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.]


This entry was posted on Saturday, October 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am and is filed under Historiography, The Well-Meant Offer. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.