicts himself, perhaps due to the heated and protracted nature of the controversy he is conducting with Heshusius’ (pp. 276-277). Unfortunately, Doyle does not elaborate his views. Bell also thinks that this is hyperbole (p. 17).
¹³Comm on I Cor. 11:24. Cf. Kendall, p. 18. The mirror motif is prominent in Calvin’s works. Christ is the mirror of God and man; only through Christ does man know God and thereby know himself. Christ is the mirror of election, therefore He is also the pledge of salvation (Predestination, p. 127). He is also the mirror and pledge of divine love and grace (Comm on John 15:9) and the Gospel is the mirror in which we see Christ (Letters, vol. III, p. 23). Hence, one knows Christ and God through the Gospel but this faith must include the persuasion ‘Christ died for me’ because the mirror also shows us ourselves. The supper is, as it were, a visible picture of the Gospel and therefore true partaking includes faith that Christ died for oneself. ‘Now our heavenly Father, to succour us in this, gives us the Supper as a mirror, in which we may contemplate our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified to take away our faults and offences’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 168). And ‘the Supper is given us as a mirror in which we may contemplate Jesus Christ crucified in order to deliver us from condemnation’ (ibid., p. 169). Similarly, ‘the Supper is a solemn memorial of the redemption which has been purchased for us’ (ibid., p. 210). Since redemption is by grace, the sacraments are ‘mirrors in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us’ (Institutes, IV, 14, 6).
¹⁴ Sermons on Isaiah, p. 117 (cf. pp. 128, 131). See also Comm on John 3:16, ‘faith embraces Christ with the efficacy of His death’. Similarly, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 299. See chapter IX, Section C and below.
¹⁵Comm on Mark 14:24. Note the explicit Universalism (see above). The Commentary on the parallel in Matt. 26:26 adds little to our discussion at this point except to reaffirm that true eating is by faith. Cf. Sermons on Galatians, pp. 106-107.
¹⁶The faith of justification is ‘not doubting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake’, with special reference to the atonement, meaning faith that says ‘I believe in Christ who died for me’ (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 167). The Roman Catholic error of justification is reflected in its wrong view of the Supper and its statements about faith and the atonement. The Mass re-crucifies Christ and thereby rejects the only atonement. Faith, therefore, becomes impossible because the Mass is substituted for the atonement. ‘By means whereof the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ was utterly defaced, in spite of the redemption that he had wrought. Inasmuch that if it be admitted that Jesus Christ was sacrificed daily; it is all one to reject the benefit that was purchased us by his death and passion’ (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 311).
¹⁷ Also: ‘Indeed the death of Christ was death for the whole world, and that is surely supernatural’ (Comm on Heb. 8:2). Christ is portrayed in the Supper, therefore ‘We maintain that in the sacrament Christ is eaten in no other way but spiritually’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 374). In order for one to eat spiritually one must have the Holy Spirit. Calvin therefore rebukes those who ‘insist that Christ is received by the wicked, to whom they do not concede on particle of the Spirit of Christ’ (ibid., p. 234). And in a nearly exact parallel to the passages in dispute, Calvin again stresses the place of the Spirit: ‘And in fact it were grossly absurd to hold that Jesus Christ is received by those who are entire strangers to him, and that the wicked eat his body and drink his blood while destitute of his Spirit. . . . Their offence then is that they rejected Christ when he was presented to them’ in the Gospel (ibid., p. 158). They eat unworthily not because they eat elements which portray what was not crucified for them, but because they do not have the Spirit, because they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them, and because they do not believe the Gospel. Cf. Institutes, IV, 17, 33.
¹⁸Union to Christ is vital to true partaking, for it is associated with believing that Christ died for oneself (cf. Gal. 12:20). Calvin explains: ‘We confess that the holy supper of our Lord is a testimony of the union which we have with Jesus Christ, inasmuch as not only he died and rose from the dead for us, but also truly feeds and nourishes us with his flesh’ (Letters, vol. III, p. 376). Also, ‘under the symbols of bread and wine an exhibition of the body and blood of Christ is held forth; and we are not merely reminded that Christ was once offered on the cross for us, but that sacred union is ratified to which it is owing that his death is our life’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 574). This principle is shown in the reverse in the example of Judas. He was at the Supper and ate the elements but he did this wickedly because he was never in union with Christ, neither did he truly believe in Him. Therefore Judas did not feed on Christ, as Peter did. Most Particularists deny that Judas was at the Table (see Chapter IX), but Calvin explicitly says that he was (e.g., Tracts and Treatises, vol. II. pp. 93, 234, 297, 370-371, 378; Comm on Matt. 26:21, John 6:56). Kuiper mentions that Calvin felt that Judas was there but not in union with Christ, but Kuiper fails to see the problem (For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 66). The problem for Particularists is that at the Supper Christ said, ‘This is my body, which is broken for you’. If Judas was there, Christ therefore said that He died for him. And if He died for Judas, then it was not for the elect alone, for Judas was not elect. But this was no problem for Calvin. Luther, another Universalist, also held that Judas was present. But Bucer questions this, adding that in any case the words of the ‘Bold Proclamation’ did not apply to Judas. See Common Places, pp. 330-332; and chapter IX above.
¹⁹ Kendall, p. 13. Kendall’s study on Calvin and the atonement is very brief but it is the first chapter of what has proven to be a very controversial book. Yet evidently he saw some of the implications of Calvin’s doctrines of faith and assurance which we have investigated in this paper.
²⁰Souce: A. C. Clifford’s Atonement and Justification (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1990), p. 87.
²¹G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement (Paternoster Publishing, 1997), 39–40.
²²Selected Works,2:525.

WHETHER Christ died for all men, or for a part only? is a question which has been much agitated, since the Reformation, though, according to Milner, the Church, from the earliest ages, rested in the opinion that Christ died for all. He does not except even Augustine, whom Prosper, his admirer and follower, and a strict Predestinarian, represents as maintaining that Christ gave himself a ransom for all [*Vol. II, page 445]; so far, at least, as to make provision for their salvation, by removing an impediment which would otherwise have proved fatal. The early Christians seemed to go upon the principle, that as salvation was indiscriminately tendered to all, it must havebeen provided for all, and thus made physically possible to all, where the Gospel comes; otherwise, the Deity would be represented as tendering that to his creatures which was in no sense within their reach, and which they could not possibly attain, whatever might be their dispositions.

Among those who leaned strongly to what are called the doctrines of grace, the maxim was adopted, “That Christ’s death was sufficient for all, and efficient for the elect” By which they seem to have intended, that while Christ’s death opened the door for the salvation of all, so far as an expiatory sacrifice was concerned, it was designed, and by the sovereign grace of God, made effectual, to the salvation of the elect. Their belief was, that Christ died intentionally to save those who were given to him in the covenant of redemption; but it does not appear that they supposed his death, considered merely as an expiatory offering, had any virtue in it, in relation to the elect, which it had not in relation to the rest of mankind. With respect to the ultimate design of this sacrifice, or the application which God would make of it, they doubtless supposed there was a difference; but in the sacrifice itself, or in its immediate end, the demonstration of God’s righteousness, they could see no difference. In this view, it was precisely the same thing, as it stood related to the elect and to the non-elect. The sacrificial service was one and the same, appointed by the same authority, and for the same immediate purpose, and performed by the same glorious Personage, at the very same time. It wanted nothing to constitute it a true and perfect sacrifice for sin, as it stood related to the whole world; it was but this true and perfect sacrifice, as it stood related to the elect. Any other view would have overturned its sufficiency for all mankind; for it was not the sufficiency of Christ to be a sacrifice, but his sufficiency as a sacrifice for the whole world, that they maintained. And in perfect accordance with this, they held that this most perfect sacrifice was efficient for the elect. But how was it efficient? Not by its having in it anything in regard to the elect which it had not in regard to others; for, intrinsically considered, it was the same to both, a true and perfect sacrifice for sin; but it was the purpose of God, in appointing it, that it should issue in the salvation of his chosen. This was the use he intended to make of it; nay, it was a part of the covenant of redemption, that if the Mediator performed the sacrificial service required, he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. There was, therefore, an infallible connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of his people; and, of course, his death was efficient in procuring their salvation, it being the great medium through which the saving mercy of God flowed, and connected both by the purpose and promise of God with the bestowment of that mercy.

But even all this does not suppose that the death of Christ, considered simply as a sacrifice for sin, had anything in it peculiar to the elect, or that in and of itself it did anything for them which it did not do for the rest of mankind. The intention of God, as to its application, or the use he designed to make of it, is a thing perfectly distinct from the sacrifice itself, and so considered, as we believe, by the Church antecedent to the Reformation. In no other way, can we see, how their language is either intelligible or consistent. Whether the Reformers, as they are called, were exactly of one mind on this subject, is not quite so certain. But that Luther, Melancthon, Osiander, Brentius, OEcolampadius, Zwinglius and Bucer, held the doctrine of a general atonement, there is no reason to doubt. We might infer it from their Confession at Marpurge, signed A . D. 1529, as the expressions they employ on this subject are of a comprehensive character, and best agree with this sentiment. From their subsequent writings, however, it is manifest that these men, and the German Reformers generally, embraced the doctrine of a universal propitiation.

Thus, also, it was with their immediate successors, as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies. This Confession is entitled, “A Full Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies professed in the dominions of the most illustrious and noble Prince Frederick V., Prince Elector Palatine.” It was translated by John Rolte, and published in London, A.D, 1614.

“Of the power and death of Christ, believe we,” say these German Christians, that the death of Christ (whilst he being not a bare man, but the Son of God, died,) is a full, all-sufficient payment, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world; and that he by his death hath purchased not only forgiveness of sins, but also the new birth by the Holy Ghost, and lastly everlasting life.” But we believe therewith, that no man shall be made partaker of such a benefit, but only he that believeth on him. For the Scripture is plain where it saith, ” He that believeth not shall be damned.” It would be unnecessary to take up your time to show that the Lutheran divines, with scarcely a single exception, from that period to the present, have declared in favor of a universal atonement. It could scarcely be otherwise when we consider the great reverence in which they held their distinguished leader, who, on various occasions, expressed himself most decidedly upon this subject. To give but a single instance. While speaking of the blood of Christ, the inestimable price paid for our redemption, (in his commentary on 1 Peter, i. 18,) he remarks that no understanding or reason of man can comprehend it: so valuable was it, “that a single drop of this most innocent and precious blood was abundantly sufficient for the sins of the whole world. But it pleased the Father so largely to bestow his grace upon us, and to make such abundant provision for our salvation, that he willed that Christ his Son should pour forth all his blood, and at the same time to give this whole treasure to us.”

We know what the opinion of the Church of England was, by the language of her thirty-first article, which is in these words: “The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone;” and with this agree the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, in the thirty-seventh question, which state that ” Christ bore, both in body and mind, the weight of the wrath of God, for the sins of all mankind,” to the end that by his sufferings as a propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our bodies and souls from eternal damnation, and acquire for us the grace of God, justification and eternal life.” We are well aware that many who have expounded this catechism, have adopted more limited views; and that towards the close of the sixteenth century, there was not a little zeal displayed, in some of the Reformed Churches, in Germany and Holland, and other parts of Europe, in defense of what was called particular redemption. Yet, in the Synod of Dort, there were many able advocates for the doctrine that Christ died for all, in the only sense in which it is contended for now, by that part of the Calvinistic school who plead for a general propitiation. The delegates from England, Hesse and Bremen, were explicit in their declaration to this effect. But all were not of the same mind; and, therefore, though they agreed upon a form of words, under which every man might take shelter, still it wears the appearance of a compromise, and is not sufficiently definite to satisfy the rigid inquirer.

James Richards, Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology, (New York: M.W. Dodd, 1846, 302-306.

Testard, by way of Grohman:

When Testard attempts to explain the difference between universal and particular mercy, he says that although Christ died for all, he did not die equally for all. In Les véritables Sentiments et raisonnements… Testard says:

However, Christ did not die equally for all men…. But he died particularly for those he chose and elected, he gives light particularly to them, he is their Redeemer and Savior of a particular intention, so that he wanted absolutely to obtain them and obtained by his death and his illumination not only the power to be saved by the grace explained previously which is made sufficiently to all, but also even their actual salvation.¹

Source: Donald Davis Grohman, Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrine of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685, (Ph.D. dissertation. Knox College, Toronto. 1971), 46.

_______________________

¹Testard, Les véritables Sentiments et raisonnements….Chap. VIII, p. 21, par. 1: “Neantmoins Christ n’est pas mort également pour tous hommes….Mais il est mort particulierement pour ceux qu’il a choisis & esleuz, il leur esclaire particulierement, il est leur Redempteur & sauveur d’une intention particuliere, entant qu’il a voulu absolument leur obtenir & a obtenu par sa mort & son illumination non seulement la puissance d’estre sauvez par la grace cy devant expliquée qu’il fait suffisamment a tous, mais aussi leur salut actuel mesmes.” See also Testard, Eirenikon….thesis 95, pp. 70-71.

________

[Note: Testard is sometimes referred to as Testardus.]