Salvation as participation in the humanity of the Mediator in Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion: a reply to Carl Mosser.
SJT 58(1): 39–58 (2005) Printed in the United Kingdom C _ 2005 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd
Faculty of Divinity, Trinity College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. email@example.com
In a recent article, Carl Mosser argues that deification is present in the theology of John Calvin. While his thesis may) have ecumenical promise, there is little evidence to support it. Rather than understanding salvation as a communication of properties from Christ's divine nature to his human nature so that through Christ's human nature we) may come to share in the divine nature, Calvin's position is that believers share in what is Christ's according to his human nature. The righteousness of Christ with which we are clothed is the righteousness of his human obedience as Mediator. Far from emphasizing a communication of properties from Christ's divinity to his humanity, Calvin's concern is to guard the full integrity of both natures.
In a recent article, Carl Mosser argues the following thesis: ‘Calvin knew about and affirmed the deification of believers. Though not a prominent theme in its own right, deificatory language and imagery can be found at many points of Calvin's theology.’ Although he acknowledges that Calvin never explicitly speaks in terms of theosis, Mosser contends that the evidence in support of his thesis is ‘remarkably strong, varied, and pervasive’. Rather than a lack of evidence, Mosser attributes the novelty of his claim to the widespread uncritical acceptance of Harnack's criticism that theosis reflects the corruption of Christianity by Greek philosophy, and to the fact that many interpreters of Calvin have had ‘insufficient familiarity with the patristic writings . . . [and so] have not recognized the presence of deification in Calvin even when it has stared them in the face’. However, in this paper I demonstrate that Mosser's claims concerning the presence of theosis in Calvin are, at best, overstated. In recognition of Mosser's point that interpreters of Calvin may have misunderstood the Fathers’ language of deification, I base my argument upon Mosser's portrayal of the doctrine of theosis. Furthermore, I show that theosis, as Mosser has defined it, does not appear precisely where Mosser has identified it.
Mosser defines theosis as the doctrine that ‘believers . . . become by grace what the Son of God is by nature and . . . receive the blessings that are his by rights as undeserved gifts’. He clarifies this definition through discussing the classic Scriptural text used in support of theosis. When 2 Peter 1:4 speaks of believers as being partakers of the divine nature, Mosser points out that it is important to differentiate divine nature from divine substance or essence: ‘Peter's word “nature” does not refer to God's essence but to “kind” or “quality”’. Mosser argues that this distinction is essential to understanding Calvin's rejection of improper notions of theosis: ‘Calvin denies that believers will ever be united to the divine essence, but they will partake of the divine nature and be changed to be like Jesus’. Deification does not involve believers partaking of divine essence, becoming somehow consubstantial with God, but in partaking of divine qualities, such as divine righteousness and holiness. Mosser further explains that theosis is properly understood in terms of a twolevel union of humanity and divinity in Christ:
Mosser将theosis定义为‘信徒。。。借由恩典，在本质上成为神儿子的所是。。。有权利领受原本不配领受的祝福’之教义。他用对于圣经经文的讨论来澄清这个定义并支持theosis。当彼后1:4提到信徒成为神性的分享者的同时，Mosser指出，分别神性（divine nature）和神的素质（divine substance or essence）是很重要的：‘彼得的用词“性质”并不是用来指神的素质，而是某种的“种类”或“质量”’。Mosser宣称这个分别对于了解加尔文拒绝theosis重要观念是必要的：‘加尔文否认信徒有任何与神素质联合的可能性，但是他们能够有份神的性情并被改变而像野兽。’神化并不需要信徒有份于神的素质，而为某种于神同质量的，而是有份于神的质量，如同神的公义和圣洁。Mosser进一步解释theosis需要用对干在基督里神学和人性的双层联合的词汇，才能被正确的理会。
The fundamental level is the hypostatic union of the eternalWord with the humanity believers share with every other person. At this level there is a communication of properties between Christ's divinity and his humanity. The consequent level is the particular union of Christ with individual believers. Christ unites believers to God because in his person God and humanity are already united.
基本的层次是永远的道与信徒们彼此共享的人性所产生的位格的联合。在这个层次上，在基督的神性和人性之间，有属性的相通（communication of properties）。接下来的层次乃是基督与信徒个人的那个特别的联合。基督将信徒联于神，因为在祂的位格中，神和人类已经联合为一了。
The christological foundation of the doctrine of theosis is the communication idiomatum. This is the doctrine that the characteristics of the divine nature of Christ are communicated to the human nature. Consequently, these characteristics of the divine nature are communicated to the human nature of the believer who is in union with Christ. Mosser asserts that such a twolevel union is part of the structure of Calvin's thought.
At first glance, there seems to be some plausibility to Mosser's thesis. There is no question that Calvin speaks in terms of the union of Christ with the believer, and that this union involves a sharing in what is Christ's by nature. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that, for Calvin, believers share in what is Christ's according to his human nature rather than his divine nature. The righteousness with which we are clothed in Christ is the righteousness that is proper to his human nature, and this righteousness is not transferred from his divine nature, but is the righteousness of his human obedience.
Far from emphasizing a communication of properties from Christ's divinity to his humanity, Calvin's emphasis is to guard the full integrity of both natures: Christ is homoousias with the Father according to his divinity, and remains so even in the Incarnation. Christ is homoousias with us according to his humanity, and remains so even after the resurrection and ascension. We see these twin concerns clearly expressed in the two restrictions that Calvin places upon any discussion of the presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper: ‘First, Let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ . . . Secondly, Let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature.’ Although this rule is not articulated until Institutes 4.17, I suggest that these two rules guide all that Calvin has to say about the person and work of Christ the Mediator.
Imago Dei 神的形像
The first place where Mosser identifies the language of theosis is with respect to the imago dei. Mosser asserts that for Calvin, bearing the image of God entails that human beings reflect God's glory and participate in God: ‘the goal of salvation . . . is for believers to have the image and likeness of God restored in them as fully as it is in Christ and thus to participate in God and reflect his glory’.
Mosser appeals to Institutes 1.15.4 to support his claim that the restoration of the imago dei entails that believers will reflect the divine glory. However, for Calvin, to reflect the divine glory does not entail that humanity shares in that glory. The imago dei does not constitute sharing in the divine nature, but is itself a characteristic of human nature: ‘the image of God constitutes the entire excellence of human nature, as it shone in Adam before his fall’. Calvin explains that the imago dei refers to the knowledge, righteousness and holiness that humanity possessed in Adam, and which Adam lost through his disobedience. The restoration of this knowledge, righteousness and holiness in Christ is not a communication of divine nature, but the restoration of human nature. Christ is the Second Adam ‘because he restores us to true and substantial integrity’.
Mosser诉诸于《教义》1.15.4来支持他的论点，就是imago dei的重建必然使得信徒返照神的荣耀。不论如何，对于加尔文而言，返照神的荣耀并不意味着人性必然会有份于那个荣耀。Imago dei并不会构成在神性中的有份，反而，它本身乃是人性的特质：‘神的形像构成了人性全部的超越，如同堕落前亚当所展现的一样。’加尔文解释到，imagodei指的是人性在亚当中所拥有的知识，公义和圣洁，亚当因着他的悖逆而失去了这一切。这个在基督里，公义和圣洁的重建并不是与神性的较量，而是人性的重建。基督是末后的亚当，‘因为祂重建了我们，使我们得以真正的完全。’
Mosser justifies his description of the imago dei as ‘participation in God’ through an appeal to Institutes 2.2.1:
At the time when he was raised to the highest pinnacle of honour, all which Scripture attributes to him is, that he was created in the image of God, thereby intimating that the blessings in which his happiness consisted were not his own, but derived from divine communication.
I have given this passages as it appears in Beveridge's translation, which I have been using as my primary text. However, Mosser appeals to Battles translation which renders ‘derived from divine communication’ as ‘by participation in God’.
我使用了在Beveridge的翻译中的这个段落，我把它当做主要的材料。但是，Mosser所诉诸Battles的翻译把‘从神圣的交通而来的（derived from divine communication）’译为‘借由在神中有份（by participation in God）’。
Although Calvin uses the word participatione, the broader context indicates that Calvin is not speaking about a sharing in divine qualities. Calvin is speaking about the origin of the blessings in which human happiness consists, rather than the quality of these blessings. Calvin's concern is that human beings acknowledge that they do not have any good of themselves. Rather, God is the fountain of all goodness. Even their most exalted title, being imago dei, is a cause for humility; ‘all which Scripture attributes to him is, that he was created in the image of God’. All blessings which human beings posses are of God, in the sense of coming from God, as opposed to being of God because they are characteristics of the divine nature.
虽然加尔文使用了participatione（译者：即participation，有份）这个字，上下文却表明加尔文并不是在讲述有份于神的质量。加尔文乃是在讲述祝福的源头（origin），构成了人类的喜乐，而不是这些祝福的质量（quality）。加尔文的顾虑乃是关于人类是否认清在他们里面并没有任何的良善。反而，神是一切良善的元购。甚至他们 高超的称呼，作为imago dei，乃是谦卑的起因；‘圣经所归给他的一切，就是他乃是在神的形像里面被造的。’人所拥有的一切祝福都是神的，也就是说从神来的，这与神的存有不同，因为它们都是神性的特性。
Christ the mediator 中保基督
Mosser also identifies language of theosis in connection with Calvin's discussion of the believer's union with Christ as mediator. Mosser argues that, for Calvin, union with Christ is union with God, such that we thereby participate in the divine nature. In support of this assertion, Mosser appeals to Calvin's statement that the Word ‘undertook the person and office of mediator that he might unite us to God’.
Although Calvin speaks of Christ uniting us to God, it is not clear that our unity with God involves a sharing in the divine nature, or that Christ performed this work according to his divinity. Without in any way denying that it is the eternal Son who is our mediator, Calvin's emphasis is on the humanity of the mediator. It is as our substitute, which Christ is according to his human nature, that we are included in Christ. What we receive from him is what he has received from the Father according to his human nature, not what he has possessed with the Father from all eternity.
Christ's work involves a communication of righteousness to those who had lost righteousness in Adam's disobedience: Hope of life in Christ is ‘by a wondrous communication Christ transfuses into us the power of his own righteousness’.  Our only hope is in a transfusion of righteousness from Christ, not because we will thereby receive a divine righteousness, but because we have no righteousness of our own. Calvin's emphasis is once again on the origin of the righteousness, rather than the quality of it. Accordingly, in explaining that in order to perform the office of mediator, the Son of God became God with us, Calvin emphasizes the humanity of Christ. In 2.12.1 Calvin quotes 1 Tim 2:5, explaining that Paul speaks of ‘the one Mediator, the man Christ Jesus’ as ‘a reminder to us that the Mediator is near, even contiguous to us, inasmuch as he is our flesh’. Calvin's emphasis on the humanity of Christ continues in Institutes 2.12.2. Having lost our inheritance through Adam's disobedience, we need to be restored to divine favour to be once again heirs of the kingdom of heaven:
Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? Relying on this earnest, we trust that we are sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips, when he says, ‘I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God and your God’. In this way, we have a sure inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance. There are clear echoes of this passage in Mosser's definition of theosis: the natural Son of God becomes the Mediator, taking our human nature in order to impart what is his.
However, does this passage refer to a sharing of divine nature with us? To the contrary, Calvin's emphasis is on the humanity of Christ; he assumed ‘a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones’. When Calvin speaks of ‘that which is his by nature’ becoming ours, we should keep in mind that Christ has two natures. Rather than extending what was his according to his divine nature to us, Calvin understands Christ as extending to us what is his according to his human nature. When Calvin speaks of ‘what was his’, he is speaking of Christ's inheritance of the kingdom.
Mosser fails to take into account the fact that Christ inherits the kingdom according to his humanity rather than his divinity. This point is important because of Calvin's concern to guard Christ's divinity. Although, as mediator, Christ occupies a middle position between us and the Father, this is only a temporary position and in no way detracts from the glory he possesses as the eternal Son of the Father. Mosser's deemphasis of this aspect of Calvin's thought is reflected in his citation of 2.12.2. Mosser omits the section ‘Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips when he says:
In addition to reading the exchange of 2.12.2 in terms of Christ giving to us what was his according to his divine nature, Mosser overlooks the fact that, for Calvin, this exchange is only one of the principle parts of our reconciliation. In Institutes 2.12.3 Calvin introduces Christ's work of substitution:
Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by disobedience, would by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred.
The righteousness of Christ which we receive is the righteousness of Christ's obedience, rather than of the righteousness which Christ shares with the Father according to his divine nature. As Adam has ruined the imago dei through his disobedience, Christ restores that image through his obedience in our place, which is his obedience as very man. As our righteous substitute, Christ's life and death is a presentation of our flesh as the price of satisfaction. A significant weakness in Mosser's argument is his failure to take account of the fact that it is as our substitute that we participate in Christ.
我们所领受基督的公义乃是基督顺服的公义，而不是基督根据其神性，从父分享到的公义。亚当因其背叛是的imago dei 被毁坏了，基督借由在我们地位上，作为那个人的顺服，重建了那个形像。作为我们公义的替代，基督的生命和死亡所谓满足神的代价，是一个我们肉身的表现。在Mosser所坚持的论点中有一个弱点，就是他忽略了，事实上我们乃是在我们的替代的基础上，能够有份于基督。
Communicatio idiomatum 属性相通
Calvin's concern to protect the full deity and full humanity of Christ naturally raises the question of the communicatio idiomatum, which provides the christological foundation for theosis. Although Mosser acknowledges that this two-level union and transmission is only implicit in Calvin, there is little support for even so modest a claim. The following discussion of the communicatio is a bit of an excursus from the question of theosis in Calvin, but the foundational role of the communicatio makes it an important topic to address.
加尔文捍卫基督完全神性和完全人性的顾虑很自然的会引发communicatio idiomatum的问题，属性相通乃是theosis的基督论基础。虽然Mosser承认双重联合和交流只适用于加尔文，这个温和的宣告也缺乏 起码的支持。以下对于communication的讨论可能会比较脱离在加尔文中的theosis这个题目。但是communicatio的基础角色使得它成为一个必须讨论的重要题目。
Before examining Calvin's discussion of the communicatio in Institutes 2.14, however, I will make a few comments about 2.13. Calvin's concern in 2.13 is to underline the full humanity of Christ the mediator, and to affirm that the properties which are proper to the two natures of the mediator remain in their integrity without exchange from one to the other.
Calvin affirms the full humanity of Christ through discussing various passages of Scripture that show that Christ was truly human: He was born, hungered, thirsted, and shared ‘other infirmities of our nature’. He opposes those who would call into question the full humanity of Christ by drawing attention also to Christ's descent from the seed of David, and the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.
Of particular interest is Calvin's assertion that Christ's freedom from sin is not simply an implication of his sharing the divine nature, but that according to his human nature he was ‘sanctified by the Spirit’. Calvin argues that when the purity of Christ is spoken of, it is a reference to the purity of his human nature ‘since it is superfluous to say that God is pure’, and that this purity is a work of the Spirit, rather than a transmission of divine purity from Christ's divine nature to his human nature.
It is in the context of this emphasis on the true humanity of Christ that Calvin introduces the extra-Calvinisticum. There have been various discussions about the function of this doctrine in Calvin. One thing that this doctrine clearly affirms is that the properties of the human nature of Christ are not transferred to the divine. Although Christ is bounded by his body according to his human nature, according to his divine he still fills all things as before. Calvin's concern in this chapter is to affirm that Christ is homoousias with us according to his human nature, without in any way compromising his being homoousias with the Father. As mentioned earlier, Calvin's thinking is consistently guided by the two rules that guard the majesty of Christ's divinity on the one hand, and the humanity which he shares with us on the other. Calvin's discussion of the communicatio is no exception to this pattern.
Calvin first mentions the communicatio idiomatum in Institutes 2.14. Mosser does not discuss this section of the Institutes, but merely refers to it as supporting his argument concerning theosis in Calvin. Thus, my primary dialogue partner in this section is Joseph Tylenda. Rather than providing a Christological foundation for theosis, Calvin understands the communicatio as an hermeneutic that was devised in order to preserve the double homoousias.
加尔文在《教义》2.14中首次提及属性相通（communicatio idiomatum）。Mosser并没有讨论这一段的《要义》，只断章取义的用它来支持他对于加尔文神学中theosis教义的论点。故此，我在这段中的主要对话伙伴乃是Joseph Tylenda。加尔文的本意并不是要提供一个对于theosis的教义基础，而是将communicatio理解为为了捍卫双重homoousias而发展出来的解经（方式）。
According to Calvin, the Scriptures
Sometimes attribute to [Christ] qualities which should be referred specially to his humanity, and sometimes qualities applicable peculiarly to his divinity, and sometimes qualities which embrace both natures, and do not apply specially to either. This combination of a twofold nature in Christ [the Scriptures] express so carefully, that they sometimes communicate them with each other, a figure of speech which the ancients termed idiomatwn koinonia (a communication of properties).
Calvin begins his explanation by discussing the peculiarly divine properties, defining them as those things that are said of Christ that could not be said of any human being. Tylenda's account emphasizes the predication of these divine attributes to the person of Christ: They are ‘truly and properly attributed to him’ because ‘Christ is true God’. Calvin's way of speaking, however, is to predicate of the nature. Being foreign to humanity, ‘these and similar properties must be specially assigned to his divinity’.
Calvin continues his discussion by examining the predication of human attributes. They are the things that are said of Christ that ‘apply entirely to his humanity’ because ‘as God, he cannot in be in any respect said to grow, works always for himself, knows everything . . .’. Again Calvin speaksof the attributes applying to his humanity rather than to himself. Tylenda, however, again emphasizes that the predication of the human properties is to the person of Christ; the human properties ‘proceeding from his [Christ's] human nature’, are ‘properly assigned to him’ because ‘Christ is a true man.’
In contrast to Tylenda's portrayal, predication to the person of Christ is secondary in Calvin. It is only after emphasizing the application of these properties ‘entirely to his humanity’ that Calvin points out that Scripture also ascribes these properties to himself. Furthermore, Calvin does not explain the ascription of human properties to Christ in terms of Christ being true God and true man, but in terms of the office of mediator: Although these are human properties, ‘[Christ] not merely ascribes these things separately to his human nature, but applies them to himself as suitable to his office of Mediator’.
Calvin immediately follows this statement concerning the office of Mediator with three examples of the communicatio. All three examples involve human properties which ‘apply entirely to Christ's humanity’. Scripture seems to apply these directly to God, and to Christ using titles appropriate to his divinity. Calvin solves this problem with the following explanation:
加尔文在这段关于中保职分的话之后，立刻加上了三个关于communicatio的例子。这三个例子都提到人类属性乃是‘完全归于基督的人性（apply entirely to Christ's humanity）’。圣经看起来好像使用了符合祂神性的称呼，将这些属性直接归于神，和基督。加尔文用以下的解释解决了这个问题：
God certainly has no blood, suffers not, cannot be touched with hands; but since that Christ, who was true God and true man, shed his blood on the cross for us, the acts which were performed in his human nature are transferred improperly, but not causelessly, to his divinity.
The acts were performed according to Christ's humanity, and are only improperly transferred to his divinity.
Tylenda claims that, for Calvin, the communicatio is indirect, the predication being to the person of Jesus Chris rather than to the other nature as such:
In all of Calvin's five examples, the divine or human property is said of a subject, a person (Jesus Christ), and that subject is designated either in function of his divine nature “God”, or ‘Lord of glory’, or in function of his human nature as ‘Son of Man’. In none of the examples is the property of one nature applied to the other nature as such; it is always applied to a subject possessing that nature.
Acknowledging that Calvin's explanation apparently contradicts this claim, Tylenda explains that Calvin needs to be properly understood in light of his ‘mind and examples’. To my mind it is entirely unconvincing to assert that we are to interpret Calvin's explicit statement in light of what we see as implicit in the very examples that Calvin is proposing to explain.
Although there is one Christ who is God and man, Calvin speaks primarily in terms of a transfer from one nature to the other nature, rather than of attributing things ‘to himself’. It is precisely in light of the direct nature of the communicatio from nature to nature that it is ‘improper’, only a manner of speaking. When Calvin reads ‘The Word was made flesh’, he does not see the properties of the flesh as communicated to the Word. The Word remains filling all things as before even in the incarnation – Hence the extra-Calvinisticum. Nor does Calvin see John 1:14 as implying that the properties of the Word are shared with the flesh. Even after the resurrection, Christ's flesh does not come to fill all things as the Word does – Hence Calvin's rejection of ubiquity. Nonetheless, the Word can be said to have died in the flesh; and the flesh can be said to be in heaven with the Word. This manner of speaking is ‘not without reason’ because Christ's humanity is an analogy and anagoge which draws us to up to the contemplation of his divinity, as the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper draw us up to feast with Christ in heaven.
Calvin's concern to protect the integrity Christ's divinity can be seen as chapter fourteen continues. Having addressed the divine attributes, the human attributes, and the way Scripture communicates these attributes to the other nature, Calvin proceeds to discuss the attributes that apply to both natures: ‘But, above all, the true substance of Christ is most clearly declared in those passages which comprehend both natures at once.’ For Calvin, it is these dual attributes that proclaim Christ most clearly. Although the examples given, such as the power to forgive sins, are properly divine and so are properties that Christ possessed from all eternity with the Father, Christ exercised these in a different manner when incarnate.
Tylenda describes the attributes applying to both natures as ‘theandric’ because both natures exercise their own proper activity, ‘but join together in producing a single effect’. Calvin, however, describes these properties in terms of the office of mediator. The significance of the office of mediator is underscored by Calvin's statement that it is the failure to attend to this office that led ‘some ancient writers’ into error.
In opposition to the error of these unidentified ancient writers, Calvin emphasizes the office of mediator in order to preserve the full divinity of Christ's divine nature. This is clear in Calvin's discussion of the fact that Christ will deliver ‘the kingdom to God, even the Father (1 Cor 15:24)’. According to his divinity Christ's kingdom had no beginning or end, but in assuming the office of mediator, Christ laid ‘aside his insignia of majesty’ in order to receive the kingdom from the Father. For Calvin, it is essential that the role of mediation is temporary. As mediator, Christ receives from the Father; ‘But this is only for a time, until we enjoy the immediate presence of his Godhead.’ Furthermore, the name of ‘Lord’ applies to Christ ‘as holding a middle place’. When the work of mediation is complete ‘God will then cease to be the head of Christ, and Christ's own Godhead will then shine forth of itself, whereas now it is in a manner veiled.’
为了反对某些古代匿名作者的错误，加尔文强调了中保的职事，以确保基督神性的完整神格（the full divinity of Christ's divine nature）。这在加尔文对于基督将带来‘神的国度，甚至是父神（林前15:24）’的讨论中是凸出的。根据祂的神性，基督的国度既无开始也无结束，但是在取了中保职事后，基督将祂‘君尊的记号’摆在了一边，好从父领受国度。对于加尔文，中保暂时的角色是必须的。基督作为中保从父领受一切；‘然而这都是暂时的，直到我们享受祂神格的直接同在。’除此以外，‘主’的名乃是用于基督‘作为居中维持的地位（as holding a middle place）’。当中保的工作完成后，‘神就不会再是基督的头，基督自己的神格将会从其中照耀出来，然而现今它乃是被幔子遮蔽的。’
We can conclude then, that the overarching concern for Calvin in discussing the communicatio is the person and office of the mediator. Calvin discuses the communicatio as an hermeneutical rule that protects the full deity and humanity of Christ, the integrity of both natures, rather than as an affirmation of a transfer of properties of one nature to the other. Consequently, insofar as theosis rests on the communicatio as a foundation, it has little support in Calvin.
King and priest 君王和祭司
For Calvin, the office of mediator has three parts to it; those of prophet, king and priest. Mosser makes an appeal to Christ's kingship by quoting the following: ‘Thus, while for the short time we wander away from God, Christ stands in our midst, to lead us little by little to a firm union with God.’
According to Beveridge's translation, however, it is to full communion, rather than union, that Christ leads us. Although union is possible translation of the word coniunctionem, from the larger context Beveridge's translation seems more plausible. Calvin is speaking of Christ as descended to us for a time in order to receive from the Father as man, in order to then bring us into a relationship of communion with God, rather than into participation in God:
For the Father hath given all power to the Son, that by his hand he may govern, cherish, sustain us . . . Thus, while we wander far as pilgrims from God, Christ interposes, that he may gradually bring us to full communion with God . . . he reigns by divine authority, because his reason for assuming the office of Mediator was, that descending from the bosom and incomprehensible glory of the Father, he might draw near to us . . . For as the Father is said to have given the Spirit to the Son without measure, so the reason is expressed that we might receive of his fullness, and grace for grace.
Christ does not receive the Spirit according to his divinity, but according to his humanity. According to his divinity, Christ is homoousias with the Spirit. Furthermore, Christ does not receive from the Father according to his divinity, but according to his humanity. According to his divinity Christ continues to possess all things with the Father.
Similarly, Calvin's discussion of Christ as priest focusses primarily upon Christ's humanity. Here Calvin returns to the second principle part of our reconciliation; In his office as priest, Christ's removes our sin and appeases the Father. The sacrifice of expiation and propitiation that Christ brings is his obedience in our place:
For the Son of God, though spotlessly pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignomy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with his purity . . . the Father having destroyed the power of sin when it was transferred to the flesh of Christ.
Here the two parts of our reconciliation are joined; the exchange where Christ takes what is ours and gives to us what is his, and his work of substitution, offering himself in our place. Calvin emphasizes that Christ carried out this priestly work according to his human nature, a human nature that is in every way like ours, except sin. This protects the divinity of Christ's divine nature: ‘Whatever he spontaneously suffered, detracts in no degree from his majesty.’
It is not that Christ ceased to be divine on the cross, however, but merely that his divinity was veiled and at rest. Thus, Christ ‘died the same death as other men naturally die, and received immortality in the same mortal flesh which he had assumed’. This is in order that we might be included with him in all that he receives:
The Lord, by his ascension to heaven, has opened up the access to the heavenly kingdom, which Adam had shut. For having entered it in our flesh, as it were in our name, it follows, as the Apostles says, that we are in a manner now seated in heavenly places . . .
Christ enters the kingdom in our flesh, in our name, as our substitute. As a result, we are seated in heavenly places in Christ. Furthermore, as intercessor, Christ points to his righteousness in order to interpose this between the Father and our sins. This righteousness is the righteousness of Christ's obedience, a righteousness according to his human nature: ‘As by the sin of Adam we were alienated from God and doomed to destruction, so by the obedience of Christ we are restored to his favour as if we were righteous.’
Clothed in the righteousness of Christ
That the righteousness with which we are clothed in Christ is the righteousness of his obedience, and thus a righteousness according to his human nature, is strongly reinforced by Calvin's disagreement with Osiander concerning justification. In the course of this argument, Calvin clearly affirms our union with Christ:
For we await salvation from him not because he appears to us afar off, but because he makes us, engrafted into his body, participants not only in all his benefits but also in himself. Therefore, I thus retort the argument, If you look to yourself damnation is certain; but since Christ has been communicated to you with all his benefits that all his things are made yours, that you are made a member of him, indeed one with him. His righteousness covers your sins . . . Not only does he cleave to us by an invisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us.
Mosser explains that this passage is Calvin's response to the accusation that he places Christ outside the believer.  The question, however, is whether the union with Christ is with his divinity, or with his humanity. Mosser's citation of this passage omits Calvin's discussion of Christ's righteousness covering our sins, and he does not note that it is Christ as our righteous substitute with whom we grow into union, and from whom we receive benefits. Although Mosser sees Calvin affirming a communication of divine righteousness to us, merely distinguishing this from a communication of divine essence, Calvin is insistent that the righteousness we receive is not divine. Ours is a participation in Christ's human nature, which is righteous through obedience, rather than in his divine nature which remains righteous with the Father.
This is the focus of Calvin's disagreement with Osiander in Institutes 3.11. Mosser argues that while Osiander claimed that we were righteous by sharing in the divine essence, Calvin affirmed that we only share in the divine nature. If this were the case, according to Mosser's description of nature as ‘kind or quality’, Calvin would be saying that the righteousness with which we are clothed is of the same kind or quality as the righteousness of the divine nature.
However, this seems to be precisely what Calvin is denying. For Calvin, Christ is our righteousness not because he is divine, nor because the righteousness of the divine nature was communicated to his human nature, but because he expiated sins and appeased the Father. Calvin accuses Osiander of obscuring the priesthood of Christ by turning our attention to Christ's divinity. In contrast to this, Calvin argues that, while Christ is truly divine, he fulfills his office as priest according to his human nature:
We, indeed, do not divide Christ, but hold that he who, reconciling us to God in his flesh, bestowed righteousness upon us, is the eternal Word of God; and that he could not perform the office of Mediator, nor acquire righteousness for us, if he were not the eternal God. Osiander will have it, that as Christ is God and man, he was made our righteousness in respect not of his human but of his divine nature. But if this is a peculiar property of the Godhead, it will not be peculiar to Christ, but common to him with the Father and the Spirit, since their righteousness is one and the same. Thus it would be incongruous to say, that which existed naturally from eternity was made ours.
Against Osiander, Calvin insists that Christ was both priest and victim, and that ‘this he could not be in his divine nature’. The work of justification involves a propitiatory sacrifice, and all that is performed according to the divine nature is performed by the whole Trinity. The righteousness that we receive from Christ is not the eternal righteousness of his divinity, but the righteousness that he receives as mediator, the righteousness of his obedience in our place:
Hence I infer, first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly that he justified us by his obedience to the Father; and accordingly, that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine nature, but according to the nature of the dispensation laid upon him . . . For although Christ could neither purify our souls by his own blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, not acquit us from the charge of guilt nor, in short, perform the office of priest, unless he had been very God, because no human ability was equal to such a burden, it is however certain that he performed all these things in his human nature.
It is in the context of this discussion of Christ as priest and sacrifice that Calvin speaks of a mystical union.
Therefore, to that union of head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and have been engrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him.
Mosser argues that here Calvin affirms a mystical union with God that is ‘substantially the same as the patristic notion of theosis’. Discussing Bernard's connection between the mystical union and deification, as well as Maximus Confessor's influence on Bernard, Mosser argues: ‘it is reasonable to infer that Calvin too is referring to deification’.
Mosser supports his case by citing Institutes 3.11.10, but omits Calvin's description of the union with Christ as a fellowship of righteousness with him. It is clear, however, that for Calvin the gifts that we share with Christ are those ‘with which he was endued’ as our priest and sacrifice, rather than those which he from all eternity shares with the Father.
That the righteousness in which we have fellowship with Christ is a righteousness of his human nature, rather than the divine righteousness that he shares with the Father becomes increasingly clear as Calvin continues. He opposes Osiander's claim that we are righteous together with God, and that Christ is our righteousness according to his divine nature:
He [Osiander] at length concludes that Christ was given to us for righteousness, in respect not of his human, but of his divine nature; and though this can only be found in the person of the Mediator, it is, however, the righteousness not of man, but of God. He does not now twist his rope of two righteousnesses, but plainly deprives the human nature of Christ of the office of justifying.
In contrast to Mosser's distinction of nature and essence, Calvin's point is precisely that the righteousness we receive is the righteousness of God in respect of origin, rather than in respect of quality or kind. It is righteousness from God, but not the righteousness of the divinity:
We deny not that that which was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace and power of God . . . Although righteousness comes to us from the secret fountain of the Godhead, it does not follow that Christ, who sanctified himself in the flesh on our account, is our righteousness in respect of his divine nature.
Communion in the body of Christ
Mosser also cites a passage from 4.17.2, Calvin's discussion of the Lord's Supper, in support of his thesis. There is, however, nothing in the passage that adds anything to his case. Although Calvin speaks of being sharers in divine immortality, he once again refers to the source of the immortality rather than the kind or quality. When speaking of the life which Christ received from the Father, Calvin explains: ‘For properly he is speaking not of the properties which he possessed with the Father from the beginning but of those with which he was invested in the flesh in which he appeared.’ Far from emphasizing a communicatio and subsequent theosis, Calvin's discussion of the Lord's Supper emphasizes the distinction of properties of the two natures. Calvin strongly opposes the Lutheran position, that by the communicatio the divine property of ubiquity is shared with the human nature of Christ, so that Christ's risen and ascended body is ubiquitous. We mentioned two rules that guide Calvin's thought in the introduction. It is according to the second of these rules that ubiquity is rejected:
But if it is considered one of the properties of a glorified body to fill all things in an invisible manner, it is plain that the corporeal substance is abolished, and no distinction is left between his Godhead and his human nature . . . In short, by thus trifling, they, not in direct terms indeed, but by a circumlocution, make a spirit of the flesh of Christ; and, not contented with this, give him properties altogether opposite.
Rather, Calvin insists that the flesh that was assumed, in which Christ suffered, is the same as the flesh in which he was raised and ascended.
Calvin once again discusses one of the texts with which he demonstrated the communicatio, but this time uses it to reinforce that ‘the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired’. He explains that, in saying that they ‘crucified the Lord of Glory’, Paul ‘means not that he suffered anything in his divinity, but that Christ, who was rejected and despised, and suffered in the flesh, was likewise God and the Lord of glory’. As in Institutes 2.14.2, Calvin's emphasis in discussing this text is the improper quality of the predication in order to protect the divinity from suffering.
Tylenda asserts that Calvin's disagreement with the Lutherans concerned his conviction of an indirect, rather than a direct communicatio. He argues that, for the Lutherans, the properties of one nature were communicated directly to the other nature, but that for Calvin the communication was always to the person who possessed the other nature. We have seen, however, that Calvin describes the communicatio in direct terms. It seems more likely that his difference with the Lutherans concerns the use to which the communicatio is to be put. For Calvin, the communicatio is a way of interpreting Scripture in order to protect the full divinity and humanity of Christ. His emphasis is on the communicatio as a manner of speaking, rather than a principle that can then be applied.
If the Lutheran application of the communicatio to argue that the divine quality of ubiquity is shared with the glorified body of Christ is inappropriate, does it not follow that to share properties of the divine nature with glorified believers is likewise inappropriate?
Having discussed the instances of the language of deification to which Mosser points in support of his thesis, we now turn to the final stage in his argument. Along with 2 Peter 1:4, Psalm 82:6 is one of the key texts that was used by the Fathers to ground the doctrine of theosis. Although Calvin's interpretation of this text diverges from that of the Fathers, Mosser points out that Calvin does not directly contradict patristic exegesis. Mosser concludes:
在讨论完Mosser所指出，用来支持他论点的神化用语后，我们现在转向他所坚称的 后一个点。如同彼后1:4，诗篇82:6 是一处被教父们用来构筑theosis教义基础的重要经文。虽然加尔文对于这处经文的诠释和教父们不同，Mosser指出加尔文并没有直接与教父们的解经发生矛盾。Mosser结论到：
Should we infer from Calvin's divergence that he would have viewed the bold language of the fathers as inappropriate? No. On the contrary, the logic of several of Calvin's statements, including comments on Psalm 82, leads to the conclusion that Calvin would have had no difficulty with the application of the term ‘gods’ to glorified human beings so long as the term is properly understood.
The logic that Mosser is referring to is as follows: In Institutes 1.14.5 Calvin refers to angels as gods, and in his commentary on 1 John 3:2, he refers to the glorification of believers as being like Christ's glorious body:
The appropriateness of angels being designated gods due to their reflection of the divine glory combined with statements about believers’ glorification leads to the conclusion that glorified believers can appropriately be designated gods . . . .Though Calvin does not explicitly draw this conclusion, his reasoning inescapably leads to it. For broad theological reasons rather than a single proof-text he would have found the designation of glorified believers as ‘gods’ acceptable and even appropriate if one properly understood what was and was not meant by it.
Mosser's discussion of Psalm 82:6 is the culmination of his evidence to support his thesis. He argues that even if Calvin's interpretation of Psalm 82:6 is seen as a counterexample to his thesis, an isolated counterexample does not outweigh the ‘strong, varied and pervasive’ evidence that he has presented. However, one might ask if Calvin's divergence with the Fathers in interpreting this verse does not need to be taken more seriously, and whether Mosser's deduction is firm enough ground to support his thesis. Particularly in light of the fact that Mosser's evidence has been shown to be of little value in supporting his thesis.
Mosser对于诗篇82:6的诠释乃是他用来支持他论点之证据的 高点。他坚称，即使加尔文对于诗篇82:6的诠释乃是针对他论点的反面例证，一个孤立的反证并不能推翻已经展现出来，‘强而有力，众多和普遍性’的证据。不论如何，人们可能会质问，既然加尔文对于这处经文的诠释与教父们不同，那就更需要严肃的对待它，Mosser的抹杀事实才是支持他论点的 有力之基础。特别是，事实上Mosser的证据已经被证明根本无法有力的支持他的论点。
Calvin did affirm that believers ‘become by grace what the Son of God is by nature and . . . receive the blessings that are his by rights as undeserved gifts’. However, when Calvin speaks in this way, he is referring to the human nature of the Son of God, and the blessings that the Son of God receives according to the righteousness of his human nature, rather than the divine righteousness he shares from all eternity with the Father. Our participation in Christ is in Christ as our substitute, as a righteous human before God. There is little justification for Mosser's claim that Calvin affirmed the deification of believers.
With respect to the question of whether Calvin would have objected to the bold language which the Fathers used, I suggest that Calvin probably would have objected to it even if he granted some kind of deification. His grounds for objecting to the use of such language in describing creation would probably apply also to deified believers: ‘“Nature is God”, may be piously used . . . but as it is inaccurate and harsh . . . it does harm to confound the Deity with the inferior operations of his hands’.
对于加尔文是否会反对教父们使用的大胆用词，我认为加尔文应该会反对，即便他采用了某种的神化教义。祂会反对使用那样的用词来描述被造之立场，也应该适用于被神化的信徒：‘“性质是神（Nature is God）”，或许可以被以虔诚的方式来使用。。。但是它是不正确的和粗野的。。。它将用神手次等的运作混乱了神格。’
 C. Mosser, ‘The greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification’, Scottish Journal of Theology 55/1 (2002), pp. 39–40.
C. Mosser，“我们所能获得 大的祝福：加尔文与神化”，苏格兰神学期刊55/1 (2002)，39-40页。
Mosser notes that ‘Deification’ and ‘Divinisation’ are somewhat inadequate translations of theosis. For this reason, I will tend to leave the word theosis untranslated.
Ibid., p. 53.
Ibid., p. 37.
Ibid., p. 55.
For the purposes of this paper I limit discussion to the Institutes. Although Mosser also makes some reference to Calvin's commentaries, the bulk of his argument concerns the Institutes.
Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing’, p. 36.
Ibid., p. 54.
Ibid., p. 49.
Ibid., p. 47.
Institutes 4.17.19. All quotations from the Institutes are from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; London: James Clarke & Co., 1957) unless otherwise noted. I have also consulted the more recent translation by Battles. Although the Battles translation is more recent, it is not without its critics. Muller, for example, asserts: ‘Both in its apparatus and in its editorial approach to the text, the McNeill-Battles translation suffers from the mentality of the text-critic who hides the original ambiance of the text even as he attempts to reveal all its secrets to the modern reader’ (Muller, The Unacommodated Calvin, p. ix). See also Anthony Lane's comments in John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), p. xii. All emphasis in quotations from the Institutes is added.
《要义》4.17.19。除非另有注明，所有从《要义》引用的材料都是从约翰加尔文，《基督教要义》中引用的（Henry Beveridge译；伦敦：James Clarke & Co，1957）。我也参考了Battles的新翻译。虽然Battles的翻译比较新，但是却缺少了批判的部分。例如Muller就说到：“两个译本在组织架构和在编辑内容的方式上，McNeilBattles的翻译缺少了对于内容批判的心态，在他尝试向现代读者启发《要义》的奥秘时，读者仍无法窥知内容当时的环境和气氛。”（Muller，不妥协的加尔文，p.ix）。也参考Anthony Lane 在约翰加尔文：古教父的学生（爱丁堡：T&T Clark, 1999）中的注释，p.xii。所有从要义摘录的重点都加上了引号。
Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing’, p. 42.
CO 2.186. CO= G. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss, eds, Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (59 vols; Brunswick & Berlin: C.A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900).
CO2.186.CO=G. Baum，E. Cunitz和E. Reuss编辑，Ioannis Calvini Opera quae spersunt omnia（59卷；Brunswick & Berling: C.A. Schwetschke，1863-1900）。
Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing’, p. 43.
We will see this worked out in detail below. See also Paul Van Buren's Christ in Our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin's Doctrine of Reconciliation (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002), and Trevor Hart's ‘Humankind in Christ and Christ in Humankind: Salvation as Participation in our Substitute in the Theology of John Calvin’, SJT 42/1 (1989), pp. 77–84.
我们在接下来的段落中将会看见相应的细节。也参考Paul Van Buren的在我们地位的基督：加尔文和好教义中的替代特性（Eugene：Wipf and Stock，2002），和Trevor Hart的‘在基督里的人类和在人类里的基督：在约翰加尔文神学中救赎作为我们有份的代替’，SJT 42/1（1989），77-84页。
Paul Van Buren has helpfully discussed the centrality of this theme in Christ in Our Place. See also Hart ‘Humankind in Christ and Christ in Humankind’.
Paul Van Buren在在我们地位中的基督里面，已经讨论了这个题目的核心。也参考Hart‘在基督里的人类和在人类里的基督。’
Wendel points out the foundational role that christology played in Calvin's disagreement with the Lutheransconcerning Christ's presence at the Lord's Supper (Wendel, F. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. P. Mairet [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997], p. 350).
Wendel指出基督论在加尔文和路德会关于基督在主晚餐中的显现之分歧，基督论扮演了基础的角色（Wendel，F. 加尔文：其宗教思想的起源和发展，P. Mairet译[Grand Rapids，Baker，1997]，350页。）
Oberman points out that the extra-Calvinisticum has often been associated with the axiom finitum non capax infiniti. Oberman argues, however, that this is completely alien to Calvin's intention. Rather than having its roots in the philosophical conviction finitum non capax infiniti, Oberman argues that its roots lie in Calvin's opposition to medieval Mariology which saw Christ as being, not homo purus, but deus homo. Thus it is through Mary as homo purus that we are able to approach Christ as deus homo (Oberman, H. ‘The “Extra” Dimension in the Theology of Calvin’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970), pp. 58ff).
Oberman指出extra-Calvinisticum总是和有限不能包含无限（finitum non capax infiniti）这个主轴发生密切的关系。Oberman坚决相信，它乃是完全不容于加尔文的初衷之内。Oberman认为它并不是根植于从哲学转换过来的有限不能包含无限，而是根植于加尔文反对中古世纪马里亚论中不将基督视为纯粹的人（homo purus），而将基督视为神人（deus homo）之观点。借由作为纯粹的人的马里亚，我们才能接近作为神人的基督（Obermans，H.“加尔文神学中的‘另一个’层面”，教会历史期刊21（1970），58页等）。
In addition to citing 2.13–14, Mosser directs the reader to D. WillisWatkins, ‘The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According to Calvin’, Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag, ed. Willem van’t Spijker (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991). However, WillisWatkins makes much the same argument as Mosser concerning the two-level union of divinity and humanity and provides no more detailed discussion of the relevant passages of the Institutes than Mosser.
除了引用2.1314外，Mosser将独自引向了D. Willis-Walkins，‘根据加尔文的Unio Mystica和对于信心的确认’，加尔文：Erbe und Auftrag，Willem van’t Spijker（Kampen: Kok Phaors, 1991）。不论如何，Willis-Watkings和Mosser一样，对神性和人性的双层次联合提出了同样的论点，却没有如同Mosser一样，对于《要义》的相关段落提出详细的讨论。
Tylenda, J. ‘Calvin's Understanding of the Communication of Properties’ in An Elaboration of the Theology of Calvin, vol. 8 of Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, ed. Richard C. Gamble (New York: Garland, 1992), pp. 148–59.
Richard C. Gamble编辑（纽约：Garland，1992），148-159页。
Tylenda, ‘Calvin's Understanding’, p. 149.
This point is further supported by Calvin's two other examples of the communicatio in Institutes 2.14.2.
Tylenda, ‘Calvin's Understanding’, p. 153.
Tylenda asserts that, for Calvin, the communicatio is indirect, to the person rather than to the nature. See also Oberman's suggestion that the indirect nature of the communication is the key to Calvin's disagreement with Luther concerning the ubiquity of Christ's glorified body (Oberman, ‘The “Extra” Dimension’, p. 57).
[38Tylenda, ‘Calvin's Understanding’, p. 157. Thus, Tylenda disagrees with Van Buren: ‘I doubt that Calvin would say that John's expression, “The Word was made flesh”, is only a manner of speaking.’
The importance of analogy and anagoge is helpfully discussed in Zachman, ‘Calvin as Analogical Theologian’, SJT 51/1 (1998), pp. 162–87.
Tylenda, ‘Calvin's Understanding’, p. 150.
 CO 2.365. Although coniunctio can mean union in the sense of joining together, it can also have the sense of a mutual association. See Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 408.
Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing’, p. 47.
 Institutes 3.11.8
 Institutes 3.11.9
Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing’, p. 50.
Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing’, p. 51.
Ibid., p. 52.
Ibid., p. 53.
Ibid., p. 36.