^{page 392 note 1} cf. Gerrish, Brian A., ‘John Calvin and the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper’, McCormick Quarterly, XXII, 2 (Jan. 1969), 85–98Google Scholar.

^{page 393 note 1} I have explored the earlier phase of Calvin's teaching in ‘Calvin's Eucharistic Doctrine: 1536–39’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, IV, I (1967), 47–65Google Scholar.

^{page 393 note 2} See McNeill, John T., ‘Religious Initiative in Reformation History’, in Brauer, J. C., ed., The Impact of the Church Upon Its Culture (University of Chicago Press, 1968), 176Google Scholar.

^{page 393 note 3} See OC (=Johannis Calvini, Opera quae supersunt omnia, eds. Baum, G., Cunitz, E., Reuss, E., 59 vols. (in CR = Corpus Reformatorum, vols. XXIX-LXXXVII), Brunswick, 1863–1900), V, 433–60Google Scholar; OS (=Johannis Calvini, Opera Selecta, eds. Barth, P., Niesel, W., Scheuner, D., 5 vols.; München, 1926–1962), I, 503–530Google Scholar; TR (=John Calvin's Tracts and Treatises, tr. Beveridge, H., 3 vols.; Edinburgh, 1844–Google Scholar; rep. with notes and intro. by T. F. Torrance; Eerdmans, 1958), II, 163–98; TT (=Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. Reid, J. K. S., vol. XXII in The Library of Christian Classics, Westminster Press, n.d.), 140–166Google Scholar.

^{page 394 note 1} TR, II, 169–72: ‘Hence we conclude that two things are presented to us in the Supper, viz., Jesus Christ as the source and substance of all good; and, secondly, the fruit and efficacy of his death and passion … all the benefit which we should seek in the Supper is annihilated if Jesus Christ be not there given to us as the substance and foundation of all … Hence we indeed infer that the name of the body of Jesus Christ is transferred to the bread, inasmuch as it is the sacrament and figure of it. But we likewise add, that the sacraments of the Lord should not and cannot be at all separated from their reality and substance (sic. we can distinguish but not divide or separate) … if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs.’

^{page 394 note 2} TR, II, 175–9: ‘… we have to examine whether we have true repentance in ourselves, and true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. These two things are so conjoined, that the one cannot subsist without the other … Only let us not come devoid of faith and repentance. The former is hidden in the heart, and therefore conscience must be its witness before God. The latter is manifested by works, and must therefore be apparent in our life.’

^{page 394 note 3} TR, II, 177: ‘… charity, which is, above all other virtues, recommended to us in this sacrament: for which reason it is called the bond of charity.’

^{page 394 note 4} TR, II, 193: ‘… it is still more perverse to celebrate the Supper with mimicry and buffoonery, while no doctrine is stated, or rather all doctrine is buried, as if the Supper were a kind of magical trick’. For a brief but excellent summary of Calvin's understanding of Luther's and Zwingli's positions, see Kilian McDonnell, John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist (Princeton, 1967), 59–74; 85–95. Likewise, Brian A. Gerrish provides an interesting observation upon Calvin's attitude of Luther as found in the Short Treatise: ‘There is good reason to believe that Luther himself examined this section of the treatise and gave it his approval. It is characteristic of Calvin to insist at the outset on two points. First, one could hardly expect that a proper understanding of his intricate question would have been attained all at once: “We shall not be at all surprised that they (the disputants) did not grasp everything at the outset.” But, second, beneath the outward scandal of disagreement he detects a genuine movement towards unity. With a glad expectancy, later to be disappointed, Calvin anticipates a final settlement of the debate. All are now agreed that ‘we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.’ It is just that some are better than others at explaining how this happens. Within this movement toward unity both parties erred and refused to hear each other. The case against Luther is that he employed ill-advised similitudes, appeared to teach a local presence, and spoke with too sharp a tongue. But Calvin does not doubt that Luther was right to resist the opposing tendency to reduce the sacrament to a matter of “bare signs”. The view of the Zwinglians was entirely too negative and destructive: “For although they did not deny the truth, all the same they did not teach it as clearly as they

^{page 394 note 4} ought.” In any case, our part is not to censure either side, but to recall in thankfulness what we have received from both.’ ‘John Calvin on Luther’, in Interpreters of Luther: Essays in Honour of Wilhelm Pauck, ed. Pelikan, J. (Fortress, 1968), 67–96Google Scholar.

^{page 395 note 1} In terms of Calvin's sursum corda view, it was his frequent practice to appeal to Augustine's Letter to Dardanus, PL, 33, 832–48; CSEL, LVII, 81–119; Letters, IV, 165–203, in vol. XXX, Fathers of the Church, 221–55, esp. §10 In Joannis Evangelium, Tract. L, n. 13, PL, 35, 1763. McDonnell summarises the monumental work of Luchesius Smits (S. Augustin dans l'æuvre de Jean Calvin, Assen, 1957, 2 vols.) by listing the following contributions of Augustine to Calvin: ‘definition of a sacrament: constitutive importance of Word and faith for the sacrament; unity and distinction of sign and signified; the sacramental way of speaking (metonymy); unity of the two testaments; role of Ascension; communion under both species; no specific eucharistic gift; communion of believers only; role of the Holy Spirit; election and faith as sacramental presuppositions; and the general dialectical character taken over in part from Augustine's neo-Platonic background’, op. cit., 58. For a corrective to the notion that Calvin held a naive ‘spatial’ Christology, see Willis, E. David, Calvin's Catholic Christology: The Function of the so-called extra Calvinisticum in Calvin's theology, ‘studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought’, vol. II (Brill, 1966)Google Scholar. Willis stresses Calvin's use of a political phraseology to render an account of God's transcendence, e.g. words like ‘majesty, power, authority, glory’.

^{page 395 note 2} cf. Doumergue, Émile, Jean Calvin: les hommes et les choses de son temps, II, 606–620Google Scholar; Maurer, W., ‘Confessio Augustana Variata’, ARC (1962), 97–150Google Scholar; Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, vol. VII (Scribners, 1892), 378–384Google Scholar.

^{page 396 note 1} cf. Doumergue, , II, 621–640Google Scholar; OC, V, 509–684; Hefminjard, Aimé-Louis, Correspondance des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française, (Geneva, 1878–1897)Google Scholar, (=Herm.) vol. VI, 394ff, VII. Pierre Fraenkel has rather exhaustively examined the research, texts, and course of events of this issue in ‘Les Protestants et le problème de la transsubstantiation au Colloque de Ratisbonne: Documents et arguments, du 5 au 10 mai 1541’, Oecumenica, ed. by Kantzenbach, F. W. and Vajta, Vilmos (Augsburg, 1968) 70–116Google Scholar. For some interesting excerpts about other aspects of this colloquy see Great Debates of the Reformation, ed. Ziegler, D. J. (Random House, 1969), 143–177Google Scholar.

^{page 396 note 2} Bonnet, Jules (ed.), Letters of John Calvin, trans. Constable, D. and Hilchrist, M., 4 vols. (Presbyt. B. of Pub., N.D. (ca. 1858)) I, LXVII, 236–8Google Scholar.

^{page 397 note 1} cf. ibid., 237: ‘There stood the impassable rock which barred the way to farther progress. Transubstantiation, reposition, circumgestation, and other superstitious forms of worship were utterly rejected (on 8th May). This our opponents would by no means allow. My colleague (Bucer), who is full of enthusiasm in desire for agreement, began to murmur, and to become indignant, because such unseasonable questions were entertained … I condemned that peculiar local presence; the act of adoration I declared to be altogether insufferable.’ Cf. also OC, V, 568; Herm. 7, 112.

^{page 397 note 2} Bonnet, I, LXVIII, 239: ‘One thing alone, as usually happens in the midst of evils, I am thankful for, that there is no one who is righting now more earnestly against the wafer god than Brentz, for so he calls it.’

^{page 397 note 3} ibid., LXX, 257–50.

^{page 397 note 4} cf. supra, fn. 9. Gropper and Granvelle's secretary, Gerard Volckruck (van Veltwyek), probably compiled the preparatory draft of the official acts of Ratisbon. Bucer approved this draft and then produced a Latin compilation which in turn Calvin used for a French redaction. The following excerpt is from this draft to which the Protestants later added a counter-article. ‘Le Sacrement de l'Eucharistie a la promesse, qui est la parolle toute puissante de Christ: par la vertu de laquelle ce Sacrement est parfaict: et par laquelle aussi advient, que apres la consecration, le vray corps et le vray sang de Seigneur vrayement et substantiellement, sont presens, et qu'ilz sont distribuez aux fideles soubz l'espece de pain et de vin: c'est à dire, entant quiceux sont transmuez et transsubstantiez au corps et au sang de nostre Seigneur: laquelle parolle est telle: Prenez et mangez tous de cecy. C'est mon corps qui sera livre pour vous. Et du calice: Beuvez tous de cestuy. C'est cy le sang du nouveau Testament, lequel sera espandu pour plusieurs en remission des pechez. Or l'element est pain et vin, esquelz, quand la promesse est adioincte, est faict la Sacrement. Car ce Sacrement est parfaict en deux choses, c'est assavoir par l'espece visible, des elemens; et par la chair et sang invisible de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ: esquelz, par ce Sacrement nous participons vrayement et realement. La vertu de ce Sacrement est, que par la chair vivifiante de nostre Sauveur Iesus Christ, nous soyons a iceluy conioinetz, non seulement spirituellement, ains corporellement: et faictz oz de ses oz, chair de sa chair: estans faictz certains, qu'en iceluy Iesus Christ nous avons receu remission des pechez et au Sacrement vertu d'estaindre la concupiscence adherente en noz membres: ce qui est veritablement un tres doulx gage de remission des pechez, vie eternelle, et societé avec Dieu, a nous promise et offerte en Christ.’ (OC, V, 541–2).

^{page 397 note 4} spirituellement, ains corporellement: et faictz oz de ses oz, chair de sa chair: estans faictz certains, qu'en iceluy Iesus Christ nous avons receu remission des pechez et au Sacrement vertu d'estaindre la concupiscence adherente en noz membres: ce qui est veritablement un tres doulx gage de remission des pechez, vie eternelle, et societé avec Dieu, a nous promise et offerte en Christ.’ (OC, V, 541–2).

^{page 398 note 1} OC, V, 566f. Cf. Fraenkel, op. cit., 91, claims that the supplement of Calvin to the counter-article of the Prot. to art. XIV was a résumé of Protestant responses garnered after 6th May.

^{page 398 note 2} OC, V, 568.

^{page 398 note 3} cf. Jean-Daniel Benoit, ‘The History and Development of the Institutio: How Calvin Worked’, in John Calvin, ed. Duffield, G. E. (‘Courtenay Studies in Reformation Theology’, Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966), 102–117Google Scholar.

^{page 399 note 1} It is interesting to note that Calvin's interpretation of the ancient Christian writers' understanding of eucharistic conversion suggests a position quite similar to contemporary transignification theories. ‘… they do not mean by this that the elements have been annihilated, but rather that they now have to be considered of a different class from common foods intended solely to feed the stomach, since in them is set forth (exhibeatur) the spiritual food and drink of the soul.’ OS, V, 358f; In (=John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. McNeill, J. R., (‘Library of Ch. Classics’, vols. XX–XXI, Westminster, 1960)Google Scholar, 17:14. Exhibitio (and its verb form) is a key word in Calvin. It combines the two basic sacramental elements of visibilization and actualisation. The signa exhibiliva mean more in expressing Christ's presence than simply signa repraesentativa. It was probably employed as early as Alger of Liège (+ 1132). Cf. PL, 180, 790f.

^{page 399 note 2} Calvin, as exegete, made significant use of (1) the principle of accomodation. and (2) synecdoche in locating the proper meaning of Biblical texts. He often employs the term ‘metonymy’, e.g. In IV, 17, 21—metonymicum), to indicate a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another. Thus, the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ. I see this as the use of the principle of accomodation. See Forstman, H. Jackson, Word and Spirit: Calvin's Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford Univ. Press, 1962) 106–123; Augustine, Letters, XCVIII, 9; CLXIX, 2.9Google Scholar.

^{page 399 note 3} OS, IV, 348; In 17:6: ‘Christ makes us his body not by faith only but by the very thing itself (Homil. 60 in Opera, IV, 581). For he (Chrysostom) means that such good is not obtained from any other source than by faith. But he only wishes to exclude the possibility that anyone, when he hears faith mentioned, should conceive of it as mere imagining.’.

^{page 399 note 4} J. T. McNeill notes, In p. 1371, fn. 30, that Calvin displayed dependence at this point both upon Augustine and upon Bucer. Upon the advice of Melanchthon he omitted these fragments from his Commentary on Romans in 1540.

^{page 399 note 5} Calvin continued: ‘I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the Supper, Christ is truly shown to us through the symbols of bread and wine, his very body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to obtain righteousness for us. Why? First, that we may grow into one body with him; secondly, having been made partakers of his substance, that we may also feel his power in partaking of all his benefits.’ OS, IV, 354; IN, 17, 11.

^{page 400 note 1} If Christ were in ‘many places at once’, then Calvin thought that such a notion conflicted with ‘a nature truly human’ which would only be in one place at a time, Christ's human nature would suffer by being made infinite; Cf. supra, fn. 7; Willis, op. cit., 30–44 discusses Calvin's use of totus non totum distinction. The humanity of Christ is in heaven but his power is diffused everywhere as reigning power.

^{page 400 note 2} McDonnell, op. cit., signals Calvin's pneumatology and the contribution of Werner Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (‘Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte’, vol. 8 Göttingen, 1957)Google Scholar.

^{page 400 note 3} OS, V, 410–13.

^{page 400 note 4} In their respective order see: OC, VII, 1–44; TR, I, 71–120; OC, VI 453–534; TR, I, 121–234; TT, 183–216; vol. 9 of Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, eds. D. W. Torrance, and T. F. Torrance (Eerdmans, 1960-) 203, 244–7; for the best work utilising Calvin's Commentaries, see Wallace, Ronald S., Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Eerdans, 1975) 197–233Google Scholar: note his citation (p. 198) of Comm. on 1 Cor. 10.16: ‘When the cup is called a participation, the expression, I acknowledge, is figurative, provided that the truth held forth in the figure is not taken away, or, in other words, provided that the reality itself is also present.’

^{page 400 note 5} OC, VI, 179–80, 193–202; TR, II, 105–6, 119–22. That the issue was still of vital concern to certain communities can be corroborated from Calvin's letter to M. de Falais on 16th Nov., 1546: ‘There is one point, however, that I think, I have forgotten, namely, the complaint they make, that it appears I would shut up the body in the bread alone. I know not where they have dreamed that dream. In several treatises, I speak of the matter, but chiefly in the Institution, in thje Catechism, in the Commentary on Corinthians, and in the Manner of the Administration of the Lord's Supper … Besides that, I have written a little book upon the subject, in which I believe a reader of sound judgment will meet with nothing to find fault with. But here is their mistake: many think that we make no distinction between sign and the truth signified, unless we separate them entirely, to make God like a mountebank, who exhibits delusive representations by slight of hand.’ Letters, op. cit., II, 69.

^{page 401 note 1} On another issue, see Casteel, Theodore W., ‘Calvin and Trent: Calvin' Reaction to the Council of Trent in the Context of His Conciliar Thought’, Harvard Theological Review, 63, 1 (1970) 91–117Google Scholar.

^{page 401 note 2} See Concilium Tridentimm: Diarorum … ' ed. Gesellschaft, Görres (Herder, 1911– V), 869f, 943–60Google Scholar.

^{page 401 note 3} OC, VII, 365–506; TR, III, 17–188.

^{page 402 note 1} Schönmetzer, Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum (Herder, 32nd ed., 1963), 1606Google Scholar.

^{page 402 note 2} OC, VII, 719; Hughes, Philip E. (ed. and trans.), The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin (Eerdmans, 1966), 103Google Scholar.

^{page 402 note 3} Denz., op. cit., 1636, 1642, 1648.

^{page 402 note 4} Bonnet, , Letters, II, CCXXIV, 154–159Google Scholar.

^{page 403 note 1} A complete and lengthy account is rendered of the Consensus in Guillaume Farel: 1489–1565, ed. Farel, Comité (Delachaux & Niestlé, 1930)Google Scholar. Also see Bouvier, André, Henri Bullinger: réformateur et conseilleur æuménique (Delachaux & Niestlé, 1940)Google Scholar; Bullinger to T. Thamer (Oc. 28, 1654) in C. op. Epist. no. 851, as cited in Comité Farel, p. 580f.

^{page 403 note 2} Cochrane, A. C. (ed.), Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (Westminster, 1966), 107–108Google Scholar.

^{page 403 note 3} OC, VII, 717–22; The Register …, op. cit., 101–5.

^{page 404 note 1} Ibid., 115–23; OC, VII, 732–43; Kingdon, R. M. and Bergier, J. F. (eds.), Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève au temps de Calvin (Droz, 1964), 1, 64–70Google Scholar.

^{page 405 note 1} cf. Doumergue, op. cit., vol. VI, 503–26; OC, XXXV, 689; Bouvier, op. cit., 473f. In the same year Peter Martyr Vermigli defended certain propositions concerning the Eucharist at an Oxford disputation. The similarities were: rejection of transubstantiation and a carnal or corporeal presence in the species; a sacramental presence of Christ joined to the species is affirmed. See McLelland, Joseph C., The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli (Eerdmans, 1957Google Scholar); Echlin, Edward P., The Anglican Eucharist in Ecumenical Perspective (Seabury, 1968), 62–63Google Scholar.

^{page 405 note 2} On 19th January 1551, Calvin wrote to a Richard le Fevre in order to instruct him in the method of best responding to accusations from the papists: ‘On the subject of the Sacrament of the Supper, when they speak to you about transubstantiation, you have a ready answer: that all those passages which they bring together, even if they could be taken in the sense which they adduce, cannot be applied to the mass. For, when it is said, This is my body and my blood, it is also then and there added, Take, eat ye, and drink ye all of this cup. Now, among them, there is but one who eats the whole; and even at Easter, he gives but a part to the people. But there is even yet a sorer evil, that instead of what Jesus Christ said,—Take; they presume to offer a sacrifice, which was to be unique and of perpetual efficacy. And, besides, in order to have some help from these words, they ought to maintain the observance of the Supper, which they do not. Moreover, you can always protest that you do not deny that Jesus Christ gives us His body, provided that we look for it from heaven.’ Bonnet, Letters, II, 280f.

^{page 405 note 3} See Lengereau, Ernest, Théorie de Calvin sur La Cène d'après ses controuerses avec Joachim Westphal et Tilemann Heshusius (pub. thesis for B.Th. at Montauban, Toulouse: A Chavin et Fils, 1896)Google Scholar; Mönckeberg, C., Joachim Westphal und Johannes Calvin (Hamburg, 1865)Google Scholar; Niesel, W., Calvins Lehre vom Abendmahl im Lichte seiner letzten Antwort an Westphal (München: Chr. Kaiser-Verlag, 1930)Google Scholar; Sillem, C. H. W. (ed.), Briefsammlung des J. Westphal, 2 vols. (1903)Google Scholar.

^{page 406 note 1} Defensio sanae et orthodoxae (1555), (OC, IX, 1–40); Secunda defensio piae et orthodoxae de sacramentis fidei contra Joachimi Westphali calumnias (1556), (OC, IX, 41–120, TR, II, 246–345); Ultima adomitio ad J. Westphal (1557), (OC, IX, 137–252, TR, II, 346–494).

^{page 406 note 2} TR, II, 280f.

^{page 406 note 3} ‘The Lord's Supper in the Theology and Practice of Calvin’, in John Calvin, op. cit., 131–48; cf. McLelland, Joseph C., ‘Calvin and Philosophy’, Canadian Journal of Theology, 11, 1 (Jan. ′65) 47Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note 1} Coena Domini (Munich, 1937), 120ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 407 note 2} The Teaching of Calvin (J. Clark, 1950), 185.

^{page 407 note 3} TR, II, 366, 481, 493. Lengereau, op. cit., 22–4, concluded: ‘Cette presence est réelle. Calvin insiste fortement sur la réalité de la participation du fidèle au corps de Christ … Cette présence est done un fait, mais elle est spirituelle, ce qui n'exclut pas sa réalité.’

^{page 407 note 4} TR, II, 387, 399, 408, 419, 440, 465, 482, 485f.

^{page 408 note 1} Cf. Barton, Peter F., ‘Zur Lehre vom kirchlichen Amte in der lutherischen Frühorthodoxie: Das Amtsverständnis Tilemann Heshusens’, Kerygma und Dogma 7 (1961) 115–127Google Scholar; Barton, Peter F., ‘Tilemann Heshusius und der österreichische Protestantismus—ein Modellfall’, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich, 82 (1966) 3–14Google Scholar.

^{page 408 note 2} OC, IX, 457–524; TT, 257–324; TR, II, 495–572.

^{page 408 note 3} TT, 263.

^{page 408 note 4} OC, IX, 517–24; TR, II, 573–79; TT, 325–30.

^{page 409 note 1} Nugent, Donald D., ‘The Cardinal of Lorraine and the Colloquy of Poissy’, The Historical Journal, XII, 4 (1969), 596CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 409 note 2} Here I would simply refer you to the Librairie Droz's publication on Beza by such men as Meylan, Dufour, Gardy, and Geisendorf. To ray knowledge, Donald G. Nugent has provided the best recent study of the Colloquy of Poissy in his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Iowa in 1965, entitled: ‘The Colloquy of Poissy: A Study in Sixteenth Century Ecumenism’.

^{page 410 note 1} ibid., 123, cited from Histoire ecclésiastique des Églises Réformés au royaume de France, eds. Baum, G. & Cunitz, E. (1580) I, 516Google Scholar.

^{page 410 note 2} Nugent, 142.

^{page 410 note 3} ibid., 204, fn. 2 fr. HE, I, 595f.

^{page 410 note 4} ibid., 227.

^{page 411 note 1} ibid., 237, fn. 2.

^{page 411 note 2} Aubert, H. et al. (eds.), Correspondence de Théodore de Bèze, vol. V (Droz, 1968), no. 310, pp. 30–33Google Scholar.