The Flesh of the Word: The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 9780197567944, 9780197567968, 0197567940

Citation preview

The Flesh of the Word

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Founding Editor David C. Steinmetz† Editorial Board Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia THE REFORMATION OF PROPHECY Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet and Old Testament Prophecy G. Sujin Pak ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate Theodore G. Van Raalte ORTHODOX RADICALS Baptist Identity in the English Revolution Matthew C. Bingham DIVINE PERFECTION AND HUMAN POTENTIALITY The Trinitarian Anthropology of Hilary of Poitiers Jarred A. Mercer

THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins THE COVENANT OF WORKS The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. Fesko RINGLEADERS OF REDEMPTION How Medieval Dance Became Sacred Kathryn Dickason

THE GERMAN AWAKENING Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–​1848 Andrew Kloes

REFUSING TO KISS THE SLIPPER Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation Michael W. Bruening

THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane

FONT OF PARDON AND NEW LIFE John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism Lyle D. Bierma

AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline

THE FLESH OF THE WORD The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy K.J. Drake

The Flesh of the Word The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy K . J.   D R A K E

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Drake, K.J., author. Title: The flesh of the word : the extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to early orthodoxy / K.J. Drake. Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, [2021] | Series: Oxford studies in historical theology series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020045333 (print) | LCCN 2020045334 (ebook) | ISBN 9780197567944 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197567968 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Hypostatic union—History of doctrines. | Jesus Christ—Natures—History of doctrines. | Jesus Christ—History of doctrines. | Zwingli, Ulrich, 1484–1531. | Calvin, Jean, 1509–1564. | Church history—16th century. | Reformed Church—Doctrines—History. Classification: LCC BT213 .D73 2021 (print) | LCC BT213 (ebook) | DDC 232/.8—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020045333 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020045334 DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.001.0001 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

Contents Acknowledgments 

ix

 Introduction:  status quaestionis of the extra Cavlinisticum

1



I.1 Scholarship on the extra Calvinisticum and the State of the Question  I.2 The extra Calvinisticum as Term and Concept  I.3 Plan for the Book 

1. Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum 

1.1 Zwingli’s Life and Influence 



1.2 Zwingli’s Christology before the Eucharistic Controversy 



1.1.1 Scholarship on Zwingli and the Extra 

1.2.1 Historical Context and Purpose of The Commentary on True and False Religion  1.2.2 The Christology of The Commentary on True and False Religion  1.2.3 Summary: Zwingli’s Early Christology 

3 13 16

19

19 23

27 28 32 37

1.3 On the Lord’s Supper and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum 

39

1.4 Friendly Exegesis against Ubiquity 

53



75

1.3.1 Zwingli and the Eucharistic Controversy 1524–​1531  1.3.2 On the Lord’s Supper 

1.4.1 Introduction  1.4.2 The Extra against Ubiquity  1.4.3 Alloiosis, the Communicatio Idiomatum, and the Extra 

1.5 Conclusion 

39 44 53 56 61

2. The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy to the Consensus Tigurinus 

77



78 83 90



2.1 Introduction  2.2 The Marburg Colloquy 



2.3 Zwingli’s Late Christology: Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio  2.4 The Reception of the extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli’s Death to the Consensus Tigurinus 

101

2.5 Conclusion 

139





2.2.1 The Marburg Colloquy, Politics, and the Parting of Ways  2.2.2 Scripture and Reason at Marburg  2.2.3 The Ascension of Christ’s Circumscribed Body 

2.4.1 Bullinger and the Continuation of Zwingli’s Christology  2.4.2 The extra Calvinisticum in John Calvin’s Institutes (1536)  2.4.3 The extra Calvinisticum and the Consensus Tigurinus 

77 78

117 119 125 131

vi Contents

3. Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum 

140

3.2.1 The Fallout of the Consensus Tigurinus and the Second Eucharistic Controversy  3.2.2 Johannes Brenz and De personali unione (1561) 

143 145





3.1 Introduction  3.2 The Context of the Second Eucharistic Controversy 

3.3 Vermigli’s Life and Christology 

3.3.1 Introduction to Vermigli’s Life and Significance  3.3.2 Vermigli’s Early Christology 

3.4 Vermigli’s Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ 



3.4.1 Introduction to the Dialogue  3.4.2 Setting the Parameters of the Question: Bodies, Reason, and God’s Power  3.4.3 Chalcedon, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum in the Dialogue  3.4.3.1 Chalcedonian Christology and the Hypostatic Union  3.4.3.2 The Communicatio Idiomatum in Vermigli  3.4.3.3 Vermigli and finitum non capax infiniti  3.4.4 Christ’s Ascension to a Local Heaven 

3.5 Conclusion 

4. Antoine de la Roche Chandieu and the extra Calvinisticum into Early Reformed Orthodoxy 



4.1 Introduction  4.2 The Development of the Debate from Vermigli to Chandieu  4.2.1 Martin Chemnitz: Voluntary Ubiquity and the Genus Maiestaticum  4.2.2 The Formula of Concord 

4.3 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu: Life and Scholastic Method  4.3.1 Chandieu’s Life  4.3.2 Chandieu’s Scholastic Method 

4.4 De veritate and the extra Calvinisticum 

4.4.1 De veritate: Introduction and Structure  4.4.2 The Chalcedonian Logic of the extra Calvinisticum  4.4.3 The Principia of Scripture and the extra Calvinisticum  4.4.4 The extra Calvinisticum, finitum non capax infiniti, and Christ as Mediator  4.4.5 Chandieu and the Communicatio Idiomatum  4.4.6  Scholastic Distinctions and the extra Calvinisticum 



4.5 Conclusion 

140 143

152 152 155

164 164 168 174 175 183 186 192

202

205 205 210

215 222

226 226 231

238

238 240 243 249 253 263

272

Contents  vii

  Conclusion 

C.1 Summary of Content and Contributions  C.2 The Ramifications of the Extra beyond Christology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries 

C.2.1 The Extra and the Theologia Unionis  C.2.2 The Extra and “Confessional Physics”  C.2.3 The Extra and Eucharistic Ritual Practice 

274

274 276

277 280 282

C.3 Contributions for Contemporary Doctrinal Retrieval 

285

Bibliography  Index 

293 313

Acknowledgments This book has been the labor of many years and without the support and encouragement of many it would have never made it to the page. First, I must thank my Doktorvater, Michael McClymond, who pushed me to make my scholarship better at every turn and gave countless hours to commenting on by work. Without him, this book would be lesser in almost every respect. I would also like to thank Robert Peterson, the man who first introduced me to the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum at Covenant Theological Seminary. He has not only offered editorial help on this work but also has been a continuous source of encouragement. To Michael Horton and Ruben Rosario-​ Rodriguez, I offer deep gratitude for being readers on the dissertation draft of this book. Your feedback and encouragement helped me get over the finish line. To my PhD cohort at Saint Louis University, Alex Giltner, James Lee, and Luke Townsend, I owe lifelong appreciation both for their insights in forming the central question and methods of this study but also for their friendship and fellowship. To Billy Boyce and Kyle Dillion, I offer thanks for reading and commenting on early drafts. The fourth chapter was made possible by the generosity of the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin University, which offered me a research fellowship in the Summer of 2017. I would especially like to express appreciation for Karin Maag’s expertise and guidance on late-​16th century Geneva. Redeemer University provided assistance in preparing the final manuscript with a Grant in Aid of Publication for editorial assistance in the Summer of 2020. Thanks also to Kevin Flatt and Robert Joustra, my colleagues at Redeemer, for their encouragement in the final stages of this work. I thank Richard Muller for his interest in and inspiration of my project as well as the editorial staff of OUP, who helped prepare this work for publication. To Jon Easterling and Katie Heisey, thank you for your friendship and the countless evenings of humoring me as I rambled about my research or lamented the struggles of writing. I could not have done it without you. Finally, I thank my parents Ralph and Kathy Drake, without whose love and support throughout the years I could have accomplished nothing.

x Acknowledgments Unless the Lord builds the house,   those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city,   the watchman stays awake in vain. Psalm 127:1 K.J. Drake Hamilton, ON December 2020

Introduction status quaestionis of the extra Cavlinisticum

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord. Only-​begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same Son, Only-​begotten, God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.1

With this definition, the Council of Chalcedon delimited the doctrine of Christ’s person to preserve the integrity of both the human and divine natures within an indissoluble unity. By this decree, the council attempted to end the ongoing controversy over Christ’s person by passing between the Scylla of Nestorianism and the Charybdis of Eutychianism. In time, the council’s proclamation established the foundation of christological orthodoxy for the Western Church. However, certain tensions found within the declaration’s logic would blossom into controversy again in the sixteenth century as Lutheran and Reformed theologians put forth opposing doctrines of the person of Christ, specifically around questions of Christ’s human body. How, for instance, does this personal union “without change . . . without separation” relate to the concept of divine omnipresence? This question would cause a rent in Magisterial Protestantism. Classical theists agree that God is omnipresent or transcendent over space and that this quality therefore belongs to Christ’s divine nature. But since humans are finite and localized within their bodies, with a limited sphere of 1 Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, eds., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 3.204. The Flesh of the Word. K.J. Drake, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.003.0001

2  The Flesh of the Word interaction and influence, Christ’s human nature must be considered finite and his body circumscribed. Therefore, the person (hypostasis) of Christ is at the same time transcendent over all creation as the eternal second person of the Trinity, according to his divine nature, and localized within human flesh, according to his human nature. Yet explaining the earthly career of the God-​ man and how the attendant theological ramifications resulting from the hypostatic union are worked out remains difficult. During the Reformation, these questions would rise to the surface within the first decade of the movement in the intra-​Protestant debates over Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and evolve into a lasting distinction between Lutheran and Reformed christology, which gained the name, owing to Lutheran polemics, the extra Calvinisticum (the Calvinistic extra or beyond).2 Despite its obscure appellation, the so-​called extra Calvinisticum, which teaches that the eternal Son maintains his existence etiam extra carnem (still beyond the flesh) during his earthly ministry and perpetually, represents a fault line between Lutheran and Reformed theology. As these confessional parties formed their distinct identities in the sixteenth century, christology emerged as a key area of dispute—​an issue that continues to divide these camps today.3 In this work I will broaden the study of the extra Calvinisticum by investigating how the doctrine arose within sixteenth-​century Reformed theology and how its form and function developed, given polemic engagement and shifts in theological method from Zwingli through the period of early Reformed orthodoxy. The first question is historical: When and why did Reformed theologians first articulate the extra? Literature on the subject gestures toward the eucharistic controversy of the 1520s; however, a more exact answer is needed. At what point in the controversy was the extra first deployed? In what works did it appear? Was it the product of the internal logic of early Reformed theology, a defensive doctrine born of polemics with Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature, or some combination of both?4 The second major question is how the form and function of the extra Calvinisticum developed during the sixteenth century. How did 2 In this study I use the terms “extra Calvinisticum,” “so-​called extra Calvinisticum,” and “the extra” synonymously to refer to Christ’s continued existence etiam extra carnem and the corollary claims discussed later. 3 See the following for contemporary discussion of the Reformed-​ Lutheran divide:  Robert Kolb and Carl R. Trueman, Between Wittenberg and Geneva: Lutheran and Reformed Theology in Conversation (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 2017); Jordan Cooper, The Great Divide:  A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015). 4 Following the general usage in the literature, I will often refer to Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature and body with the shorthand “doctrine of ubiquity.”

Introduction  3 theologians support the doctrine, and how did their arguments change over time in response to shifting circumstances, polemical needs, and theological method?

I.1  Scholarship on the extra Calvinisticum and the State of the Question Scholarship on the extra Calvinisticum has largely been limited to the work of John Calvin, who is lifted up, often to the detriment and neglect of his fellow Reformed theologians, as the unique expositor of the doctrine within the sixteenth century. David Willis, Heiko Oberman, and Karl Barth set the agenda for research concerning the extra Calvinisticum in contemporary scholarship.5 Willis and Oberman produced historical studies of the extra that laid the groundwork for all subsequent historical studies. Barth’s sharp rejection and critique of the extra in his work on the Heidelberg Catechism and in the Church Dogmatics influenced the interpretation of the doctrine throughout the twentieth century. Barth’s critique reframed reflection on the doctrine within the discourse of revelation and natural theology. This focus has contributed to several attempts to utilize the doctrine in constructive theology. In his quest to articulate a high christology throughout his career, Barth moved from acceptance to rejection of the extra Calvinisticum, and his rejection has cast a shadow over engagement with the doctrine ever since.6 Barth explicitly and enthusiastically endorses the extra in The Göttingen Dogmatics (1924–​26) by stating that he “fully accept[s]‌this Calvinistic extra.”7 Yet, by 1948, in his reflections on the Heidelberg Catechism, Barth deems the extra Calvinisticum a “theological disaster” (theologischen Betriebsunfall) and regards “this statement [the extra Calvinisticum] [as] only to be one

5 E. David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966); Heiko A. Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” in The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 234–​58; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley, 2nd ed. (London: T&T Clark, 1956). 6 See, for instance, current studies focusing on Barth’s view:  Myk Habets, “Putting the ‘Extra’ Back into Calvinism,” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 4 (January 1, 2009): 441–​56; Darren O. Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word: Karl Barth’s Critical Reception of the Extra Calvinisticum,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 1 (2013): 42–​57; James R. Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst: An Essay on the Flesh of Christ (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016), passim. 7 Karl Barth, The Göttingen Dogmatics, ed. Hannelotte Reiffen, trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 159.

4  The Flesh of the Word of unbelief.”8 Barth’s drastic reversal stems from his continued rejection of the possibility of God’s revelation distinct in any sense from the incarnate Christ—​a logos asarkos. Therefore, the logos asarkos leads one only to another god. Barth states this most clearly in CD IV/​1: We must concede that there is something unsatisfactory about the theory [the extra], in that right up to our own day it has led to fatal speculation about the being and work of the logos asarkos, or a God whom we think we can know elsewhere, and whose divine being we can define from elsewhere than in and from the contemplation of His presence and activity as the Word made flesh. And it cannot be denied that Calvin himself (and with particularly serious consequences in his doctrine of predestination) does go a good way towards trying to reckon with this “other” god.9

Barth’s rejection of the extra, on epistemological grounds, and its connection to the broader concept of natural theology influenced further scholarship on the extra Calvinisticum by shifting the locus of discussion to the doctrine of revelation.10 In Calvin’s Catholic Christology, David Willis presents the first detailed study of the naming of the extra Calvinisticum, the pre-​Reformation history of the extra carnem concept, and its function within the work of Calvin. Willis’s study has provided the historical foundation of all work on the extra Calvinisticum in the past fifty years and is an invaluable resource for further investigation. I will build on this foundation and extend research on the extra in the early modern period beyond the figure of Calvin by correcting for Willis’s neglect of Zwingli, Calvin’s contemporaries, and Reformed orthodoxy. Willis frames his work in a post-​Barthian context, stating that the problems facing any contemporary engagement with the extra are twofold:  the relationship between creation and redemption and “the predicament concerning christology in the present theological enterprise.”11 For Willis, the relationship between creation and redemption is tied up with

8 Karl Barth, Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. Shirley C. Guthrie Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 77. 9 Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1, 181. 10 See, for example, Christian Link, “Die Entscheidung der Christologie Calvins und ihre theologische Bedeutung:  Das sogenannte Extra-​Calvinisticum,” Evangelische Theologie 47, no. 2 (1987): 97–​119; Christina Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum: Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?,” Theologische Zeitschrift 64, no. 4 (2008): 358–​69. 11 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 6.

Introduction  5 the question of natural theology’s possibility, which he contends the extra Calvinisticum is not “intended to buttress.”12 In one sense, Willis attempts to save Calvin’s doctrine of the extra from Barth’s critique. Willis begins the study by tracing the genesis of the term “extra Calvinisticum,” which first appears in intra-​Lutheran polemics between the faculties of Tübingen and Giessen in the 1620s.13 He narrates the polemic terminology used against the Reformed by Lutheran theologians through the various colloquies and confessional controversies of the late sixteenth century, highlighting the shift from “Zwinglians” to “Calvinists” as the preferred term of disapprobation.14 Willis places particular emphasis on analogies that Reformed theologians used in these polemics, the most prominent being the analogy of Antwerp and the ocean. Caspar Olevianus used this comparison at the Colloquy of Maulbronn (1564) in response to an argument made by the Lutheran theologian Jakob Andreas regarding Christ’s relationship to the right hand of God after his ascension. Essentially, Olevianus’s point with this analogy is to establish that Andreas has committed a fallacy by conflating Christ’s presence at the right hand of God with the right hand of God itself.15 Even though Antwerp is on the sea and the sea stretches around the world, Antwerp does not stretch around the world. Willis claims that by using this and other analogies the early Reformed scholastics distorted their christology. He asserts: [These analogies were] intended to illustrate the relation between Christ’s bodily presence in heaven (Antwerp) and his ubiquity according to the power of his divinity (the ocean). But they, unfortunately, came to describe, and were accepted by the Reformed theologians themselves as describing, the relation between the two natures of the one person.16

Willis claims that the Reformed scholastics were taken in by their own analogies, leading to a defective understanding of the hypostatic union. Despite this bold assertion, Willis offers no evidence from any Reformed source of 12 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 6. 13 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  20–​21. 14 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  11–​19. 15 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 15–​16. For further discussion on this analogy, see Andrew M. McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh:  A Historical and Theological Study of the Extra Calvinisticum, T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology 29 (London:  Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014),  88–​89. 16 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 23.

6  The Flesh of the Word this conceptual slippage in the use of this or other analogies. His analysis of these analogies is part of a broader thesis that distances the Reformed orthodox understanding of the extra from Calvin’s formulation. In his conclusion, Willis states regarding Calvin, “Is the ‘extra Calvinisticum’ inevitably bound to such slogans as ‘Antwerp and the ocean,’ ‘novitas,’ ‘finitum non capax infiniti,’ or ‘back to a natural theology and ethics based on the logos ensarkos–​logos asarkos distinction’? As it appears in Calvin’s theology—​ no.”17 Regarding the Reformed orthodox, Willis implies the answer is yes. Therefore, Willis claims a fundamental discontinuity between the basis of the extra Calvinisticum in Calvin and his successors. Willis’s separation between Calvin and his successors is juxtaposed with the claims of continuity between Calvin and the catholic tradition. He demonstrates that far from being a peculiar innovation of Calvin, the so-​ called extra Calvinisticum—​i.e., the etiam extra carnem—​is an idea that finds ample attestation in ancient and medieval theologians. Willis presents statements in Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas similar to the later concept. Ultimately, he concludes that between these figures and Calvin there is a continuity of the content of the etiam extra carnem, going so far as to say, “One might coin ‘extra Catholicum’ or ‘extra Patristicum’ as being more appropriate than ‘extra Calvinisticum.’ ”18 Willis produces three chapters on the function of the extra Calvinisticum in the thought of Calvin himself. The first is concerned with the proper christological place and function of the doctrine within Calvin’s works. Willis’s way into this subject is through the political imagery of kingship. The extra Calvinisticum allows Calvin to maintain that Christ has extended his reign through the incarnation without abrogating his previous reign over all things. In addition, the extra functions in Calvin to preserve the integrity of both the human and the divine nature while maintaining the union of the person of the one mediator. Also, of particular note is Willis’s insistence that Calvin’s use of the extra shuns the concept of the finitum non capax infiniti, that the finite cannot contain the infinite, a point seen even more clearly in Oberman. Willis’s final two chapters focus on the relationship between the extra and Calvin’s view of natural theology and ethics. These chapters, however, offer little insight into the extra itself, especially given that Calvin never invokes the concept of the extra in these contexts. Rather, Willis seems to adapt his

17 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 153. 18 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 60.

Introduction  7 interpretation to modern concerns, especially the influence of Barth as seen in the treatment regarding natural theology. Overall while Calvin’s Catholic Christology is groundbreaking in offering the first study of the extra, Willis’s understanding of the development of the doctrine in the sixteenth century is beholden to the now outmoded Calvin vs. the Calvinists paradigm.19 Oberman’s 1966 essay “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin” should be considered of a piece with the work of Willis both in terms of its perspective on the extra Calvinisticum and its foundational status for further studies.20 Oberman produced this essay in intellectual proximity to Willis’s monograph, as Oberman was Willis’s dissertation supervisor at Harvard.21 Oberman also briefly presents precursors to the doctrine and sets it at odds with the non capax dictum. The largest contribution of this text is its extension of thinking on the extra Calvinisticum as part of a larger “extra” component in Calvin’s theology, as the title suggests. Oberman states, “The extra Calvinisticum is not an isolated phenomenon but rather, like the top of an iceberg, only the most controversial aspect of a whole ‘extra’ dimension in Calvin’s theology: extra ecclesiam, extra coenam, extra carnem, extra legem, extra praedicationem.”22 Despite the assurances of a fine scholar, it is difficult to see from Oberman’s essay how this “extra” dimension can be supported. The extra ecclesiam (the reign of Christ beyond the church) and extra coenam (the grace and blessing of Christ beyond the Lord’s Table) are uncontroversial. Oberman, however, does not differentiate the extra carnem from the extra Calvinisticum. He barely discusses the extra legem (Oberman’s phrase for Calvin’s reorientation of the concept of the potentia absoluta) and neither 19 For recent treatments overturning this paradigm, see Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, eds., Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003); Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005); Maarten Wisse et al., eds., Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, Studies in Theology and Religion, vol. 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011); Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). 20 Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin.” 21 E.  David Willis, “Interview of E.  David Willis,” by Ray F.  Kibler III, November 18, 1993, 1, Graduate Theological Union Digital Library, http://​cdm15837.contentdm.oclc.org/​cdm/​ref/​collection/​p15837coll1/​id/​329. 22 Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” 255.

8  The Flesh of the Word defines nor discusses the extra praedicationem. On the level of historical exposition and contextualization, then, Oberman’s essay offers little besides what Willis has produced. Its main contribution, however, comes with the broadening of the concept in the study of Calvin beyond the doctrine of the incarnation, which has been taken by several scholars as license, abetted by Barth’s critique, to broaden the concept of the extra itself.23 Flowing from these foundational texts, scholarship on the extra Calvinisticum in the past fifty years has followed two main lines: historical studies and constructive proposals. Historical studies focused on the extra exist almost exclusively within the purview of Calvin studies, the main exception being the recent monograph of Andrew McGinnis, which will be discussed shortly. Despite its almost perfunctory invocation in many works on Calvin, only a few scholars have offered extensive treatments of the extra Calvinisticum.24 Paul Helm presents a philosophic take on Calvin’s understanding of the extra in his work Calvin’s Ideas.25 Helm does not seek to situate Calvin’s concept historically but focuses on the viability and consistency of Calvin’s ideas in conversation with philosophical theology. While relying on Willis for the historical context of Calvin’s thought, Helm offers a corrective to Willis’s study by resisting the impulse to connect the extra to revelation or natural theology. Instead, he focuses on Calvin’s understanding of the communicatio idiomatum and the possible metaphysical foundation of the extra in Calvin. Daniel Y. K. Lee presents a further study on the extra in Calvin in The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought.26 This study builds on passing comments in Werner Krusche’s work on Calvin’s pneumatology, in which he connects the extra with Calvin’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit.27 Lee continues this line of study by arguing that the concept of “Holy Spirit as bond” functions in tandem with Calvin’s view of the extra to produce a unique pneumatological 23 See, for example, Link, “Die Entscheidung der Christologie Calvins und ihre theologische Bedeutung”; Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum.” 24 For example, H. J. Selderhuis, ed., The Calvin Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 264–​67; Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 151–​53; Byung-​Ho Moon, Christ the Mediator of the Law:  Calvin’s Christological Understanding of the Law as the Rule of Living and Life-​Giving (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 105–​11; Stephen Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 210–​15; Peter Wyatt, Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1996), 31–​36. 25 Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 58–​92. 26 Daniel Y. K. Lee, The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought (Bern: Peter Lang, 2011). 27 Lee, The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought, 4; Werner Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 128.

Introduction  9 focus in both christology and the application of Christ’s work to believers, especially connected to the concept of union with Christ. On the level of expositing the extra in the Reformed tradition more broadly, Helm and Lee offer little insight for broader historical understanding of the idea. Yet, both scholars display a desire to connect the extra Calvinisticum to the uniqueness and particular genius of Calvin, which contributes to a general tone in scholarship that neglects the doctrine’s development in other Reformed theologians. The constructive engagements with the extra Calvinisticum follow a common pattern. These studies begin with a brief historical discussion of the doctrine, derived largely from Willis, and then apply the extra to contemporary concerns. This commonly results in an amorphous articulation of the extra that is, to a degree, abstracted from its christological context. These constructive studies on the extra broaden its definition to a general concept of the presence of Christ beyond the flesh, with disregard for the intricacies of the early modern debate. For instance, André Gounelle claims that for the Reformed, “in his incarnation the Son is not confined or enclosed (to use a term preferred by Calvin) in the human person of Jesus; he is not limited to it; he keeps, so to speak, a certain independence.”28 Christina Aus der Au further states that general revelation as founded on the eternal Word of God to all people is “the comprehensive statement of the Extra Calvinisticum.”29 The areas of theology to which the doctrine is applied vary, yet all revolve around concepts of general divine presence. Aus der Au contends the extra is particularly relevant for understanding the relationship of the transcendent and the immanent, the nature of revelation, and natural theology.30 Gounelle, on the other hand, seeks to elucidate the christology of Paul Tillich by placing him in conversation with the extra Calvinisticum and the “intra Lutheranum,” a term Gounelle uses to denote the Lutheran claim that the human nature of Christ “expands to the dimensions of the divinity,”31 to show both the traditional shape and the innovation of Tillich’s doctrine.32 Besides these studies, the recently published dissertation of James Gordon offers a constructive 28 André Gounelle, “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ:  Tillich entre l’extra calvinisticum et l’intra lutheranum,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 61, no. 3 (1981): 250, my translation. “En s’incarnant le Fils ne s’est pas enfermé, enclos (selon un terme cher à Calvin) dans la personne humaine de Jésus; il ne s’est pas limité à elle; il garde, si je puis dire, un certaine indépendance.” 29 Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum,” 369. 30 Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum,” 362–​69. 31 Gounelle, “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ,” 251. 32 Gounelle, “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ,” 257.

10  The Flesh of the Word defense of the doctrine of the extra from its Barthian critics using an analytic theological method. Gordon supports this project through a biblical-​ theological argument for the doctrine built on the New Testament theme of Christ as temple in light of contemporary christological models.33 These studies, along with other constructive attempts, offer insight into the understanding and the displacement of the doctrine in modern theology, but they bring us no closer to understanding its historical place or development. The first historical monograph on the extra since Willis is Andrew McGinnis’s The Son of God Beyond the Flesh.34 McGinnis carries forward Willis’s project of establishing the pre-​Reformation roots of the doctrine through studies of Cyril of Alexandria and Thomas Aquinas, showing that each utilized a concept similar to the extra, though in a more limited range. Cyril’s use of the extra is primarily focused on preserving the divinity of the Son within the incarnate state by maintaining his universal, heavenly reign extra carnem.35 Thomas, following Lombard, reflects on the presence of the Son during the three days in the tomb.36 Christ’s body is in the tomb, his soul in hell, and his divinity is everywhere, yet the unity of person is not compromised. McGinnis follows these sketches of Cyril and Thomas with a brief narrative of the sixteenth-​century Lutheran/​Reformed polemics over the extra Calvinisticum. This twenty-​page chapter breaks little new ground in analyzing the debate, touching lightly on such figures as Zwingli, Bullinger, Vermigli, and Beza. He shows that the concept of the extra becomes significant in the eucharistic debates but provides no investigation into the reasons for this. McGinnis concludes: In one sense, the extra Calvinisticum in and of itself did not play a significant role in the Reformed and Lutheran polemics of the sixteenth century. That is, the doctrine of the Son’s transcendence of his human nature was not a central point in Reformed and Lutheran debates over the Lord’s Supper and Christology. Rather, the extra Calvinisticum is best understood as one of several related points of dispute that developed out of the central matters of the relationship of the divine and human natures in Christ and the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.37

33 Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst.

34 McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh.

35 McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh,  15–​45. 36 McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh,  47–​72. 37 McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh, 73.

Introduction  11 McGinnis argues that in the sixteenth century the extra is a minor point in a broader dispute over the Eucharist and the relationship of Christ’s two natures. Thus, according to McGinnis, the extra is embedded within the sacramental debate while remaining fundamentally a point of christology. Moving from the brief treatment in the first two generations of the Reformation, McGinnis discusses the function of the extra in the thought of Zacharius Ursinus, especially in the Heidelberg Catechism and his commentary on it. McGinnis focuses primarily on Ursinus’s use of the doctrine to assure Christians of the continual presence of Christ in the current age.38 Following his cursory treatment of the early modern discussion, McGinnis seeks to answer why the doctrine seems to have fallen on hard times during the nineteenth century, concluding that the shift to a focus on christology from below following Schleiermacher is to blame. In his final chapter he explicates the twentieth-​century attempts to rearticulate the extra and determines that on the whole they have improperly removed it from its christological context. McGinnis argues that Barth and Helmut Thielicke contribute to this displacement and find an unlikely ally in Oberman. McGinnis’s assessment of the contemporary reorientation of thought on the extra beyond christology seems broadly correct. On the whole, McGinnis’s work is a continuation of Willis’s efforts to situate the doctrine within the broader Christian tradition and to explicate one of the classic Reformation expressions of the doctrine, appealing to Ursinus instead of Calvin. He succeeds in establishing a broader foundation for the extra in pre-​Reformation thought and offers insightful analysis of the contemporary appropriation of the doctrine. Yet McGinnis’s treatment falls short of an in-​depth account of the emergence of the extra within sixteenth-​ century intra-​Protestant polemics. My argument builds on McGinnis’s insistence that the extra is fundamentally a christological doctrine that informed the broader debate on the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, I  will challenge McGinnis’s conclusion that the extra was a minor point in sixteenth-​century polemics. Rather, it was the crux of both the eucharistic debate and christological debates. To this point there has been no extended historical study of the doctrine beyond Calvin and some pre-​Reformation precedents. And even those studies have been overly influenced by the preoccupation with twentieth-​ century concerns over its relation to natural theology and revelation, owing

38 McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh, 93–​123.

12  The Flesh of the Word to Barth’s influence. The doctrine in the reformers preceding Calvin, Calvin’s contemporaries, and Calvin’s successors has largely been ignored. The exception to this is McGinnis’s chapters on the sixteenth century and the work of Ursinus. McGinnis’s treatment, however, is still incomplete because it fails to explicate how and why the doctrine first entered into the Reformation debate. Additionally, McGinnis only passingly addresses the question of how the doctrine was received in light of the shift to scholastic method in the third generation of the Reformed movement. From these texts a basic narrative emerges. The extra Calvinisticum appears in the eucharistic debate between Wittenberg and Zürich, although the exact reason for this is left unexplored. It then becomes a staple of polemics between the Lutheran and Reformed as their thought develops, although only as a minor point. The height of the narrative is the work of Calvin, who through the exercise of religious genius expounds the extra in an integrated way that issues into pneumatology, ethics, sacramentology, and concepts of Christ’s reign. Calvin’s contribution is distinguished from the other Reformed thinkers who arrive at the extra through the philosophic concept of finitum non capax infiniti. In this narrative, Calvin’s use of the extra sets him apart from the later Reformed tradition, which fails to live up to Calvin’s doctrine in the coming generations. I seek to overturn this narrative by broadening the study of the concept to thinkers besides Calvin, including Zwingli, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and the Reformed scholastics. I propose a narrative that overturns the Calvin-​centric understanding of the history of the extra in the Reformation period. Zwingli’s initial formulation of the doctrine in the eucharistic debate was motivated by the soteriological concern that Christ be like humanity in every way except sin, including locality. If Christ is to be the mediator and savior of humanity, he must be human in every essential respect. Therefore, with the extra Calvinisticum, the Reformed sought to maintain the integrity of Christ’s human nature by avoiding any commingling of properties between the natures. Bullinger and Calvin confessionalized this emphasis in the Consensus Tigurinus (1549), drawing an enduring line between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. This driving concern led to the further elaboration and reflection on the relationship of Christ’s human and divine natures, which emerged as a controversy in its own right after the Consensus. As the Reformed tradition developed, theologians incorporated more sophisticated arguments and scholastic distinctions to support and elaborate the extra, including philosophical reflection on the infinite and finite. Yet, despite more numerous

Introduction  13 and intricate arguments for the extra, a basic continuation of theological intent exists from Zwingli to the beginning of Reformed orthodoxy to secure the place of Christ as the mediator between God and humanity within a Chalcedonian articulation of Christ’s person. This project then coincides with a larger trend in scholarship that has attempted to overcome the tendency to unduly elevate Calvin himself at the expense of the rest of the Reformed tradition.

I.2 The extra Calvinisticum as Term and Concept Study of the so-​called extra Calvinisticum has been hindered by the term itself. The phrase has unduly directed the scholarly eye to Calvin to elucidate the idea, as seen earlier. The phrase arose within intra-​Lutheran debates of the 1620s between faculty members of the Universities of Giessen and Tübingen over the acceptable Lutheran teaching on the ubiquity of Christ’s human body, known as the Crypto-​Kenotic Controversy.39 In this debate the Tübingen theologian Theodor Thumm accused his Giessen counterparts of perpetuating “illud ipsum extra Calvinisticum.”40 From this point, variations on the phrase became a mainstay of Lutheran polemical writings. Yet, I have found no evidence that Reformed theologians applied the term to their own doctrine until the twentieth century.41 For instance, one will find no use of this title in any Reformed scholastic dogmatics. Reformed reticence on this point is likely due to worries of conceding to the Lutherans that the doctrine is a Calvinistic novelty. As shown conclusively by Willis and supported by McGinnis, the concept that the Son continues to exist beyond the human 39 For details on this debate, see Isaak August Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, trans. D. W. Simon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890), 4:281–​306; Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, trans. John Theodore Mueller (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1951), 2:296–​301; Joar Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism, REFO500 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 213–​69. 40 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  20–​22. 41 The first use of the term “extra Calvinisticum” by a Reformed theologian comes in H.  R. Mackintosh’s The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. He states, “[T]‌he Logos, truly present in Jesus’ manhood, is none the less existent outside it.” In a footnote Mackintosh classifies this understanding as the extra: “This is what is meant by illud ‘extra’ Calvinisticum, of which Lutheran divines speak with an approach to horror.” Mackintosh’s use of the term, however, is far from laudatory, arguing that this idea threatens to make the incarnation unreal: “It is not surprising that opponents should at once have rejoined that on these terms the incarnation was made of none effect, since the relation of the Logos to Jesus now resembled that which He bears to other men alike in degree and in kind.” H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 244, 244n1.

14  The Flesh of the Word flesh was present in both the ancient and the medieval church; however, the Reformed utilized and extended this concept in new ways.42 For this study, I derive the working definition of the extra from the recognized loci classici in Calvin’s Institutes and the Heidelberg Catechism. In his refutation of the heavenly flesh doctrine of some of the radical reformers, Calvin exclaims: For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning.43

The Heidelberg Catechism elaborates on this “marvelous thing” in its question on the creedal article “he ascended into heaven”: 47. But is not Christ with us even unto the end of the world, as He has promised?   Christ is true man and true God. According to His human nature He is now not on earth, but according to His Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He is at no time absent from us.   48. But are not, in this way, the two natures in Christ separated from one another, if the manhood is not wherever the Godhead is?   Not at all, for since the Godhead is incomprehensible and everywhere present, it must follow that it is indeed beyond the bounds of the manhood which it has assumed, but is yet nonetheless in the same also, and remains personally united to it.44

42 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology; McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh. 43 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2.13.4. Calvin will further elaborate this “something marvelous” with regard to the ascension in 4.17.30. 44 “The Heidelberg Catechism,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 2:780.

Introduction  15 Calvin and Heidelberg acknowledge a twofold presence of Christ: qua divinity, which is omnipresent, and qua humanity, which is spatially located. This twofold presence is brought about by the incarnation and confirmed by the ascension, which reveals a change in the relation of Christ’s body to the earthly sphere. The twofold presence of Christ is not intended to divide Christ’s natures, which remain “personally united.” Moving from these texts one can establish basic desiderata for the extra. A definition for the extra Calvinisticum cannot simply be reduced to the Son’s existence extra carnem during his earthly life but must also include the permanence of the extra/​intra carnem relation through both stages of humiliation and exaltation, as well as the understanding of the hypostatic union that accounts for this relation. From the moment that Christ was conceived in Mary’s womb, he exists both in a spatially located manner, according to his human nature, and a spatially transcendent manner, according to his divine nature. This dynamic of extra and intra persists perpetually throughout this earthly life, death, resurrection, session, and second advent. During Christ’s earthly life he is bodily present on earth while he is divinely present everywhere, and following his ascension, he is bodily present in heaven while he is divinely present everywhere. To maintain this picture, an account must be offered of the hypostatic union, christological predication, and the communication of attributes (the communicatio idiomatum). Such an account will take the form of what Oliver Crisp has labeled a “weak communicatio idiomatum”: The attribution of the properties of each of the natures of Christ to the person of Christ, such that the theanthropic person of Christ is treated as having divine and human attributes at one and the same time, yet without predicating attributes of one nature that properly belong to the other nature in the hypostatic union, without transference of properties between the natures and without confusing or commingling the two natures of Christ or the generation of a tertium quid.45

This position is distinguished from and rejects a “strong” version of the communicatio expressed by Lutheran dogmaticians in which attributes are metaphysically transferred from the divine to the human nature.46 45 Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity:  The Incarnation Reconsidered, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 7–​8. 46 Crisp, Divinity and Humanity,  8–​9.

16  The Flesh of the Word For this study, the following four propositions will constitute the extra Calvinisticum: (1) Jesus Christ, the God-​man, maintained an existence extra carnem during his earthly ministry; (2) after the ascension and session the human body of Christ exists locally in heaven; (3) the presence of Christ to the Christian in the time between his first and second comings is according to his divinity, power, and the Holy Spirit; (4) the communicatio idiomatum within the hypostatic union terminates on the person of Christ, and therefore excludes a sharing of properties between the divine and human natures themselves. When these aspects are present, the full doctrine of the extra is achieved.

I.3  Plan for the Book To re-​present the Reformed doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum, I proceed diachronically in order to elucidate how particular ideas about Christ’s person and work coalesced in specific theologians during the Reformation, tempered by controversy, to produce a larger development of the extra as a constitutive doctrine in the Reformed tradition. I  will restrict myself to three points in the history of Reformed christology, with representative figures from each. These three periods offer particular points of controversy or change within the Reformed tradition recognized broadly in the literature on the Reformation: the eucharistic debate and its aftermath (152040s), the second eucharistic controversy or ubiquity controversy (1555–​70), and the emergence of a self-​conscious scholastic, Reformed theology (1580s). The first two of these are disputes wherein the extra Calvinisticum played a key role as the confrontation between figures of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions forged their rival views of the nature of Christ’s body. The third period witnessed a shift within Reformed theological method, which previous literature on the extra has claimed marks a deformation of the concept. In the periods of the eucharistic and ubiquity controversies, I attend to the christological formulations of the Reformed party. The controversies themselves and the position of the opponents will be explored only insofar as they illuminate the context of the extra Calvinisticum. I  have chosen a representative figure or figures for each period who are recognized as influential for the Reformed tradition and who wrote works of significance for Reformed christology: Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin’s Consensus Tigurinus, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Antoine de la Roche

Introduction  17 Chandieu. Each figure exercised significant influence in their respective time on Reformed thought and participated directly in Reformed polemics for the extra. Regarding primary texts from these figures, I have chosen works in which christology functions prominently either in an ad hoc fashion, as a stand-​alone treatise, or as a doctrinal locus within a confessional document. I contextualize each work within the appropriate polemical, historical, and philosophical setting before analyzing its contribution to the extra Calvinisticum. In ­chapter 1 I investigate Zwingli’s early works that demonstrate how he used the extra to support his understanding of Christ’s mediatorial work and to reject transubstantiation through reflection on Christ’s ascension and later against Martin Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human body. In ­chapter  2 I  analyze Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius’s christological polemics against Luther at the Marburg Colloquy (1529), Zwingli’s mature works, and the doctrine’s reception in the early works of Bullinger and Calvin, culminating in the Consensus Tigurinus (1549). In ­chapter 3 I investigate the doctrine in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ (1561) in relation to the christology of Lutheran theologian Johannes Brenz. Vermigli offers further support for the extra from the church fathers and reflection on Christ’s ascension to a local heaven. In the final chapter I look at the doctrine after the shift to a self-​consciously scholastic theology in the 1580s by investigating the work of French theologian Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, who is considered one of the fathers of Reformed scholasticism. In De Veritate Humanae Naturae Christi (1585) Chandieu offers an exposition and defense of the Reformed position on the human nature of Christ. Chandieu’s work is distinguished from other treatments of the extra Calvinisticum in both scope and depth. The rationale of the extra must be understood within the internal logic and concerns of the Reformed tradition in both its inception and its continued significance. The extra arose in the eucharistic controversy primarily over the Swiss Reformation’s emphasis on Christ’s salvific role as the mediator, which revealed a deeper fissure over sacramentology with Luther and his followers. This doctrine then bloomed in the doctrinal locus of christology in the face of the ubiquity controversy between Lutheran and Reformed theologians, motivated by a soteriological concern to preserve the integrity of Christ’s human nature. This reflection on the extra resulted in a distinctive character of Reformed christology, especially regarding understandings of the communicatio idiomatum. This result overturns the previous narrative

18  The Flesh of the Word that prevails in literature on the extra that places Calvin’s articulation at the center. This study shows the dynamics of the unremembered christological controversy at the root of the divergent traditions of Magisterial Protestantism. Accounting for the divergent theologies of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, while not reducible to christology, cannot be accomplished without it. Early modern Reformed christology also functions as a case study for the development of doctrine in the postmedieval world. The basic articulation of the extra, that the Son did not leave heaven while incarnate, finds doxological expression as early as Athanasius; however, it is only during the Reformation that this concept is established as a doctrine proper. The Reformed theologians discussed in this book were compelled by controversy with the Lutheran conception of ubiquity to offer a thoroughgoing elaboration and defense of the extra in light of its denial. To accomplish this, they built an edifice of argument by collecting a canon of biblical exegesis, enlisting the church fathers, and plundering the resources of Aristotelian philosophy and scholastic theology. In the development of the extra in early modern Reformed theology, there emerged not merely a doxological affirmation of Christ’s perpetual existence etiam extra carnem but an account of the incarnation itself with reflection on the Creator/​creature distinction, Christ’s mediatorship, the hypostatic union, the communicatio idiomatum, and the nature of heaven. As the doctrinal debate intensified, a stable set of theological questions and objections arose: What is necessary for Christ to be the mediator? How can we accurately predicate attributes to Christ? What does it mean that Christ ascended into heaven? What does it mean for a human body to be in a place? Is heaven itself a place? If so, in what sense? And so on. The Reformed theologians’ reflections on christology therefore offer a window into the manner of doctrinal development and the process of confessional differentiation within early modern Europe. Additionally, by covering the period from Zwingli into early Reformed orthodoxy, I contribute to the contemporary revisionist account of Reformed scholasticism and its relationship to its Reformation forebears.

1 Zwingli and the Birth of  the extra Calvinisticum 1.1  Zwingli’s Life and Influence Despite the doctrine’s name, Ulrich Zwingli was the first theologian in the Reformation to articulate the extra Calvinisticum.1 Motivated by his emphasis on Christ as the sole mediator of salvation and rejection of a corporeal presence in the Eucharist, Zwingli contended that the body of Christ has ascended beyond the earthly sphere and resides in heaven, while Christ is divinely present everywhere. For Zwingli this doctrine secures the integrity of Christ’s human nature, which he understood as the only hope of Christian access to God and provided support for his understanding of the Eucharist. After Luther’s direct engagement in the eucharistic controversy, Zwingli utilized the extra as an argument against and an alternative to Luther’s doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature. Scholarship on Zwingli and on the extra Calvinisticum touch lightly on the extra within his work, but no scholar has recounted the doctrine’s origination within the eucharistic controversy or Zwingli’s motivation for this theological position. Zwingli is considered the third man of the Reformation.2 Because he was overshadowed by such monumental figures as Luther and Calvin, Zwingli has never received the broad scholarly attention that his position at the headwaters of the Reformation may warrant.3 He is often presented as the 1 Zwingli’s first name is variously spelled Ulrich, Huldrych, Huldreich. The Anglicized version Ulrich will be adopted. 2 The main proliferation of this epitaph comes from Jean Rilliet, Zwingli:  Third Man of the Reformation, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia, PA:  Westminster Press, 1964). See also Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thought:  An Introduction, 4th ed. (Oxford:  Wiley-​Blackwell, 2012), 75. For the current state of research on Zwingli, see W. Peter Stephens, “The Theology of Zwingli,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, ed. David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2004), 96–​ 98; Gottfried Wilhelm Locher, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives, trans. Milton Aylor and Stuart Casson, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 42–​71. 3 Zwingli’s Swiss countrymen have been the most attentive to his thought and legacy:  Oskar Farner, Huldrych Zwingli: Sein Entwicklung Zum Reformator, 1506–​1520 (Zürich: Zwingli-​Verlag, The Flesh of the Word. K.J. Drake, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.003.0002

20  The Flesh of the Word antithesis to Luther’s thesis or to Calvin’s synthesis. According to a typical narrative, Luther represents the paradigmatic reformer, Erasmus the paradigmatic humanist, and Calvin the paradigmatic Reformed theologian. When compared to these, Zwingli comes up short: not humanist enough for the likes of Erasmus, with his style and rhetoric not warranting the full title, nor systematic, theological, or pastoral enough for the likes of Calvin and The Institutes of the Christian Religion, and lacking the prophetic punch and radical christocentrism of Luther’s excoriations of ecclesial abuse and theologia crucis. Owing to this secondary status, Zwingli has rarely been studied in his own right as a theologian of particular interest or power. His place, however, as a founder of the Reformed tradition and his combination of humanist, theological, and philosophical thought calls for study on his own terms to ascertain his contributions to the Reformation.4 Zwingli’s reforming career spanned only eight years before his battlefield death in 1531, but in this time he brought the Reformation to Zürich, laid the foundations for what would become the Reformed tradition, and left a body of writing that would influence the Reformation’s second generation. Zwingli was born in Wildhaus, Switzerland, on January 1, 1484, less than two months after Luther. Recognized as a gifted student, Zwingli matriculated at Vienna in the fall of 1498.5 Here he was exposed to the new humanist learning and “the scholasticism of the ‘via antiqua,’ the ‘realism’ of Aquinas and Duns Scotus.”6 His education in both the humanist and via antiqua traditions continued at the University of Basel, where he studied from 1502 to 1506, attaining the level of master of arts.7 Humanism and the via antiqua exercised a deep influence on Zwingli’s later thought and set him apart from

1946); Gottfried Wilhelm Locher, Die zwinglische Reformation in Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). The relative paucity of scholarship in the English-​speaking academy can be seen in the fact that only three significant monographs dedicated to Zwingli have appeared in English since 1980, only a single collection of essays, and one translated biography: Locher, Zwingli’s Thought; E. J. Furcha and H. Wayne Pipkin, eds., Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years, Pittsburgh Theological Monographs (Allison Park, PA:  Pickwick, 1984); Ulrich Gäbler, Huldrych Zwingli:  His Life and Work, trans. Ruth C. L. Gritsch (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986); W. Peter Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); W. P. Stephens, Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). 4 Robert C. Walton, “Let Zwingli Be Zwingli,” in Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years, ed. E. J. Furcha and H. Wayne Pipkin (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984), 171–​90. 5 George Richard Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 7–​11. 6 Potter, Zwingli, 13. 7 Potter, Zwingli,  14–​20.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  21 Luther, who was trained in the via moderna, the nominalist tradition, and was ambivalent toward humanism.8 After leaving Basel, Zwingli began a career as a parish priest, first in Glarus and then in Einsiedeln, where he would serve for the next decade, until 1518. Besides his clerical duties, he spent much of his time in humanistic study, reading classical authors and church fathers, most significantly Augustine, and learning Greek and Hebrew.9 The greatest influence on Zwingli in this period was Erasmus’s Greek New Testament of 1516, which he acquired immediately after its publication.10 Zwingli would credit his reading of the New Testament in the original language for his conversion to the evangelical cause, which he stressed was independent from Luther, although scholars emphasize a more gradual development from 1516 to 1522.11 Erasmus’s writing also deepened Zwingli’s understanding of humanism, discipleship to Christ, and an emphasis on the internal over the external, although Zwingli later broke with Erasmus over free will, the Lord’s Supper, and the extent of ecclesial reform.12 On December 27, 1518, Zwingli was appointed preacher at the Grössmunster in Zürich, where he would serve until his death on the fields of Kappel. He preached a sweeping reform, based only on Scripture, that cast out everything that, in his estimation, moved away from pure religion. This broader emphasis distinguishes Zwingli’s project of reform from Luther’s more focused emphasis on justification. Eminent Zwingli scholar 8 “Zwingli, who read and annotated Duns Scotus’ Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones super quatuor libris sententiarum (Venice, 1503) [sic] very carefully, was a man of the via antiqua, well acquainted with Aquinas. Essentially Aristotelian in outlook, he was later often regarded as a rationalist because he was not prepared, as the ‘modernists’ were, to despise reason and to see the wisdom of God as necessarily incomprehensible to the human intellect. One conviction remained with him as a result of his philosophical training at Basel—​a material thing could not have, induce or bring about, an intellectual or spiritual operation. Luther’s different nominalist and ‘modernist’ training at Erfurt accounts in some degree for later differences.” Potter, Zwingli, 16n2. For Luther’s position regarding these schools, see Heiko A. Oberman, “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna: Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 445–​63; Heiko A. Oberman, “Luther and the Via Moderna: The Philosophical Backdrop of the Reformation Breakthrough,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 54, no. 4 (October 2003): 641–​70. 9 Potter, Zwingli, 25–​27, 42–​44; Cornelis Augustijn, “Zwingli als Humanist,” Nederlans Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 67, no. 2 (1987): 120–​42. 10 Potter, Zwingli,  39–​40. 11 The influence of Luther on Zwingli’s conversion to reform is debated, but evidence seems to confirm Zwingli’s assessment. For details on this period and the literature on the relation of Luther and Zwingli, see Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli,  21–​28. 12 Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 233–​55; Dorothy Clark, “Erasmus and Zwingli’s On the True and False Religion,” in Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years, ed. E. J. Furcha and H. Wayne Pipkin, Pittsburgh Theological Monographs (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984), 23–​42; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli,  9–​17.

22  The Flesh of the Word Gottfried Wilhelm Locher helpfully characterizes this difference: “Luther’s Reformation was directed against the Judaistic heresy. For him, the alternative to faith is works. Zwingli’s Reformation was directed against the false doctrine of pagans. For him, the alternative to faith is every kind of idolatry, ceremony or traditio humana (man-​made tradition).”13 With gradual gains from 1519 to 1522, Zwingli secured his reform agenda for Zürich at the First Zürich Disputation on January 29, 1523. At this public debate, helped by friends and council members, he secured the right for evangelical preaching in the city.14 The First Zürich Disputation marked a decisive moment both in the Swiss Reformation, as Zürich took a major step down the path of reform, and in Zwingli’s career, as he became the leading public figure of this project in the city and the broader Swiss lands, a position of both privilege and peril.15 Zwingli emerged as the leading Swiss representative of the Reformation’s first generation among many gifted and skilled leaders, such as Johannes Oecolampadius, Leo Jud, and William Farel. The most significant of these figures for the present study is Oecolampadius, the reformer of Basel. Trained in both scholastic theology and humanism, Oecolampadius rose to prominence by assisting Erasmus in editing the Greek New Testament and stumping for reform as a professor at the University of Basel from 1522. Oecolampadius would be Zwingli’s friend, compatriot, and collaborator in reforming the Swiss church and in debates with Luther, serving alongside Zwingli as representative of the Swiss party at Marburg.16 More reformist than Erasmus and more humanist than Luther, Zwingli offered a different and more far-​reaching program of reform. In some ways Zwingli was much more radical than Luther and more restrained than the Anabaptist movement. He would set the tone for what would become the Reformed tradition, especially through his influence on Bullinger, Vermigli, and to a lesser degree Calvin. Zwingli’s formulations regarding the Eucharist, worship, images, sanctification, law, and the relationship of faith and reason

13 Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 14. 14 For the text of the Zurich Council’s decree, see Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, ed. G. R. Potter, Documents of Modern History (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978), 25–​26. 15 For a brief account of the First Zürich Disputation, see Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, New Frontiers in History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 57–​61; Potter, Zwingli, 97–​104. 16 Ed L. Miller, “Oecolampadius:  The Unsung Hero of the Basel Reformation,” Iliff Review 39 (September 1982):  5–​25; Diane Poythress, Reformer of Basel:  The Life, Thought, and Influence of Johannes Oecolampadius (Grand Rapids, MI:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); Jeff Fisher, A Christoscopic Reading of Scripture: Johannes Oecolampadius on Hebrews (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 14–​27.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  23 would also lay a foundation for Christian living and theology distinct from both Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Perhaps Zwingli’s most overlooked contribution to the later Reformed distinctiveness was his christology. In this chapter I will narrate how Zwingli’s christology took the first step in the formation of the full doctrine of the so-​called extra Calvinisticum, leading up to his showdown with Luther at Marburg.

1.1.1  Scholarship on Zwingli and the Extra Scholars often assert that the early expression of the extra Calvinisticum has its roots in the eucharistic controversy between Luther and Zwingli in the 1520s; however, they offer little to no analysis of the rationale for or development of Zwingli’s articulation of the doctrine. In The Son of God Beyond the Flesh, Andrew McGinnis presents a brief analysis of the conflict over ideas connected to the extra between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. According to McGinnis, Zwingli responds to Luther’s claims of a bodily presence in the Eucharist “on the basis of texts that speak of Christ’s true humanity, that Christ ‘possesses a finite humanity’ and so his body must be in only one place.”17 Beyond this McGinnis offers no insight into how the extra relates to Zwingli’s project as a reformer, in what work it first emerged, what arguments were proposed to support it, and how it developed over the course of Zwingli’s career. This paucity of reflection is present throughout scholarship on the extra itself. Scholars acknowledge the concept in Zwingli’s thought but quickly move on to other concerns, most often the place of the extra in Calvin.18 While Zwingli has been a background player in scholarship on the extra, the doctrine has received only minor attention within Zwingli scholarship itself. Locher, for instance, offhandedly notes the full formation of the extra

17 Andrew M. McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh: A Historical and Theological Study of the Extra Calvinisticum, T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology 29 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 76. 18 E. David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 2 (Leiden: E J Brill, 1966), 4; Heiko A. Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” in The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 257; Christina Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum: Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?,” Theologische Zeitschrift 64, no. 4 (2008): 358; Ernst van den Hemel, “Things That Matter:  The Extra Calvinisticum, the Eucharist, and John Calvin’s Unstable Materiality,” in Things:  Religion and the Question of Materiality, ed. Dick Houtman and Birgit Meyer (New York: Fordham University Press, 2012), 63–​64.

24  The Flesh of the Word in Zwingli’s thought but does not discuss its larger place in Zwingli’s theology.19 In his discussion of the person of Christ in The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, W. P. Stephens likewise notes no connection between Zwingli and the concept of the extra.20 In addition, Locher and Stephens offer conflicting understandings of the motivation behind Zwingli’s christology. Locher argues for the controlling importance of Christ’s human nature, and Stephens stresses the divine.21 I contend that Zwingli privileges neither the human nor the divine nature in his doctrine of Christ or the extra, but the mediatorial office of Christ worked out through the logic of satisfaction. Zwingli’s key concern in both christology and the doctrine of the extra is to do justice to the integrity of both natures, which he sees as essential to the gospel itself. In addition to filling out the story of the extra’s emergence in Zwingli’s thought, I will address a recurrent criticism of Zwingli’s theology that is then genetically or genealogically applied to the extra. Historical theological study of the doctrine of the extra has not always been sufficiently disentangled from the polemics of the sixteenth-​century debate, at times clouding the historical account of Zwingli’s theology. In seeking to clarify Zwingli’s theological rationale for the extra, I will attend to a common assessment of his understanding of Christ and the extra—​namely, that he offers a christology that is fundamentally Nestorian. This critique emerges primarily from Lutheran opponents of either the doctrine of the extra specifically or of Reformed theology more generally. The Nestorian criticism is part of a common scholarly trope that sets Zwingli’s christology in an inferior relation to the teaching of Luther. These charges, however, are rarely worked out in detail or with substantial engagement with either Zwingli’s own texts or secondary scholarship on him.22 The 19 “This finite nature is always joined to the infinite divine nature, but the divine nature surpasses the human. This is what was later to be called the ‘Extra Calvinisticum’; it is already formulated by Zwingli, clearly and emphatically—​and in agreement with Augustine and the older Scholastics, incidentally.” Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 176. The preeminence of Locher within the field of Zwingli studies can be seen in his obituary in Zwingliana: Rudolf Dellsperger, “Gottfried Wilhelm Locher: 29 April 1911–​11 January 1996,” Zwingliana 23 (1996): 5–​9. 20 Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 111–​18. 21 Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 176; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 111. 22 E. M. Henning, “The Architectonics of Faith: Metalogic and Metaphor in Zwingli’s Doctrine of the Eucharist,” Renaissance and Reformation/​Renaissance et Réforme 10, no. 4 (1986): 357n80; Jack D. Kilcrease, The Self-​Donation of God: A Contemporary Lutheran Approach to Christ and His Benefits (Eugene, OR:  Wipf and Stock, 2013), 171; David J. Luy, Dominus Mortis:  Martin Luther on the Incorruptibility of God in Christ (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2014), 125. Lutheran critics are not the only ones to level this criticism, which seems to have made its way into theological folk consciousness. See Michael S. Horton, “Theologies of Sacraments in the Reformation and Catholic Counter-​Reformation,” in Christian Theologies of the Sacraments: A Comparative Introduction, ed. Justin S. Holcomb and David A. Johnson (New York: NYU Press, 2017), 125.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  25 work of Joar Haga is the sole exception to this tendency.23 For instance, Haga summarizes the Lutheran critique well: [Zwingli’s] inability to keep spirit and flesh in an intimate union makes him a threat towards the Christology of Luther. . . . The spiritualism of Zwingli downgrades the external element in the experience of faith, and places the risen Christ in heaven. By the figure alleosis, Zwingli restricts the divine properties as applied to the human nature; particularly the death of Christ is restricted to the human nature. In Luther’s view, these premises lead Zwingli to destroy the union of the natures.

Brian Lugioyo makes a similar connection in his treatment of Luther’s sacramentology: When Zwingli appealed to John 6:63 as an argument against the benefits of Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and the wine, he highlighted the degree to which he was willing to distinguish the two natures of Christ. . . . Zwingli emphasized the divine nature of the Christ over his human nature, and in so doing, Luther saw Zwingli as dividing the person of Christ.24

A common outline of this criticism can be observed in these two texts, which represent a more general criticism of Zwingli’s theology. Zwingli’s understanding of the Eucharist demonstrates a dualistic ontology between physical and nonphysical reality. This dualistic ontology has caused Zwingli to emphasize the distinctiveness of Christ’s two natures to the extent that they are separated and the person divided. His use of alloiosis in particular, his understanding of how properties of Christ’s natures are predicated of the person, is said to perpetuate this error. The criticism charges Zwingli with the ancient heresy of Nestorianism, such that he emphasizes the distinction between the two natures of Christ so much that their unity is negated. One might summarize the Nestorian error as failing to maintain the Chalcedonian “without separation . . . without division.” Zwingli is not the only Reformed figure to be accused of Nestorianism; the whole of the Reformed tradition, and especially the extra Calvinisticum, 23 Joar Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism, REFO500 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). 24 Brian Lugioyo, “Martin Luther’s Eucharistic Christology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Christology, ed. Francesca Aran Murphy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 278.

26  The Flesh of the Word is frequently branded with this epitaph.25 The seventeenth-​century Lutheran theologian Johann Quenstedt simply labeled the doctrine the extra Nestorianum.26 The concern seems to be that by distinguishing the natures of Christ too strongly, the reality of their union is overcome. The prime evidence for this in Zwingli’s thought is often given as the doctrine of alloiosis, which, according to David Luy, “eschews the unity of Christ and speaks as if divinity and humanity act as their own discrete subjects.”27 While my chronological presentation of Zwingli’s thought validates this criticism for his early christology, demonstrated in both The Commentary on True and False Religion and On the Lord’s Supper, it also shows that, through more explicit reflection on the hypostatic union and christological predication in Friendly Exegesis, he corrects this pressure toward separating Christ’s natures. To expound Zwingli’s developing understanding of christology and the articulation of the extra I will engage three stages of his thought. The first two of these stages will be covered in this chapter up to the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. The third stage, covering the Marburg Colloquy until Zwingli’s death, will be addressed in ­chapter 2. Our discussion begins with Zwingli’s christology before the eucharistic debate during the period of the early reform movement in Zürich (1523–​25) to understand the motivating principle of his christology. During the second stage, the eucharistic debate between 1525 and 1529, Zwingli was forced to clarify and advance his view of Christ to support his eucharistic doctrine, and the extra emerged as one of his key arguments. This period is crowded with text and countertexts and is one of the most studied periods in Christian history.28 Because of this, I will focus 25 For discussion of the “Nestorian Objection” to the extra in modern christological discussions, see James R. Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst: An Essay on the Flesh of Christ (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016), 58–​71. 26 Johann Quenstedt, Theologic Didactica-​Polemica, sive Systema Theologicum in duas sectiones (Leipzig: Fritisch, 1715), III.iii.q5, cited in McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh, 8. 27 Luy, Dominus Mortis, 125. See also Kilcrease, The Self-​Donation of God, 171. 28 For the standard treatment of this controversy from either the Reformed or Lutheran perspective, see Walther Köhler, Zwingli und Luther:  Ihr Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, Bd. 6–​7 (Gütlersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924); Alexander Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: A Study in the Eucharistic Teaching of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie, 1927); Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1959). For the most current scholarship on the eucharistic controversy, see Lee Palmer Wandel, The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Amy Nelson Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation of Ideas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Lee Palmer Wandel, ed., A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Boston: Brill, 2014); John W. Riggs, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015); Amy Nelson Burnett, Debating the Sacraments: Print and Authority in the Early Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  27 on the christological underpinnings of Zwingli’s argument, especially how he understood Christ’s human nature, and how this led to his understanding of the extra. Luther’s position will be discussed only from the perspective of Zwingli, for the sake of presenting a clear and concise picture of Zwingli’s own thought. Zwingli’s eucharistic view, likewise, will be touched on only insofar as it is necessary for the reader to understand his argument for and use of the extra Calvinisticum. In each stage of Zwingli’s christological development particular attention will be paid to the four constitutive propositions of the extra set forth in the introduction and repeated here: (1) Jesus Christ, the God-​man, maintained an existence extra carnem during his earthly ministry; (2) after the ascension and session the human body of Christ exists, in some sense, locally in heaven; (3) the presence of Christ to the Christian in the time between his first and second comings is according to his divinity, power, and the Holy Spirit; (4) the communicatio idiomatum within the hypostatic union terminates on the person of Christ, and therefore excludes a sharing of properties between the divine and human natures themselves. By the time the eucharistic controversy came to a head at Marburg, Zwingli had articulated each element and defended them through biblical and theological arguments.

1.2  Zwingli’s Christology before the Eucharistic Controversy Zwingli entered the debate with Luther over the Lord’s Supper with an already established view of the relationship between the person and work of Christ, which he worked out within the context of his attempt to reform the Zürich church. Zwingli’s early programmatic text The Commentary on True and False Religion offers a window into his theology before the crucible of the eucharistic controversy.29 In this work, he presents his understanding of Christ in relation to the gospel, the raison d’être of the reforming movement. The Commentary provides the first step in fleshing out the theological motivations that propelled Zwingli’s christology leading to the extra. If sinful, dead humanity is to be brought to life and to the knowledge of God, a mediator 29 Ulrich Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, ed. and trans. Samuel Jackson (Durham, NC:  Labyrinth, 1981). Ulrich Zwingli, “De vera et falsa religione commentarius,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli, Corpus Reformatorum 90 (Leipzig:  Heinsius, 1914), 3:637.15–​18, hereafter Z III.

28  The Flesh of the Word is needed with the salvific power of the divine and a stake in Adam’s seed. While Zwingli’s argument for the extra develops later in his career, the soteriological necessity of Christ’s full participation in humanity expressed in this early stage lays the foundation for the later christology that stresses the full integrity of Christ’s human nature. This investigation resolves the conflicting positions of Locher and Stephens over the foundational theological impetus of Zwingli’s christology. Rather than deriving from an emphasis on the divine or human natures singularly, Christ as the human and divine mediator drives Zwingli’s early christology. Further, The Commentary offers evidence of a Nestorian tendency in Zwingli’s early theology, which emphasizes the distinctiveness of Christ’s two natures with an underdeveloped sense of their union.

1.2.1  Historical Context and Purpose of The Commentary on True and False Religion Throughout the summer of 1523 evangelical preaching and theology advanced in Zürich as calls for reform led to action. After hearing the preaching of Zwingli’s compatriot Leo Jud, the nuns of the local convent at Oetenbach requested release from their religious vows. High-​profile religious leaders defected to the evangelical camp, such as Wilhelm Reublin, parish priest of Witikon near Zürich, who openly married in violation of ecclesiastical law. Citing the supremacy of Scripture, the Zürich Council refused to enforce the Edict of Worms condemning Luther, his teachings, and his writings.30 Given these rapid changes within the Zürich church and community, the local clergy and magistrates required guidance and a pathway for further reform. The Zürich Council and the population sought clarity on two pressing issues: the Mass and religious images, especially after unsanctioned iconoclasm in several churches.31 To address these concerns, the Council called a disputation, held from October 26 to October 28, 1523, and commissioned Zwingli to write a short work as a model for the new evangelical preaching.32 Zwingli offered this direction concisely in Short Christian Instruction, which presented the essence of the new evangelical theology and preaching.33 30 Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 61. 31 Gordon, The Swiss Reformation,  63–​64. 32 Potter, Zwingli, 131–​33. 33 Huldrych Zwingli, “Short Christian Instruction,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. H. Wayne Pipkin, 4 vols. (Grand

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  29 After the publication of his Short Christian Instruction, Zwingli and his compatriots steadily implemented reform in Zürich. From the Second Zürich Disputation in October 1523 through the spring of the following year, religious imagery was removed from Zürich, first by unofficial, mob-​induced frenzy, and then through official and orderly direction of the clergy and Council.34 By removing the icons Zürich’s life was brought one step closer to wholesale reordering according to the Scripture, as Zwingli and his fellows saw it. The far-​ranging agenda overran Catholic opposition by closing the religious houses in December 1524 and substituting them with those dedicated to poor relief and hospitals.35 The most drastic triumph of reform came on April 11, 1525, with the abolishment of the Mass, which represented the definitive break with the Roman Church.36 As Zwingli oversaw the reforming cause in the spring of 1524, William Farel and Antoine du Blet, French travelers from the circle of the great humanist Lefèvre d’Étaples, visited Zürich and provided the impetus for Zwingli’s most extensive work from this period.37 Farel and du Blet sought connections with like-​ minded humanists and evangelicals. Initially intending to meet with Luther in Wittenberg, they shifted plans and went to investigate the Reformation in Zürich. Jean Rilliet, in his characteristically free style, paraphrases Farel’s message to Zwingli as, “You ought to write a work that will propagate in my country, which at the present moment is in the full swing of development, those ideas which we have in common.”38 Zwingli took up this charge the following winter as he hastily, in less than three and a half months, wrote the Commentary on True and False Religion

Rapids, MI:  Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:10–​39. Ulrich Zwingli, “Eine kurze christliche Einleitung,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli, Corpus Reformatorum 89 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908), 2:628–​63. 34 For the relation of Zwingli and iconoclasm, see Carlos M. N. Eire, War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Charles Garside, Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 83; Lee Palmer Wandel, Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zürich, Strasbourg, and Basel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 35 Gordon, The Swiss Reformation,  63–​65. 36 Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, 67. 37 Farel would become an ally of Zwingli in bringing reform to Switzerland with his activities in Basel, Bern, and ultimately Geneva, where he would cajole a young John Calvin into ministry. See Henri Heyer, Guillaume Farel: An Introduction to His Theology (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990). For a brief biographical sketch of du Blet, see Henry Heller, “Antoine Du Blet,” in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Brian Deutscher (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 407–​8. 38 Rilliet, Zwingli,  98–​99.

30  The Flesh of the Word and dedicated the work to the French king Francis I. The work spelled out the evangelical faith for the king, hoping to sway him to the cause of reform or at least to its toleration.39 In the Commentary on True and False Religion, Zwingli presents what many scholars have considered the most systematic expression of his theology, or even his magnum opus; however, this assessment is overstated. Walther Köhler considered the Commentary Zwingli’s “most mature and comprehensive work, containing a whole system of doctrine—​a dogmatic and an ethic.”40 Rilliet introduces the work as “the book which, by common consent, contains his thought in a mature form.”41 The Commentary indeed admirably expresses the contours of Zwingli’s thought that will propel the remainder of this career. Despite the evident sophistication of the work, Köhler’s assessment of a full doctrinal system is anachronistic and distant from Zwingli’s own understanding. Seeing the work as the mature, systematic expression of Zwingli’s theology unduly privileges it and neglects his later development. To understand this text and interpret it correctly, one must attend to Zwingli’s stated intent. In his opening address to the reader, Zwingli explains the title of the work: “I have chosen to name it ‘Commentary’ for this reason, because commentaries, if I rightly understand the word, are a means of communicating (commentantur) with friends, just as a letter is, except that commentaries are fuller and freer.”42 Zwingli begs his readers for patience and understanding owing to the hasty composition and offers the genre as an explanation for its preliminary nature: “I have often hardly had a chance to reread what I had written, much less to correct or embellish it. But it doesn’t matter: it is a commentary, not an oration or a book that has been ‘held back eight years.’ ”43 While one might take Zwingli’s remarks here as affected humility, and to

39 It is unknown if this work had any direct effect in France. There was no French translation made. Yet, the Commentary would be read by at least one Frenchman to good effect. Calvin read the work, and its ideas deeply shaped his first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536, which was also dedicated to Francis and would go on to eclipse the Commentary in France. Rilliet, Zwingli, 100. 40 Cited in George Warren Richards, “Introduction to Commentary on True and False Religion,” in Commentary on True and False Religion, ed. Samuel Jackson and Clarence Heller (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981), 4. 41 Rilliet, Zwingli, 99. 42 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 54. 43 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 54. Sic ubique festinatum, ut saepe relegendi vix fuerit data facultas, tam abest, ut ulla castigandi aut ornandi adfuerit. Sed recte habet: Commentarius est, non oratio aut liber nonum depressus in annum (Z III 637.21–​23). The reference to a book being “held back eight years” is to Horace’s Ars poetica (54n).

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  31 some extent they certainly are, given he sent this work to a reigning European monarch, they do indicate that the Commentary should not be seen as an expression of a “whole system of doctrine,” as Köhler claims.44 More accurately, the Commentary is the most extensive example of Zwingli’s early stage of theological development. The fiery engagement with Luther, which would force Zwingli to further refine and improve his theology, was still in the future. Understanding Zwingli’s more modest goal for the treatise avoids privileging this work over later works. This point is important with respect to christology and by extension the extra Calvinisticum; if one overly values the Commentary as Zwingli’s mature theology then one is liable to overlook the significant development in his understanding of Christ in later works. The Commentary is divided into two sections:  the first (sections 1–​11) dealing with the essential elements of the Christian faith and the second (sections 12–​29) with more ad hoc and polemic issues, such as the power of the keys, marriage, and purgatory.45 Zwingli’s goal in this work is to contrast true religion, which is pleasing to God and the goal of human existence, with false religion, which places trust in anything other than God, idolatry: “I take ‘religion’ in that sense which embraces the whole piety of Christians: namely, faith, life, laws, worship, sacraments.”46 Zwingli’s mission as a reformer is to preach this true religion against what he sees as the false religion of Rome. True Christian religion has at least two primary features. To be true Christian religion it must trust only in the divine: “It is false religion or piety when trust is put in any other than God. They, then, who trust in any created thing whatsoever are not truly pious.”47 To be truly Christian religion it must derived from Scripture alone against false religious expressions, which are derived from human traditions.48 For “they are impious who embrace the word 44 Richards also tempers Köhler’s inflated assessment. Richards, “Introduction to Commentary on True and False Religion,” 5. 45 Richards, “Introduction to Commentary on True and False Religion,” 4. 46 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 57. Quod qui religiosi essent solicite cuncta retractarent, ac velut relegerent, quae ad deorum cultum pertinerent (Z III 639.13–​14). 47 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 97–​98. Falsa religio sive pietas est, ubi alio fiditur quam deo. Qui ergo quacunque tandem creatura fidunt, vere pii non sunt (Z III 674.21–​23). 48 For example, see Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 98, passim. This is not to say that Zwingli rejects the tradition of the church carte blanche, but only that these traditions cannot be the basis of true religion, which comes from the divine rather than a human source. Zwingli will make use of many traditional sources in his work, but only insofar as he understands them as forwarding scriptural truth. For discussion of Zwingli’s use of the church fathers, see Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 17–​21; Irena Backus, “Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer and the Church Fathers,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, ed. Irena Backus (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2:628–​44. For fuller discussion of the purpose and overall theology of the Commentary, see Richards, “Introduction to Commentary on True and False Religion”; Bard Thompson, Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 455–​59.

32  The Flesh of the Word of man as God’s.”49 True religion is the duty of all humanity as a result of their creatureliness; however, sin has rendered proper devotion impossible. Therefore, humanity must cast off any reliance on self and rest on Christ the mediator by whom and through whom true religion is restored: The true religion of Christ, then, consists in this:  that wretched man despairs of himself and rests all his thought and confidence on God, sure that He can refuse nothing who has given His Son for us; and that the Son, who is equally God with the Father, can refuse nothing, since He is ours. But false religion merely juggles with the name of Christ, having its hope elsewhere.50

The gospel, the substance of Zwingli’s evangelical preaching, is the announcement of God’s restoration of true religion through Christ alone. Transubstantiation is one of the significant features of Roman religion that Zwingli rejected because it fails on both counts: by focusing on the creature rather than the creator and by basing its argument on tradition rather than Scripture. In the Commentary, Zwingli publicly rejects the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist and proposes his own symbolic view for the first time. He had previously argued for this point in his Letter to Alber, which circulated in handwritten form before being published in March 1525, the same month as the Commentary.51 The Commentary is Zwingli’s first extended proposal on the Supper and will be one of the sparks for the eucharistic debate.

1.2.2  The Christology of The Commentary on True and False Religion The christology of The Commentary is shaped around the needs of the Christian religion’s proclamation of the gospel of salvation. According to 49 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 98. Impii sunt, qui hominis verbum tanquam dei amplectuntur (Z III 674.23). 50 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 156. Vera ergo Christi religio haec est, qua miser homo de se ipso desperat, et omnem cogitationem fiduciamque in deum iactat, certus, quod is nihil negare possit, qui filium suum pro nobis impendit; et quod filius, qui aeque deus ac pater est, nihil negare potest, qum noster sit. Falsa vero religio inane Christi nomen circumfert, qum spes suas alibi habeat (Z III 723.1–​6). 51 Huldrych Zwingli, “Letter to Matthew Alber concerning the Lord’s Supper,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, ed. H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, trans. H. Wayne Pipkin (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984), 2:127–​45.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  33 George Richards, Zwingli’s “treatment of Christ [in the Commentary] is wholly controlled by soteriological motives.”52 For Zwingli, the essence of the Christian religion is the restoration of fellowship between God and humanity. For this relationship to be restored, the distance and destruction of humanity’s relationship to God through Adam and Eve’s first sin and the penalty thereof must be overcome.53 In and through the primordial sin of humanity’s first parents, a twofold state of death has come upon humankind as punishment from God: the death of the soul and the death of the body.54 Humans have been darkened by this stain and become unintelligible to themselves because of the corruption of the soul. As Zwingli eloquently states, “To know man is as toilsome as to catch a cuttlefish, for as the latter hides himself in his own blackness in order not to be caught, so does man, as soon as he sees one is after him, stir up such sudden and thick clouds of hypocrisy.”55 Zwingli argues that it is a mark of false religion to acknowledge this evil and dead state of humanity while maintaining that one can still freely choose God.56 Signaling his break with Erasmus, Zwingli argues rather that a person is utterly incapable of stretching out his or her hand to God to receive. But God seeks to bring humanity back to himself through his mercy while maintaining the absolute standard of his justice.57 “Since [God’s] justice, being inviolably sacred, had to remain as intact and unshaken as His mercy, and since man was indeed in need of mercy but wholly amenable to God’s justice, divine goodness found a way to satisfy justice and yet to be allowed to open wide the arms of mercy without detriment to justice.”58 Thus a mediator was required.

52 Richards, “Introduction to Commentary on True and False Religion,” 12. 53 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 76–​77, 108–​9, passim. 54 Zwingli arrives at this understanding through reflection on Rom 5:12. Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion,  77–​78. 55 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 75. Hominem cognoscere tam est laboriosum, quam sepiam capere. Ut enim ista se in atrorem suum abdit, ne comprehendi possit, ita hic noster tam subitas tamque densas hypocriseos nebulas, quam primum se peti sentit, excitat (Z III 654.28–​30). 56 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 83. 57 “But God was better, and pitied His work, and devised a plan to repair so serious a misfortune. Since His justice, being inviolably sacred had to remain as intact and unshaken as His mercy, and since man was indeed in need of mercy but wholly amenable to God’s justice, divine goodness found a way to satisfy justice and yet to be allowed to open wide the arms of mercy without detriment to justice.” Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 100. 58 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 100. Cumque ipsius iusticiam, utpote sacrosanctam, non minus illibatam inconcussamque manere oporteat, quam misericordiam, essetque homo misericordiae quidem indigus, sed iusticiae dei totus obnoxius, invenit divina bonitas, quo iusticiae quidem satisfieret, misericordiae vero sinus absque iusticiae detrimento liberaliter pandere liceret (Z III 676.23–​28).

34  The Flesh of the Word Zwingli expounds Christ’s person through his role as the mediator between humanity and God. The Father sent Christ as the mediator, and his death is how the mercy and justice of God are secured. He is God himself, alone good, just, and holy, while at the same time, he has taken to himself the flesh of Adam’s race. Only through the two natures can Christ save humanity and restore true religion. Echoing the Anselmian logic of satisfaction, Zwingli argues that the ability to save resides with God, and the need resides with humanity. Christ as the God-​man possesses the ability and takes to himself humanity’s need: For, being God and the Son of God, He that was sent as deputy and mediator gives support to hope. For what cannot He do or have who is God? Moreover, being man, He promises friendship and intimacy—​aye, the common bond of relationship; what, then, can He refuse who is a brother and sharer of our weakness.59

Zwingli also echoes Athanasius, stating, “[Christ] put on flesh that He might become ours. He has no need of it, but we had the greatest need of Him. To become one of us, therefore, He, great God that He is, just, holy, merciful, Creator, became man, that we through His fellowship might be raised to gods.”60 While the nature of his unity is left underdetermined at this stage, it is clear that by both his divine and human natures Christ can be the great mediator who brings about salvation. If either the divine or the human nature is compromised, salvation, and therefore true religion itself, is lost. Zwingli assigns Christ’s divine and human natures particular roles in his mediatory work, making this point most clearly in his extended discussion of John 6 in the section on the Eucharist:61 We must note in passing that Christ is our salvation by virtue of that part of His nature by which He came down from heaven, not of that by which He was born of an immaculate virgin, though He had to suffer and die by this 59 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 106. Quod enim deus deique filius est is, qui sequester ac mediator missus est, spem fulcit. Quid enim non potest aut habet, qui deus est? Quod autem homo, familiaritatem, amiciciam, imo necessitudinem et communitatem promittit; quid enim negare potest, qui frater est, qui imbecillitatis consors? (Z III 681.24–​28). 60 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 110–​11. Carnem enim induit, ut noster fieret. Ipse ea nihil egebat, sed nos ipso maxime egebamus. Ut ergo noster fieret, quantuscunque est deus, iustus, sanctus, misericors, creator etc. homo factus est, ut nos eius consortio in deos ditaremur (Z III 685.3–​7). See also Commentary on True and False Religion, 211–​12, passim. 61 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 200–​212.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  35 part; but unless He who died had also been God He could not have been salvation for the whole world.62

The function of both natures is expressed clearly if succinctly. The human nature is necessary that Christ may die, but the power of salvation is not in the flesh considered alone. It is according to the divine nature that the power of salvation comes, but as divine alone Christ would have been incapable of the act necessary for salvation, namely, death and suffering. Therefore, Zwingli argues that only the God-​man slain brings saving power. Zwingli’s two points of true religion are further expounded in the Commentary with reference to sacramentology. He marshals his christology to support his new understanding of the Eucharist, especially in the exegesis of John 6, where Christ states, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). In this section, Zwingli offers an extensive argument that Jesus in John 6 could not be referring to eating his physical flesh and blood at the altar, but faith in the flesh slain for humanity.63 Zwingli’s argument hinges on his understanding of Christ, namely, that power to save was not properly attributed to his humanity alone, or to his flesh operating in some automatic fashion, but to the whole person of Christ: “For [Christ] is only in so far salvation unto us as He was slain for us; but He could be slain only according to the flesh and could be salvation bringing only according to His divinity.”64 Here, the first principle of true religion, that trust is to be placed in God alone, is applied to his understanding of Christ’s person. While the human nature is necessary for salvation because of its passibility and stake in humanity’s nature, only the divine nature has the power to save humanity because God alone is the fount of life and source of grace. By this Zwingli is not seeking to denigrate the human nature but to show that taken on its own the flesh has no power to save; this is 62 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 204–​5. Videndum est hic obiter, quod Christus nobis ea parte salutaris est, qua de coelo descendit, non qua ex illibatissima quidem virgine natus est, tametsi secundum eam pati ac mori oportuerit; sed nisi deus simul fuisset, qui moriebatur, non potuisset toti mundo salutaris esse (Z III 779.18–​22). 63 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 200–​212. For further discussion of Zwingli’s exegesis of this chapter throughout his career, see W. P. Stephens, “Zwingli on John 6:63: ‘Spiritus Est Qui Vivificat, Caro Nihil Prodest,’” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 156–​85. 64 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 205. Nam hactenus tantum est nobis salutaris, quatenus pro nobis mactatus est; at secundum carnem mactari tantum potuit, et secundum divinitatem tantum salutaris esse (Z III 779.34–​36).

36  The Flesh of the Word aimed at any who ascribe salvific merit to the flesh eaten, as if that power was not ultimately from Christ’s action but the bare flesh. For Zwingli the means of salvation is the God-​man slain, not the flesh eaten. As he makes clear, “The flesh of Christ profiteth very greatly, aye, immeasurably, in everyway, but, as I have said, by being slain, not eaten. Slain it has saved us from slaughter, but devoured it profiteth absolutely nothing.”65 By this critique Zwingli addresses his understanding of the Roman eucharistic position, the accuracy of which does not concern us here, that would ascribe saving power to the flesh considered in itself: For as Christ is God and man in one, it comes about that, albeit He was slain in the flesh (for who could kill God?) and His death was made life for us, yet on account of the unity and community of His natures that is sometimes attributed to one of the natures which belongs to the whole Christ.66

A position that would see the flesh itself as life-​giving and saving by being eaten, according to Zwingli, fails to understand the necessity of the two natures, their unity, and the proper predication of properties. The “unity and community” of the natures of the one Christ indicates that both of these properties—​the ability to die and the ability to save—​are properly considered of the whole Christ. Here we have the attempt both to affirm the unity of the natures and yet clearly to differentiate the nature of predication regarding them. Although it is only proper to ascribe the death of Christ to the human nature—​“for who could kill God?”—​this death is for us because of the unity of the natures in the “whole Christ.” Zwingli is attempting to hold the natures together as much as possible—​“Christ is God and man in one”—​while at the same time maintaining the distinctive qualities of each nature. He makes a similar point about proper predication earlier in the Commentary while discussing how the Old Testament prefigures the coming of Christ and his work. Using an allegorical method, which is uncharacteristic of his general humanistic method at this point in his career, Zwingli interprets the story of Jacob’s sojourn with Laban and his return with two wives and many children (Gen. 28–​31). He interprets Jacob as an image of 65 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 209. 66 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 205. Nam, ut deus et homo unus est Christus, ita fit, ut, cum iuxta carnem caesus sit (quis enim deum posset occidere?), ac mors eius nobis vita facta sit, ut propter naturarum unitionem et communicationem alteri nonnunquam tribuatur naturae, quod totius Christi est (Z III 779.39–​780.7).

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  37 Christ who “came down into this world, God became man, so that in Him you recognise Mesopotamia between its rivers, i.e., the two natures, according to which He wrought and suffered all things, ever keeping the boundaries of each intact, faithfully performed the work of His Father, and at length, victorious over death, brought back the whole race of men to heaven.”67 While the connection with Genesis might seem tenuous to modern ears, the christological point is clear: both the human and divine natures of Christ remained intact throughout his act of saving humanity. Here Zwingli emphasizes the Creator-​creature distinction, which maintains even in the incarnation by “keeping the boundaries of each [nature] intact.” This emphasis could be taken as in keeping with traditional conciliar christology; however, Zwingli’s emphasis is imbalanced such that he does not fully articulate the union of the two natures, which opens his early christology to the charge of Nestorianism. At this stage, he does maintain a “unity and community” of the natures, but without sufficient clarity.

1.2.3  Summary: Zwingli’s Early Christology Zwingli’s pastoral circumstances, understanding of true religion, and doctrine of salvation drove his early christology. He envisioned the reform of the Swiss church as driven by the gospel of Jesus Christ, and this gospel demanded the proclamation of the God-​man slain as the mediator. Only the God-​man could be the mediator between fallen humanity and the Holy God, by bringing the saving power of divinity to the aid of human sin. Christ had to become a human so that what was humanity’s—​the penalty for sin—​could be his, thus restoring and establishing a relationship to the Father. This act of mediation culminated in the cross; thus for Zwingli, it is the flesh slain that saves rather than the flesh eaten. Christ’s act of atonement secured the justice and mercy of God by the logic of satisfaction and restored true religion to sinful humanity. According to Zwingli, all other human accoutrements seen in the medieval church had to be removed so as not to obscure this fact and set up a temptation for idolatry. The essence of true Christian religion is found in utter reliance on God, Christ the mediator, and the Scriptures that 67 Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, 111. Descenderat Christus in hunc mundum, deus homo factus, ut interfluvialem Mesopotamiam, id est: duas naturas, in eo agnoscas, iuxta quas omnia et operatus et passus, salvis utriusque semper limitibus, opus patris sui fideliter fecit, ac mortis tandem victor ad coelos reduxit omne hominum genus (Z III 685.25–​29).

38  The Flesh of the Word reveal his will and nature. True religion underpinned Zwingli’s emphasis on idolatry and the removal of all human traditions, which in his estimation had marred and obscured the pure gospel from the people. In this period, Zwingli triumphed on both of these accounts with the removal of images from the Zürich churches and the abolition of the Mass. The unique function of Christ as mediator motivates much of Zwingli’s reforming activity as he rejects any external means as a return to idolatry, the essence of sin. God tolerates no rivals. Therefore, for Zwingli the complete and true humanity of Christ is a constitutive part of the gospel because if he were not truly human, he would not be the mediator between God and humanity. If so, humanity remains in sin. Therefore, Zwingli will come to see whether Christ’s body is in a particular place like other human natures as striking at the integrity of the gospel. In this sense, the deepest theological motivation for the extra is soteriological since it secures the distinctive qualities of both the human and the divine natures of Christ, which Zwingli understands as necessary for human salvation. While conclusions about emphasis are by their nature imprecise, I contend that in the Commentary, rather than privileging either the human or the divine nature singularly in his doctrine of Christ or the extra, as contended by Locher and Stephens, respectively, Zwingli grounds these ideas in the mediatorial office of Christ as the God-​man worked out through the logic of satisfaction. His key concern in both his christology and later with the doctrine of the extra is to do justice to the integrity of both natures. The one Christ, who is the only mediator between God and humanity, possesses a divine nature, and therefore is spatially transcendent, and possesses a human nature, and therefore is spatially located. Rather than prioritizing one nature over the other, the extra stems from Zwingli’s emphasis on the mediatorship of the God-​man. In this early period, Zwingli does not seem interested in the metaphysical nuances of Christ’s person, nor does he reflect on the person of Christ in abstraction from his salvific action. Zwingli neither discusses the unity of the natures nor the distinctive properties of each nature, except insofar as they touch on humanity’s salvation. His failure to do so here leaves him open to the charge of Nestorianism, as critics have maintained. Only as the eucharistic controversy erupted was Zwingli forced in his answer to the onslaught of critiques from the Lutheran camp to address christology and its implications for the Lord’s Supper in a more thorough manner. Zwingli entered this debate convinced that the motivating principle of the gospel and the Christian religion were at stake. In Zwingli’s understanding, the doctrine of the real,

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  39 corporeal presence in the elements, in either a Roman or a Lutheran form, distorted christology by threatening to undermine the integrity of Christ’s human nature, and therefore the gospel itself.

1.3  On the Lord’s Supper and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum Controversy over Zwingli’s view of the Eucharist forced him to clarify and advance his view of Christ and led to his first use of the extra Calvinisticum. He formulates the extra in his work On the Lord’s Supper, which was his first major foray into the sacramental controversy and illustrates his thought before direct engagement with Luther. In this work, Zwingli argues that the ascended and exalted body of Christ prohibits a corporal presence in the eucharistic elements. In doing so, he presents a germinal expression of the extra. He outlines the essential elements of the doctrine, although with only slight exposition. Christ continues to exist extra carnem during his earthly ministry; after the ascension he is corporally absent as his body resides in heaven, and yet he is still present with the church as the divine Word of the Father. On the Lord’s Supper demonstrates that the extra Calvinisticum is not, as commonly held, a response to Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity but predates it.

1.3.1  Zwingli and the Eucharistic Controversy 1524–​1531 The early eucharistic controversy of the 1520s is a dense forest with well-​ worn paths, which obscure from view many intriguing vistas. The standard, textbook narrative begins with Luther rejecting the transubstantiation view of the Roman Church and presenting his doctrine of “consubstantiation.”68 Zwingli responds with a “memorialist” view arguing that the words of institution should not be taken literally; the elements are “bare signs” and the meal itself an act of corporate confession and remembrance. At the Colloquy of Marburg, these two giant personalities clashed. Luther even provides the historian with a dramatic climax as he pulls back the tablecloth to reveal hoc 68 This term is not generally accepted by Lutherans but has become a mainstay in many non-​ Lutheran descriptions. Lutheran theologians generally prefer the term “real presence” to denote their doctrine. John T Mueller, “The Issue Involved in the Lutheran Rejection of Consubstantiation,” Concordia Theological Monthly 21, no. 8 (August 1950): 602–​5.

40  The Flesh of the Word est corpus meum scrawled on the table. The colloquy ended in failure, thereby resulting in a persistent schism within the Protestant church. The narrative often concludes with Calvin’s via media of spiritual presence. One is left with a tidy spectrum moving from the high sacramentology of Rome to the low view represented by Zwinglianism. While this story has reasons to commend it, the complex dynamic of the eucharistic controversy with its many twists and turns is obscured.69 It is not my primary task to amend this story, but it is necessary to have a more detailed working narrative of the controversy as background for Zwingli’s developing christological understanding. His view of the Eucharist developed in stages throughout his career as a result of polemic engagement with Luther, and the extra played a key role in this development. Alexander Barclay, who has written the most extensive diachronic study of Zwingli’s eucharistic theology, divides Zwingli’s developing view on the Lord’s Supper into three periods.70 This periodization has become standard within scholarship on Zwingli’s eucharistic doctrine.71 Barclay delineates each period by both Zwingli’s opponents and whether he offers a more constructive or polemic presentation. In the first period, 1522–​24, Zwingli seeks to overthrow the Roman doctrine of the Mass in Zürich. The second period stretches from 1524 to 1528, which I divide into two stages: (1) 1524–​ 25, before direct conflict with Luther, and (2)  1526–​28, in open conflict with Luther. The third period covers from the Marburg Colloquy in 1529 to Zwingli’s death in 1531. Barclay considers the first and final of these periods to be a time when Zwingli presents a more positive doctrine of the Lord’s Supper with an emphasis on the objective effect of the meal.72 In the first stage of Zwingli’s engagement on the Eucharist, 1522 to 1524, he rejected the Mass in opposition to Roman theologians both inside and outside Zürich.73 Barclay notes five significant texts from this period: Apologeticus Archteles (1522), The Sixty-​Seven Articles (1523), The Exposition of the Sixty-​ Seven Articles (1523), The Letter to Wyttenbach (June 1523), and De Canone Missae (August 1523). In these writings, Zwingli breaks with the Roman Church by rejecting transubstantiation and formulates his own conception 69 See note 28 for general works on the eucharistic controversy. 70 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 41–​106. 71 Riggs, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition, 58. For the most extensive and up-​to-​date bibliographic information regarding Zwingli’s eucharistic views, see also 186–​87n7. 72 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,  102–​4. 73 For more extended treatment of this period, see Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 43–​50; Riggs, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition,  58–​61.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  41 of the Lord’s Supper. He makes several moves that will be essential to his later thought. He rejects that the Mass is a sacrifice of Christ and presents the Supper as a commemoration of Christ’s once-​for-​all sacrifice. Through this emphasis, faith takes on a central role in Zwingli’s understanding of the Eucharist and untethers it from direct control of the clergy.74 Barclay states that in The Exposition on the Sixty-​Seven Articles Zwingli “distinctly represents the Supper as a commemoration and more. It is in some sense an eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. It is not only a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, but a renewal of the benefits of the sacrifice.”75 In the second period of his development on the Lord’s Supper, 1524–​28, Zwingli articulates more fully his symbolic interpretation of the sacrament. His most significant and important discussions of the Eucharist fall in this period, as do all of his significant polemic works on the matter. The controversy with Luther and his followers leading to Marburg defines this period; however, I divide it into two stages, unlike Barclay: before and after direct confrontation with Luther. The first stage of this middle period covers 1524 through 1525. Important works from this period include Letter to Alber (November 1524), Commentary on True and False Religion (March 1525), The Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist (August 1525), and Responsio ad Bugenhaii (October 1525). In the first stage of the middle period, two lines of influence contribute to Zwingli’s developing doctrine of the Supper. First, he becomes acquainted with a letter from the Dutch humanist Cornelis Hoen that provided him with the exegetical support for reading est as significat.76 Zwingli comes to see the words of institution as utilizing a linguistic trope. He defines a trope as “a discourse, which does not present to us its meaning, which the words first promise by appearance.”77 If a trope is in play in the words of institution, then one’s understanding of the Supper must not be drawn primarily from these words but from other sections of Scripture that provide meaning 74 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 44. 75 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 46, italics in original. 76 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 52; Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy, 83–​84. For an extensive treatment of Cornelis Hoen and his influence, see Bart Jan Spruyt, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and His Epistle on the Eucharist (1525): Medieval Heresy, Erasmian Humanism, and Reform in the Early Sixteenth-​Century Low Countries, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, vol. 119 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006). 77 Tropicus enim sermo is est, qui non ingerit nobis eum sensum, quem verba primo adspectu promittunt. Ulrich Zwingli, “In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, Corpus Reformatorum 93.1 (Zürich: Berichthaus, 1961), 6.1:97.15–​16. .

42  The Flesh of the Word for the trope.78 Zwingli also comes into contact with Hussite thought, the remnant of the followers of Jan Hus, through Oecolampadius and perhaps Bullinger.79 By way of Oecolampadius’s On the Genuine Exposition of the Lord’s Words, This Is My Body (September 1525), Zwingli was exposed to the argument rejecting the corporal presence in the Mass based on the ascension of Christ.80 This argument would be definitive and formative for his polemic against Luther and in his positive formulation of the extra Calvinisticum. In this first stage of the middle period, Zwingli still primarily argues against Roman authors, until the fall of 1525. Several supporters of Luther took notice of and engaged with Zwingli’s position. Barclay makes this clear, stating that “even the Letter to Alber, although written in relation to Luther and Karlstadt, was only a development of his [Zwingli’s] own thesis, and not an attack on another. He says nothing about Luther’s teaching. He only refers to it negatively and indirectly. Not by the Swiss, but by the Germans, was the glove thrown.”81 As 1525 progressed, however, the initial attacks on Zwingli and Oecolampadius’s position(s) on the Lord’s Supper began.82 The first challenge came from Johan Bugenhagen, also known as Pomeranus, which Zwingli countered with the brief work Responsio ad Bugenhaii (October 1525).83 Another challenge came from a collection of Swabian pastors hostile to Oecolampadius’s view, led by Johannes Brenz, who will factor prominently in the later story of the extra. Brenz, on behalf of the Swabian pastors, produced the Syngramma Suevicum (October 1525). This work rejected Oecolampadius’s position on the Supper set forth in On the Genuine

78 For the first presentation of the words of institution as exhibiting a trope, see Ulrich Zwingli, “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, ed. H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, trans. H. Wayne Pipkin (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984), 2:202–​3, 206. 79 Oecolampadius makes explicit use of the Bohemian Brethren’s arguments in his first foray into the eucharistic controversy, On the Genuine Exposition of the Lord’s Words, This Is My Body (1525). “There are three passages in his book, however, that point very specifically to Oecolampadius’s use of the Brethren’s confessions, because in each passage he linked their argument that Christ’s body is in heaven with a rejection of adoration of the sacraments.” Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy, 86. Burnett extensively documents and demonstrates this influence (83–​90). 80 Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy,  86–​87. 81 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 60. 82 Zwingli and Oecolampadius agree that the words of institution constitute a trope and corporeal presence in the eucharistic elements, therefore ought to be rejected. They differed slightly, however, in how this trope functions. Zwingli identifies the crux of the trope in the word est, which in this context means “signifies.” For Oecolampadius the tropic weight is in the predicate corpus, which means “a sign of my body.” Nicholas Piotrowski, “Johannes Oecolampadius: Christology and the Supper,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 23 (2012): 134. 83 Ulrich Zwingli, “Responsio ad epistolam Ioannis Bugenhagii,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli, Corpus Reformatorum 91 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927), 4:558–​76.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  43 Exposition.84 The Syngramma would set the stage for the coming conflict between Luther and Zwingli. As late as December 1525, Luther had yet to write any public attacks on Zwingli or the Swiss regarding the Lord’s Supper. Luther’s first salvo against them comes in the open letter to the Reutlingen congregation, which labels Zwingli’s positions as the “work of Satan.”85 Although as yet unaware of Luther’s disapprobation, Zwingli published his most thorough work on the Eucharist in February 1526, On the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli moves well beyond his previous discussion by building off his earlier works while also introducing many of his most important arguments. He grounds his rejection of Christ’s corporal presence on an appeal to the locality of Christ’s human body after the ascension. As we will see, On the Lord’s Supper presents the first substantial employment of the extra Calvinisticum. Luther’s Letter to the Reutingers and Zwingli’s On the Lord’s Supper bring us to the second stage of Zwingli’s middle period, which covers from 1526 up to the Colloquy of Marburg. This stage is marked by open polemical writings between Zwingli and Luther. Other significant works of Luther for this period include a preface to the second printing of the Syngramma (June 1526),86 The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—​Against the Fanatics (late September or early October 1526), Dass diese Wort Christi (April 1527), and Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (March 1528). On the Zwinglian side the following works present his ongoing development:  On the Lord’s Supper (February 1526), Letter to Haner (December 1526), Friendly Exegesis (finished February 1527, published March 1527), Dass diese Worte (June 1527), and Two Replies to Luther’s Book (written with Oecolampadius, August 1528).87 Barclay argues that in this second period “the negative element [of Zwingli’s position] was predominant.”88 While this may be the case regarding 84 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,  64–​66. 85 For the full text of the letter, see Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 73 vols. Weimar: Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–​2009, 19:118–​25, hereafter WA. 86 Barclay discusses Luther’s Preface to the Syngramma, which according to Brecht (II.304) was published along with Agricola’s edition. Barclay errs by claiming that Zwingli “retaliated in defensive writing” to the Preface with On the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli had published his work four months earlier, in February 1526. In this text Zwingli is directly responding to the Syngramma itself as well as Catholic and humanist opponents. At the latest Zwingli was aware of Luther’s Preface to the Syngramma from a letter from Wolfgang Capito on June 11, 1526. Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 68; Martin Brecht, Martin Luther 1521–​1532: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 304; Erika Rummel and Milton Kooistra, eds., The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito: 1524–​1531 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 223. 87 Ulrich Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, “Über D.  Martin Luthers Buch, Bekenntnis Genannt, Zwei Antworten von Johannes Oekolampad und Huldrych Zwingli,” in Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, Corpus Reformatorum, 93.2 (Zurich: Berichthaus, 1968), 6.2:22–​48. 88 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 43.

44  The Flesh of the Word eucharistic theology, in this period Zwingli deploys his most constructive arguments from christology to support his position. Alongside the extra, Zwingli also develops his understanding of alloiosis in Friendly Exegesis, his attempt to express the doctrine of the communication of attributes. His argument against Luther’s position in this text prepared the ground for the Swiss opposition to Luther at Marburg in October 1529. The final period of Zwingli’s eucharistic thought, in which, according to Barclay, he “returned to the more positive views he held at the outset,”89 covers from Marburg to his death in 1531. For this period, the significant works include the account of the Colloquy and his final two works, which are an attempt at a summary of his theology.90 The first, Fidei Ratio (July 1530), offers Zwingli’s theology to the Diet of Augsburg and Emperor Charles V in response to the Augsburg Confession.91 The second work, and last of Zwingli’s life, the Fidei Expositio (July 1531, although not published until 1536), was written for Francis I of France in the hope of an alliance. The preceding sketch of the eucharistic controversy of the 1520s, though far from complete, presents a rough outline of Zwingli’s emerging thought and the various texts that make up the controversy. More important, it demonstrates that the simple, textbook narrative of Zwingli’s views on the Eucharist is lacking. Zwingli did not express a final position on the Eucharist before the controversy, and his position continued to change after the Marburg Colloquy. The chief theological driver of this development was Zwingli’s continued reflection on the incarnation and the relationship between the two natures in Christ.

1.3.2  On the Lord’s Supper In On the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli uses the concept of the extra Calvinisticum to account for Christ’s person in support of his rejection of the corporeal presence in the Eucharist. Zwingli argues that because of Christ’s ascension, which properly refers to his human body, he cannot then be corporeally present in the bread or wine on the altar. Zwingli reasons from his understanding 89 Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 43. 90 See discussion of sources for the Marburg Colloquy in c­ hapter 2. 91 Ulrich Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio.” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T.  Dennison Jr., translated by S.  M. Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:113–​36.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  45 of Christ as the perfectly human and perfectly divine mediator, that only the human nature can ascend; because of divine omnipresence, the divine Logos is already present with the Father and need not ascend. He builds this argument on the soteriologically determined christology of the Commentary, which emphasized the uniqueness of both natures in Christ for human salvation. From this reflection on Christ’s absence and presence after the ascension, Zwingli articulated the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum for the first time in his writing. His argument for the extra is part of his larger case toward understanding the correct interpretation of the words of institution. Because the physical or corporeal presence of Christ in these elements is an impossibility, when one understands the proper relationship of Christ’s two natures, Zwingli concludes that “This is my body” must be understood as a linguistic trope: “this bread symbolizes my body.” On the Lord’s Supper, written in German in February 1526, attempted to spread the Zwinglian interpretation of the Supper beyond the confines of the academic debate in Latin and addressed the competing interpretations of the words of institution and the Supper more generally.92 According to Geoffrey Bromiley, On the Lord’s Supper played little role in the volleys of polemics that made up the eucharistic controversy, receiving only a single explicit response.93 Nevertheless, it offers ample evidence to help us understand Zwingli’s developing christology and the extra Calvinisticum. On the Lord’s Supper begins by setting forth the central question under dispute:  “The whole question has its source in the misunderstanding of the text: ‘This is my body.’ Therefore our first task will be to consider these words in the light of the various misinterpretations and to see what errors result.”94 Zwingli enumerates the misinterpretations of Christ’s words, as he sees them, and seeks to demonstrate the faulty nature of each interpretation, before offering his own view of the contentious statement. He identifies three positions regarding Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist, which he will argue against: the standard Roman position, the emerging Lutheran position, and the humanist position attributable to Erasmus: 92 Geoffrey William Bromiley, “On the Lord’s Supper Introduction,” in Zwingli and Bullinger, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 176–​77; Ulrich Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” in Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. and trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 185–​86. 93 Bromiley, “On the Lord’s Supper Introduction,” 177. 94 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 187. Sittenmal nun alle sach uß dem mißverstand der worten:  “Das ist min lichnam” entsprungen ist, wellend wir zum ersten dieselben wort nach den mißverständen erwegen und anzeigen, was irtumß inen nachvolgt (Z IV, 793.3–​6).

46  The Flesh of the Word Amongst those who believe that in this sacrament we partake of the literal body and blood of Christ there are three groups. First there are those [Romanists] who say that we partake of his body and blood as they hung on the cross, the corporal substance of the bread and wine being transubstantiated into that of the corporal body and blood. Then there are those [Lutherans] who say that we eat the body of Christ under the bread. All the time the bread remains bread, and we are not to ask how we eat Christ’s body, but simply to confess the fact and rejoice that we eat:  for Christ said: “This is my body,” and therefore it must be so. Finally, there are those [Erasmians] who say that we eat of the body of Christ as it was in the resurrection when he came to his disciples through closed doors, etc.95

Zwingli presents and contests these positions throughout his text. Chief among his arguments is his claim that Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist is impossible, either in his pre-​or post-​resurrection body, because Christ has ascended bodily into heaven.96 As Zwingli reflected on the interrelation of Christ’s presence and absence that results from his ascension, he articulated the nature of Christ’s presence not only in the Eucharist but also during his earthly ministry and in the present age apart from the Lord’s Table. Zwingli’s key move in his eucharistic polemics was to argue that Christ’s words “This is my body” need not be taken as literal or substantial but are instead a trope. To prove this, he sets aside interpreting the words of institution for the moment and seeks other scriptural arguments, which would indicate how to understand the verse under consideration. Zwingli reasons that est in this verse may or may not indicate a trope; therefore, if he can establish that a literal reading conflicts with other parts of Scripture, his interpretation will prevail. He appeals to the analogy of Scripture to clarify the ambiguity of the words of institution with clear or plain texts.97 To show this, he offers up and expounds three “plain 95 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 188. Dero, die in disem sacrament vermeinend waar fleisch und bluot Christi geessen werden, sind etlich, die redend, man esse sin fleisch und bluot, wie sy am crütz gehanget sind, also, das die lyplich substantz des brots und wyns in die lyplichen substantz des lyplichen fleisch und bluots verkert werde. Etlich aber sprechend, man esse den lychnam Christi in dem brot oder under dem brot, doch daß das brot brot blybe, und sölle nieman fragen, wie man inn esse, sunder allein verjehen und glouben, das man inn esse; dann Christus hab geredt: “Das ist min lychnam”; so muesse es sin. Die letsten sagend, er werde hie geessen, wie er von den todten ufferstanden sye und zuo den jungeren durch bschloßne thüren kumen etc. (Z IV 793.14–​24). See also Bromiley, “On the Lord’s Supper Introduction,” 177–​78. 96 For a fuller exposition of On the Lord’s Supper, see Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 236–​39. 97 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 215.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  47 Scripture[s]‌” that demonstrate a literal understanding of Christ’s words is mistaken: John 6, 1 Corinthians 10, and a section of the Apostles’ Creed.98 I will focus on the last of these because it is here that Zwingli deploys his argument for the extra Calvinisticum. Zwingli argues that the three articles of the Apostles’ Creed—​ “he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the living and dead”—​represent “plain Scripture” against the literal understanding of “This is my body.” The articles of the creed function, for Zwingli, as a sort of summary of Scripture’s teaching on this point because they are “based upon the word of God.” He supports the two articles regarding the ascension and session with a citation of the brief ascension account in the long ending to Mark’s Gospel (16:19) and a reference to Stephen’s vision of the ascended Christ in Acts 7. To substantiate that the ascension precludes corporeal presence at the Lord’s Table, Zwingli must first address an objection that, according to him, makes the ascension “a subject of jest.” These opponents appeal to passages such as Matthew 20:28—​“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”—​as referring to the body of Christ and therefore conclude that Christ’s ascension indicates not an absence of Christ’s body but its invisibility.99 In this objection, Zwingli addresses what he understands to be an Erasmian or humanist position: “It is the nature and property of the resurrection body to be present at one and the same time both in heaven and also in the sacrament, and indeed everywhere.”100 In order to demonstrate why this is mistaken Zwingli launches into a discussion of the two natures of Christ. The question is how to reconcile the two sets of texts—​those that speak of Christ ascending into heaven and leaving the earthly realm, and those that speak of his continued presence with his church. Zwingli resolves this question by reflecting on the proper understanding of the relationship of Christ’s two natures. Zwingli begins his exposition with a firm declaration regarding Christ’s person, which he will unpack: “that in Christ there are two different natures, the divine and human: and yet the two are only the one Christ.”101 He argues that the difference in these natures is expressed in their distinctive qualities. 98 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 199–​215; Z IV 810–​30. 99 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 212; Z IV 827. 100 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 215, 344n54. 101 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 212. In Christo sind zwo urscheiden naturen: die götlich und die menschlich; unnd sind doch bed nun ein Christus (Z IV 827.17–​19).

48  The Flesh of the Word According to Christ’s divine nature, he neither left the Father in any way nor needed to return to the Father by way of ascension. Zwingli defends this with two claims further supported with scriptural citations. First, because of the incarnation the Son does not abdicate his ontological relationship with the Father for “he is one God with the Father.” Zwingli supports this claim with citations of John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) and John 3:13 (“No man hath ascended up to heaven:  but the Son of man which is in heaven”).102 Second, a corollary of the first, after coming in the flesh Christ did not need to ascend to heaven according to his divine nature because he was already present there by dint of the omnipresence of his divine nature (citing Matthew 18:20).103 Christ’s position with the Father is not substantially changed even with the incarnation, for “according to this nature [the divine] he is always at the right hand of the Father, for he says that he is in heaven even when in the body upon earth.”104 Therefore, these considerations demonstrate that Christ, with respect to his divine nature, never left heaven or the presence of the Father upon his incarnation but remained continually with the Father even while in the flesh, owing to their shared divinity and the divine quality of omnipresence. The humanity of Christ must also be considered according to its particular integrity and qualities. Zwingli gives the résumé, if you will, of Christ’s humanity: For our sakes he took this [humanity] upon him in the pure body of Mary by the receiving and fructifying of the Holy Spirit, and he carried it truly in this present time. According to this nature he increased and grew both in wisdom and stature. According to it he suffered hunger and thirst and cold

102 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 212. Zwingli is here eliding the phrase “but he who descended from heaven.” This seems to be only because this clause is not significant for him in this context. He gives the full quotation in “Friendly Exegesis, That Is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, ed. H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, trans. H. Wayne Pipkin (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984), 2:321, 328. In Dass diese Worte, he quotes both the full version (Z V 919.8–​10, 937.13–​15) and the elided version (Z V 855.10–​12). Additionally, the inclusion of the clause “which is in heaven” corresponds to the Vulgate and is followed by Erasmus in his edition of the Greek New Testament; however, many modern versions omit this phrase on text critical grounds. Peter G. Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus: Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 51–​52. 103 “Where one or two are gathered in my name” (Matt. 18:20). 104 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 212. Er ist ouch dero halb all weg an der grechten des vatters; denn er seyt, er wär imm himel, do er noch lyplich uff erden (Z IV 828.1–​2).

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  49 and heat and all other infirmities, sin only excepted. According to it he was lifted up on the cross, and with it he ascended up into heaven.105

Zwingli goes to great lengths to emphasize the veracity of Christ’s humanity. This human nature was true human substance, as it was taken from the Virgin Mary, from her very body. Christ’s humanity was like that of all other humans, including the normal development of human existence. Christ grew, matured, and changed according to both body and mind. He experienced all the weaknesses of his assumed nature, “only sin excepted.” Christ never puts off this nature, but rather he “carrie[s]‌it truly in this present time.” Zwingli uses this analysis of Christ considered according to each nature to further specify the relationship of the ascension and Christ’s continued presence with his church. Christ does not transition out of the incarnate state into some other state, but the glorified body continues to be a human body. Even with his exaltation to the right hand of the Father, the flesh of Christ remains like all other humans, although this nature is now a “guest in heaven, for no flesh had ever previously ascended up into it.”106 In addition, it is according to this nature he suffered on the cross and ultimately ascended to heaven. Here we see the indication of the soteriological significance of the flesh. The only way that the impassibly divine Son could suffer, and therefore atone for sin, was by taking to himself humanity’s passible state. Therefore, for Zwingli, when one reads texts speaking of ascension, one must read them as properly referring to the human nature, because the omnipresent divine nature need not ascend. Likewise, scriptural promises of Christ’s continued presence with humanity in the time between his ascension and second coming refer not to his body but properly to his divinity, i.e., “according to that nature that he is everywhere present to believers with his special gifts and comforts.”107 From this, we see the earliest sketch of what will become the extra Calvinisticum. Zwingli sets forth three of the four propositions of the extra. First, with the discussion of Christ’s natures, Zwingli states that Christ continues to exist extra carnem according to the divine quality of omnipresence 105 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 212–​13. Die er umb unsertwillen in dem ewig reinen lyb Marie an sich genomen uß empfengnus und fruchtbarung des heligen geists und warlich harumbgetragen und an imm ghebt hatt in disem zyt. Nach der natur hatt er zuogenomen und gwachsen lyplich und in wyßheit [cf. Luc. 2. 52]. In dero hatt er hunger, durst, frost, hitz und andre presten, die nit süntlich sind, erlidten. Nach dero ist er an ‘s crütz gheft und mit dero ist er ze himel gfaren (Z IV 828.4–​10). 106 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 213. Die was ein gast im himel; dann dahin was vormal ghein fleisch nie komen (Z IV 828.10–​11). 107 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 213. Dann nach dero ist er allenthalb und mit besundren gnaden und trost by sinen glöubigen (Z IV 828.17–​18).

50  The Flesh of the Word even while he is incarnate. Second, this incarnate state is perpetual after the ascension, which is only properly applied to the human nature. Zwingli argues in response to claims that Christ can be anywhere because he is in fact God: “It is the property of God to be everywhere. But it is not the property of the body.”108 And because the body of Christ is present at the right hand of the Father in heaven, he cannot be at the Table. This argument will be a main point of contention throughout the eucharistic controversy and a main feature of the debate with Luther at Marburg. Zwingli expresses the relationship of the church to Christ between the time of his ascension and second coming as fellowship with his divinity that gives the special gift of comfort. Third, while Zwingli does not articulate a doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum in this text, he builds a foundation for it, with his care to express what is properly attributable to each nature. “I know that by virtue of the fact that the two natures are one Christ, things which are said of only the one nature are often ascribed to the other. Nevertheless, the proper character of each nature must be left intact, and we ought to refer to it only those things which are proper to it.”109 In this Zwingli falls short of articulating the traditional doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, which relies on the hypostatic union. Yet he grounds statements regarding “proper character of each nature” on the idea that the “two natures are one Christ.” Zwingli will further specify this understanding in Friendly Exegesis by incorporating the language of hypostasis. In On the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli exhibits the earliest sketch of the extra Calvinisticum, as expressed though the propositions I have outlined, though still in a nascent form. He couches the extra within a christology that lacks refinement and is still open to the charge of Nestorian tendencies. Bromiley speaks for many critics when he notes there is still a christological deficit in the work: Against Zwingli’s view of the presence the Lutherans could argue that it rested upon a faulty christology. The divine nature of Christ cannot be present apart from the human—​otherwise the unity of the person of Christ is negated. Now it must be admitted that Zwingli did tend towards that 108 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 214. Das es der gotheit eigenschaft ist allenthalb sin; aber des lybs ist es nit allenthalb sin (Z IV 829.25–​26). 109 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 213. Wiewol ich weiß, das man hierinn umb der beden naturen willen, die aber nun ein Christus sind, offt uff die andren redt, das doch der einen allein ist. Es muoß aber nütz deß minder die eigenschaft yeder natur unversert bliben, und iro allein eigenlich zuogelegt werden, das ir eigen ist (Z IV 828.25–​29).

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  51 isolation of the distinctive natures or aspects both of Christ himself and also the Word and sacraments.110

Bromiley correctly argues that Zwingli does not account for the unity of the natures with nearly the same rigor as he does their distinction in On the Lord’s Supper. However, Bromiley’s claim that the unity of person is “negated” is overstated. Zwingli explicitly asserts that “the two natures are one Christ,” but the nature of this unity is underspecified. The greatest flaw in Zwingli’s christology at this stage, viewed from the perspective of classical christology, is that he neglects the use of “person” or “hypostasis” to signify and explain the unity. Zwingli worked from an understanding of oneness of the natures, but one might rightly ask him to account for this unity. In later works, he will be forced to refine his understanding of the unity as he encounters Lutheran objections to his doctrine. Zwingli’s use of the extra at this point in the debate clarifies its relationship to Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity, which is left unexplored in literature on the history of the extra. Zwingli’s employment of the extra in On the Lord’s Supper in February 1526 predates Luther’s first public espousal of the doctrine of ubiquity. In The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—​Against the Fanatics, published in the fall of 1526, Luther first employs his doctrine of ubiquity in a substantial way in the eucharistic controversy.111 Luther states: Moreover, we believe that Christ, according to his human nature, is put over all creatures [Eph. 1:22] and fills all things, as Paul says in Eph. 4 [10]. 110 Bromiley, “On the Lord’s Supper Introduction,” 183. 111 According to Martin Brecht, in his magisterial three-​volume biography of the Wittenberg reformer, Luther has already hinted at his doctrine of ubiquity in his writing against Karlstadt in Against the Heavenly Prophets, but no examples or citations are given to this effect. Brecht, Martin Luther, 169. Jörg Baur has also indicated that there are hints at the concept as early as 1525, in Against the Heavenly Prophets; however, he too cites no examples. Rather he indicates that the exegetical foundations for the doctrine, i.e., the use of Ephesians 1:4, is presented in Against the Fanatics: “Jesus Christ, according to his human nature, is put over all creatures [Eph 1:22] and fills all things.” Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut T. Lehmann, and Christopher Boyd Brown, 75  vols. (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press; St. Louis:  Concordia Publishing House, 1955–​), 36.342, hereafter LW. Jörg Baur, “Ubiquität,” in Creator Est Creatura: Luthers Christologie Als Lehre von Der Idiomenkommunikation, ed. Oswald Bayer and Benjamin Gleede, Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 138 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 186–​301. That Against the Fanatics is the first substantial use of ubiquity by Luther in the eucharistic debate is also supported by Marc Leinhard as well as Bernhard Lohse. Marc Lienhard, Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ: Stages and Themes of the Reformer’s Christology, trans. Edwin H. Robertson (Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg, 1982), 203–​4; Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, ed. and trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011), 173–​74. At least one popular history of the Reformation mistakenly attributes the doctrine of ubiquity to later Lutheranism. Euan Cameron, The European Reformation, 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 193.

52  The Flesh of the Word Not only according to his divine nature, but also according to his human nature, he is a lord of all things, has all things in his hand, and is present everywhere. If I am to follow the fanatics who say that this is not fitting, then I must deny Christ.112

In his diachronic study of Luther’s christology, Marc Lienhard argues that in Against the Fanatics Luther deploys a doctrine of ubiquity to answer Zwingli’s critique that it was unfitting that the body be present in the Eucharist.113 Luther, however, asserts more than explains the doctrine in this work, Lienhard says: “For all his attempts to make intelligible the real presence of Christ on the basis of certain comparisons or from the glorified existence of the body of Christ present everywhere, Luther does not explain it. There is ultimately no other foundation than the Word of God.”114 In Against the Fanatics, Luther displays this tendency to ground ubiquity in a bold assertion of the word of God. He chides his opponents—​Zwingli, Karlstadt, and Oecolampadius—​for making the word of God subservient to reason. Luther utterly rejects such a move: “For God is too far beyond all reason. Hence, to sum it all up, what those people keep saying—​that because it is not in accord with reason it is not true—​we shall simply turn about and say the opposite: God’s Word is true, therefore your notions must be false.”115 Luther’s broader case against Zwingli in Against the Fanatics will be detailed later. The place of reason in theology will be a recurring issue throughout the debate on the Eucharist and in Lutheran-​Reformed polemics. For the present, it is sufficient to note that, rather than being a response to ubiquity, Zwingli formulated a version of the extra Calvinisticum as a constructive element in his rejection of corporeal presence in the Eucharist before Luther asserted the ubiquity of Christ’s body. Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity was therefore a response to Zwingli’s inchoate extra, not vice versa. Zwingli will turn to directly engage Luther’s positions on these themes in Friendly Exegesis.



112

LW 36.342.

113 Lienhard, Luther,  203–​4. 114 Lienhard, Luther, 204. 115

LW 36.343.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  53

1.4  Friendly Exegesis against Ubiquity 1.4.1 Introduction After first deploying the extra Calvinisticum in On the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli further utilized the concept to support his position against Luther’s argument for a corporeal presence in the Eucharist, after Luther himself entered into the broader controversy. In Friendly Exegesis, Zwingli offers a dense and multifaceted series of counterarguments against Luther’s position on the Lord’s Supper and his attacks on Zwingli’s own doctrine. In this work, Zwingli presents the extra Calvinisticum as the proper alternative to ubiquity and supports it through reflection on christological predication and the hypostatic union. He rejects Luther’s key prooftext for ubiquity, Ephesians 4:10, arguing that elsewhere in Scripture the body of Christ is always presented as localized both before and after glorification. He reinforces this contention by appealing to the finitude of the human nature, which requires spatial locality, and rejecting Luther’s appeal to divine omnipotence to counter this point. Zwingli sees the fundamental issue with Luther’s argument both for corporeal presence and ubiquity as a failure to understand christological predication. Therefore, Zwingli, in developing his doctrine of the proper attribution of properties to Christ’s person, enlists the rhetorical concept of alloiosis, a shift in grammatical form for stylistic effect, to correct Luther’s mistaken exegesis that supports ubiquity. With alloiosis Zwingli attempts to articulate the traditional doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum and argue that all the properties of Christ’s natures are united in the person but not ontologically shared between the natures. Through this reflection, Zwingli corrects the Nestorian tendency exhibited in his earlier christology by incorporating the concept of hypostasis. In the year of the publication of On the Lord’s Supper, several factors compelled Zwingli to continue his debate with the German reformers over Christ’s eucharistic presence. In 1526, the success of the Reformation in Zürich, and Switzerland more broadly, was still far from assured. Catholic opponents in Zürich were continuing to challenge Zwingli’s position.116 Furthermore, the larger Swiss evangelical movement was dealt a severe blow

116 H. Wayne Pipkin, “Introduction to Friendly Exegesis,” in Huldrych Zwingli Writings, 2 vols., Huldrych Zwingli Writings (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984), 2:235–​37; Locher, Die zwinglische Reformation in Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte, 309.

54  The Flesh of the Word when John Eck publicly bested Oecolampadius, Zwingli’s main compatriot in the reforming of the Swiss church, at the Baden Disputation.117 Because of these setbacks, Zwingli and his fellow Swiss reformers turned their eyes east in hope of support from and alliance with the German evangelicals; however, the question of the Lord’s Supper stood in the way of concord. In the intervening time, Luther had waded into the fray over the Supper by approving of Brenz’s attack on Zwingli and Oecolampadius and publishing his first substantial work of the eucharistic controversy. In March 1526, Stephen Agricola reissued the Swabian Syngramma with a commendatory preface by Luther.118 More significantly in the fall of the same year, Luther’s second major salvo against Karlstadt was published in late September or early October 1526. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—​Against the Fanatics broadened Luther’s attack to others who rejected the bodily presence in the Eucharist, including Zwingli and Oecolampadius. This work was a collection of three sermons preached in Wittenberg in preparation for Easter 1526.119 The first part of the work specifically addresses Zwingli’s and Oecolampadius’s positions. Luther rejects their claims that the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper is neither necessary for Christians nor fitting of Christ.120 His argument hinges on three points: the plain sense of “This is my body,” a rejection of reason as determinative for this question, and the doctrine of ubiquity.121 Luther’s main concern is to follow the Word of God and therefore to subordinate reason to it. For a striking example: “If he [Christ] handed me a mere straw and spoke these words [‘Take, eat, this is my body’], I should believe it. Therefore one must close mouth, eyes, and all the senses and say: ‘Lord, you know better than I.’ ”122 Zwingli and the other Schwärmer, according to Luther, have rejected the call of obedience to Christ through his word and have been swayed away by the devil. In his concluding reflection of Part 1, Luther states:

117 See Irena Backus, “The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the Early Church,” Studies in Reformed Theology and History 1, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 1–​61; Gordon, The Swiss Reformation,  69–​70. 118 WA 19: 457–​61. For an English translation of the preface, see Ian D. Kingston Siggins, ed., Luther: Evidence and Commentary (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1972), 111–​14. 119 LW 36:331. 120 LW 36:338. 121 For Luther on reason in this context, see LW 36:335–​36, 339–​40, and “For God is too far beyond all reason. Hence, to sum it all up, what those people keep saying—​That because it is not in accord with reason it is not true—​we shall simply turn about and say the opposite: God’s Word is true, therefore your notions must be false” (LW 36:343). 122 LW 36:345.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  55 Let this then be the sum of it: See only that you pay heed to God’s Word and remain in it, like a child in the cradle. If you let go of it for a moment, then you fall out of it. This is the devil’s sole aim, to tear people out of it and to cause them to measure God’s will and work by human reason.123

In response to the many challenges facing the Swiss evangelical cause, Zwingli’s compatriots—​ Bucer, Oecolampadius, and Wolfgang Capito—​ urged him to respond to Luther in a cordial yet firm tone, hoping to lay the groundwork for a pan-​evangelical alliance.124 These pressures ultimately led Zwingli to write Friendly Exegesis. Like many of Zwingli’s works, Friendly Exegesis was written at a frantic pace, from mid-​December 1526 to the end of February 1527, in time for the famed Frankfurt Book Fair. A copy of the work was subsequently sent to Luther in April and Philip of Hesse in June.125 In the treatise, Zwingli reiterates many of his points raised on the Eucharist thus far, responds to the new arguments presented by Luther, and elaborates on his argument against a corporeal presence in the elements. Zwingli opens Friendly Exegesis with an attempted cordial letter to Luther explaining his purpose for writing and what he sees at stake in this discussion. In this missive, Zwingli focuses not on the Lord’s Supper but on the centerpiece of the evangelical movement, sola fide, and its connection to Christ’s person. “For if faith alone be not sufficient to make blessed without the power of externals, then we fall back upon works.”126 In Zwingli’s eyes, requiring faith not only in Christ’s flesh slain but also in his flesh on the Table and its necessity for salvation compromises sola fide.127 He immediately connects this concern over sola fide with a proper understanding of Christ’s person and natures. As we have seen in the Commentary, Zwingli bases his 123 LW 36:345. 124 Pipkin, “Introduction to Friendly Exegesis,” 236. Letters cited in Z V 548–​49. Wolfgang Capito (1478?–​1541) was one of the chief reformers of Strasbourg alongside Martin Bucer. He was a significant secondary figure in the eucharistic debate, who carried on correspondence with both the Swiss and the Lutherans. James M. Kittelson, “Capito, Wolfgang,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans Joachim Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 1.259-​260.; Rummel and Kooistra, The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito. 125 Pipkin, “Introduction to Friendly Exegesis,” 236; Potter, Zwingli,  303–​6. 126 Ulrich Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis, That Is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, eds. H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, trans. H. Wayne Pipkin (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984), 2:239. 127 Zwingli makes his concern more explicit later in the text. “If, moreover, sin is remitted through the eating of his body, the sins of the disciples were remitted when they had supped upon the body. Does his blood purify thus, not only when shed, but when drunk? Why, therefore, was he fastened to the cross? Are there two ways of justification, one by faith, the other by bodily eating?” Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 339–​40.

56  The Flesh of the Word understanding of the true Christian religion on the sole mediatorial role of Christ, which he can fulfill only because he is fully God and fully man without confusion. Not only does Luther’s position compromise the sole reliance on Christ as the object of faith, but by supporting it with ubiquity he violates the integrity of the human nature that makes Christ’s mediation possible: Moreover those who confuse the two natures in Christ, truly desiring to proclaim of the human what belongs only to the divine, and of the divine what belongs merely to the human, though not as a matter of change of attributes and exchange [alloiosis] of natures, such persons not only obscure and defile the Gospel of John but trample it underfoot, as I shall show in due course.128

Luther’s ubiquity doctrine obscures the biblical account of the two natures, and especially the arguments based in John’s Gospel, and by so doing destroys the scriptural witness to Christ as true God and man. From Zwingli’s opening appeal, he grounds the question of the Supper on previous commitments to sola fide and a soteriologically determined christology, which he sees Luther’s position as challenging. According to Zwingli, confusing the natures of Christ compromises his unique place as mediator and overthrows not simply the Gospel of John but all of Scripture. Zwingli sees ubiquity as the height of such a confusion because it compromises the integrity of Christ’s humanity and, therefore, humanity’s stake in his death. Therefore, for Zwingli, nothing less than the essence of the Christian faith is at stake in this debate. He hopes to convince Luther with his arguments and to bring greater unity to the cause of reform.129

1.4.2 The Extra against Ubiquity Zwingli’s arguments against Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity are present throughout Friendly Exegesis as he addresses several of Luther’s writings and the Syngramma. Zwingli argues that Luther’s doctrine is based on a faulty 128 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 239. Porro qui naturas in Christo confundunt, non iam per alloeosim naturarumque et idiomatum commutationem, sed vere de humana praedicare volentes, quod divinae modo est, et de divina, quod humanae tantum, hi Ioannis euangelium non iam obscurant et foedant, sed conculcant; quemadmodum processu ostendemus (Z V 564.11–​16). 129 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 240.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  57 exegetical basis, that he fails to understand the relationship of locality with respect to finite and infinite natures, and that an appeal to divine omnipotence cannot overcome these problems. Zwingli represents Luther’s understanding of ubiquity with several statements from Against the Fanatics. Chief among these claims are “Heaven and earth are his sack; as wheat fills the sack, so he fills all things,”130 as well as “[Christ] is everywhere present, namely, as to his humanity.”131 According to Zwingli, rather than being ubiquitously present according to his human nature, Christ’s body has been removed from the earthly sphere, yet he continues to be personally present with the church by his divine nature. Zwingli seeks to defeat Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity to overcome his understanding of the corporeal presence in the Supper and therefore to pave the path of evangelical union. Zwingli addresses Luther’s doctrine, first, by undercutting its exegetical basis. Exegesis is a paramount concern for Zwingli since Luther accused him of deriving his position from reason rather than Scripture. Zwingli directly inveighs against Luther’s use of Ephesians 4:10.132 Luther argues from this verse and other similar passages, “[W]‌e believe that Christ Jesus is in his humanity constituted in a way superior to all things and fills all things.”133 Zwingli considers such an idea absurd, as we have seen in On the Lord’s Supper, but because of his respect for Luther, he treats it kat’ anthypophoran, or as an objection raised to be answered.134 Zwingli responds by an appeal to Matthew 28:6, where the angel at Christ’s tomb comforts those seeking him and announces that their Lord has risen and is “no longer here.” Zwingli discusses this text in several sections throughout Friendly Exegesis. When presenting it in response to an argument in the Syngramma, he asserts this text proves what could be seen as the most condensed form of the extra, that “the body of Christ is not everywhere, even if his divinity does fill all things.”135 130 WA 19:493:9–​10; LW 36:343. Zwingli snidely remarks about this phrase that it is “a beautiful comparison truly,” and adds, “I can hardly help laughing, my dear Luther, whenever your sack is mentioned.” Later he states, “I was expecting you to add another [comparison], such as, like a countryman fills his leggins, since you had opened the door to such crudities.” Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 302, 303, 341. Bella plane comparatione! (Z V 653.15). Ferme rideo, mi Luthere, quoties sacci tui mentio incidit (655.3–​4). Expectabamus . . . ut aliam quoque adderes, istam: Quemadmodum rusticus ocreas, quum tam rudibus adperuisses ostium, aut similem aliquam (709.3–​5). 131 WA 19:492.17–​18; LW 36:342. 132 “He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:10). All Scripture quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted. 133 WA 19:491.17–​18; LW 36:342. 134 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 317. 135 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 251. Christi corpus non ubique esse, etiamsi divinitas omnia impleat (Z V 583.2–​3).

58  The Flesh of the Word Zwingli’s underlying reasoning here comes from the attributes of each nature. “It is characteristic of human nature to be limited, to be tied to one place . . . while it is characteristic of the divine to extend, permeate, be present everywhere, to hold, know, and dispose all things.”136 Given these characteristics, the angel cannot be referring to Christ’s divinity. What the angel declared to be “not here” is precisely Christ’s body. Zwingli contends that the context of the passage shows this, since the women were seeking the body of Christ, which can be reasonably concluded from the other Gospel accounts’ mention of bringing spices to anoint Jesus’s body (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). It is according to this referent, Christ’s body, that one should understand the angel’s declaration of absence. Zwingli then heads off the objection that Christ is still present but not in a “crude style,” but rather “His body had taken on another state.”137 According to such a view, Christ’s glorified and risen body has undergone fundamental changes to its nature and therefore can be present invisibly, unlike before the resurrection.138 In this objection, Zwingli addresses what he understood in On the Lord’s Supper to be an Erasmian or humanist position, but he sees Luther making the same claim.139 In Against the Fanatics, Luther makes a similar point regarding Christ’s body after the ascension. Referring to Stephen’s sight of Christ in Acts 7:56, Luther states, “He need not raise his eyes on high. Christ is around us and in us in all places. . . . [The ascension] means rather that he is above all creatures and in all and beyond all creatures. That he was taken up bodily, however, occurred as a sign of this.”140 To this change-​of-​state objection, Zwingli retorts that the angel is explicitly referring to the glorified and resurrected body because he states, “He has risen; he is not here.” He takes this to mean that it is exactly the resurrected body of Christ being declared absent to the women in the garden. Although Zwingli’s point is weakened if Luther claimed this change in state occurred at the ascension and not the resurrection, it is unclear from Against the Fanatics whether he makes such a distinction. If we understand the angel to be declaring the absence of Christ’s resurrected body, Zwingli argues, Luther’s interpretation of Ephesians 4:10 is overturned; for if Christ was not in the garden bodily he is 136 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 303. Humanae naturę est, uni sive loco sive circumscriptioni . . . alli gari; divinae, per omnia tendi, meare, adesse, omnia tenere, nosse, disponere (Z V 654.25, 27–​28). 137 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 317. Non erat isthic pristino illo crassoque corporalis pręsentiae more, iam enim corpus alium statum induerat (Z V 676.21–​22). 138 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 317. 139 Zwingli, “On the Lord’s Supper,” 215, 344n54. 140 LW 36:342.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  59 not everywhere bodily. By Zwingli’s own method it is not enough to cite another passage to refute Luther’s use of Ephesians 4:10; he must also properly explain it.141 Zwingli sets forth his own interpretation of Ephesians 4:10, “ascended above the heavens in order to fill [πληρώσῃ] all things,” in a later section of the work where he explains his method of “collating Scripture.”142 According to Zwingli, the concept of filling here should not be taken in a literal sense relating to quantity but rather in a sense of accomplishment or fulfillment. Christ at his ascension is said to accomplish all things said of him in the Scriptures. He supports this contention with the citations of Matthew 3:15, as an equivalent use of πληρόω for “fulfill,” “accomplish,” or “correspond to.”143 According to Zwingli, this verse has roughly the same force regarding the ascension as 1 Corinthians 15:4 does regarding the resurrection, which speaks of Christ rising “according to the Scriptures.”144 Zwingli holds that this interpretation is supported further by the immediate context. The author of Ephesians quotes Psalm 68:18 in verse 8, which promises taking captives and giving gifts. The ascension fulfills both promises. This is seen most clearly in the following verses, Ephesians 4:11–​12, which enumerate the gifts given by Christ to the church in fulfillment of the promise of Psalm 68:18.145 With this exposition, Zwingli considers himself to have defused one of Luther’s chief exegetical arguments for ubiquity.146 For Zwingli the doctrine of ubiquity not only is exegetically unsupported but also results in a confusion of the spatial, transcendent nature of God and the spatial nature of a human body. In support he presents a short argument based on the finitude of Christ’s humanity and the infinitude of divinity. Arguing against Luther’s On the Adoration of the Sacraments, Zwingli states: We say this, also that his divinity is present everywhere where the body of Christ is, and, on the other hand, that the body of Christ is not everywhere where his divinity is, for the one is infinite, the other finite. You do not

141 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 317. 142 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 337–​50. 143 “But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill [πληρωσαι] all righteousness.’ Then he consented” (Matt. 3:15); Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 341. 144 “That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4). Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 341. 145 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 341. 146 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 341–​42.

60  The Flesh of the Word examine well, my dear Luther, this word “where,” which is not predicated equally of the infinite nature and the finite.147

Here we see not only a concise statement of the extra Calvinisticum but also an appeal to the concept of infinity, which will play an important role at Marburg and in later thinkers. It should be observed, however, that this is not an appeal to the concept of the finitum non capax infiniti, as some absolute philosophical dictum, which is cited by some scholars to disqualify the extra as properly theological and will be discussed more fully in later chapters.148 Zwingli presents a linguistic concern regarding the adverb ubi, which as a qualifier of space cannot apply to things with a spatial dimension in the same manner as the infinite nature of God. Christ’s divine nature is everywhere present, but not as “to tie God to the narrow limits of places.”149 The “where” of Christ’s divine presence is found in transcendence of place and locality. The humanity of Christ, however, being finite and limited to one place, must have a definite “where,” which after the ascension is in heaven. Zwingli implies that by applying “everywhere” equally of the divine and human natures, as the doctrine of ubiquity seems to, Luther attributed to Christ’s body spatial transcendence, which would render it no longer a body. Zwingli does not elaborate on this argument further in Friendly Exegesis. Yet, this is the first appearance in the debate of the concepts of infinitude and finitude, which become prominent as the Lutheran-​Reformed debate develops throughout the sixteenth century. Zwingli also briefly addresses Luther’s objection that by divine omnipotence the body of Christ can be in more than one place, which would overcome Zwingli’s argument from the locality of a body. Zwingli, rather uncharacteristically, utilizes the concepts of potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata taken from the medieval via moderna, although inexpertly.150 He 147 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 305. Dicimus et hoc: divinitatem ubique esse pręsentem, ubicumque sit corpus Christi. Contra vero: corpus Christi non ubique esse, ubi est divinitas. Hęc enim infinita est, illud finitum. Male expendis, mi Luthere, ipsum ”ubi”, quod non ęque de infinita natura atque finita prędicatur (Z V 657.26–​30). 148 See an example of such a charge in Werner Elert, “Über die Herkunft des Satzes ‘Finitum infiniti non capax,’” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 16 (1939): 500–​504; Christian Link, “Extra Calvinisticum,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 98–​99; Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum,” 261–​62. 149 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 305. 150 Richard Muller offers these brief definitions for the terms: “According to his potentia absoluta, God can effect all possibility, constrained only by his own nature. . . . The term emphasizes the transcendence and omnipotence of God by setting God even above and beyond the laws he has ordained for the operation of his universe. . . . [P]otentia ordinata: ordained power; the power by which God creates and sustains the world according to his pactum with himself and creation. In other words,

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  61 agrees that, according to his omnipotence considered in an absolute sense, God could do anything. “Who denies that Christ, speaking absolutely, can do this or anything else?”151 One must consider what Christ, however, has actually claimed to do or be able to do in his own word, which Zwingli calls the potentia ordinata; otherwise one is arguing from possibility to actuality, which is fallacious. From his many other arguments, Zwingli has shown that he understands Christ as claiming to be bodily at the right hand of the Father in heaven and nowhere else. Therefore, one cannot overcome the spatial locatability of Christ’s body by appeal to omnipotence. Almost as if he were nervous about utilizing the scholastic concepts of potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata, Zwingli immediately quotes Augustine in support: “ ‘He can be in only one place’152 as far as his human nature is concerned.”153 Both the argument from the nature of infinitude and that against the omnipotence objection will be of greater significance in the debate at Marburg.

1.4.3  Alloiosis, the Communicatio Idiomatum, and the Extra In Friendly Exegesis, Zwingli uses the concept of alloiosis to offer an account of christological predication, to demonstrate the error of ubiquity, and to support the extra.154 First introduced in his Letter to Haner,155 Zwingli defines alloiosis with reference to christology as a “leap or transition or, if you prefer, interchange, by which when, speaking of one of Christ’s natures we use the

limited and bounded power that guarantees the stability and consistency of the orders of nature and grace.” Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 231, 232. For further discussion of this distinction in the medieval period, see Heiko Augustinus Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 30–​56. 151 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 314. Quis negat Christum, si absolute loquamur, et hęc et alia posse? (Z V 671.11–​12). 152 “For the body of the Lord, in which he rose again from the dead, can be only in one place, but the truth is everywhere diffused.” Augustine, Tractates on John, NPNF VII:186 (PL 35:1632); cited in Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 314. 153 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 314. “In uno loco esse oportet,” quod ad humanam adtinet (Z V 671.20). 154 The term is variously spelled “alloiosis,” “alloeosis,” and “alleosis.” The spelling most prevalent in the literature on Zwingli, such as that of Locher and Stephens, “alloiosis,” will be followed. 155 Ulrich Zwingli, “Letter to Haner,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli, Corpus Reformatorum 95 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1914), 8:791–​95, cited in Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,  73–​74.

62  The Flesh of the Word terms that apply to the other.”156 This technical christological meaning of alloiosis is built on a more general rhetorical concept he takes from classical rhetorical texts. Alloiosis in this sense refers to a figure of speech in which a whole of a thing is referred to by a part or vice versa. For Zwingli, alloiosis is an exegetical tool that allows greater clarity in understanding the christological meaning of various types of scriptural passages where actions or qualities are applied to Jesus.157 He argues that the root error of the doctrine of ubiquity flows from Luther’s misunderstanding of how the biblical authors refer to Christ with respect to his two natures: For you [Luther] jump craftily from one nature to the other, as when you say that Christ is in us and around us everywhere (a competence only of his divine nature), and at the same time wish to insinuate to minds of the untutored that his natural body is everywhere filling and surrounding all things.158

In order to counter Luther’s position, Zwingli lays out his understanding of christological predication and utilizes it to support the extra by offering a means to interpret passages that speak of Christ being everywhere alongside those that speak of his absence. Zwingli’s greater care for christological predication leads him to offer a more robust doctrine of the hypostatic union than previously evident. By so doing, he corrects the Nestorian tendency in his early christology by incorporating the language of hypostasis and persona to express this union. Therefore, rather than being evidence of Nestorianism, as asserted by David Luy and others, reflection on alloiosis propels Zwingli to correct this deficiency found in his earlier thought.159 By alloiosis Zwingli applies the fruits of his humanist learning to the question of proper attribution of properties to Christ. Each nature has its own set of qualities, but often biblical texts will predicate what is proper of one

156 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 320. Desultus aut transitus ille, aut si mavis permutatio, qua de altera in eo natura loquentes, alterius vocibus utimur (Z V.680.2–​681.1). 157 For the most thorough discussion of alloiosis in Zwingli, see Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 176; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 112–​17; Richard Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli,” Journal of Theological Studies 46, no. 2 (April 1995): 105–​22; Richard Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 39–​85. 158 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 319. Vafre enim de natura una ad aliam transilis. Ut cum dicis Christum in nobis esse ac circum nos undique (quod non nisi divinę illius naturę competit), simul tamen rudium animis instillare vis corpus eius naturale ubique esse, omnia implere ac circumdare (Z V 679.1–​5). 159 Luy, Dominus Mortis, 125.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  63 nature to the other, a classic example being “[T]‌hey would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). Zwingli accounts for such texts by qualifying Christ’s acts as performed according to one nature or the other, while the act itself is attributable to Christ’s person. The most pertinent aspect for my purposes is how to interpret biblical statements that speak of Christ being both present with the church and filling creation, while also being absent, in some sense. Zwingli does not intend to introduce novelty with alloiosis but to counter Luther’s confusion of the natures in his exegesis that leads to ubiquity. For Zwingli, alloiosis is nothing more than the medieval doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum updated with rhetorical terminology. “Such interchanges or exchanges or leaps, which the holy men [biblical authors] used freely in regard to Christ in view of the union of the two natures in him, nay, Christ himself used for agreeable variety to regard himself (the theologians used not long ago to call it exchange of attributes, that is special properties).”160 He claims to use the term alloiosis only “in order to make grammarians more friendly.”161 Stephens summarizes Zwingli’s christological use of alloiosis well: “[Zwingli] uses the idea of the sharing of properties or alloiosis to bring out the distinction of the natures within the unity of the person rather than the interpenetration of the two natures.”162 Because Zwingli employed this concept against ubiquity, alloiosis has been a major point of critique by Lutheran theologians. First, according to Lutheran critics, alloiosis devolves into a Nestorian christology because it creates two active agents within Christ: the human, who acts in a certain way, and the divine, who acts in another. Luy is representative in his claim that Zwingli’s doctrine of alloiosis “eschews the unity of Christ and speaks as if divinity and humanity act as their own discrete subjects.”163 Alloiosis, according to this critique, is therefore evidence for Zwingli’s Nestorianism. Second, Lutheran scholars have critiqued alloiosis for failing to account for the communicatio idiomatum. Herman Sasse states this charge in no uncertain terms:  “Zwingli did not recognize what the Lutherans call the ‘communicatio idiomatum,’ a doctrine of the ancient Greek Church, that 160 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 319–​20. Eas itaque permutationes sive commutationes sive desultus, quibus divini homines de Christo pro duarum in illo naturarum unione libere usi sunt, imo Christus ipse de se ipso iucunda variatione usus est. Quas paulo ante theologi idiomatum; hoc est: proprietatum communicationem vocabant (Z V 679.10–​14). 161 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 320. Quo grammaticos haberemus magis propicios (Z V 679.15). 162 Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 112. This quote from Stephens further undercuts Cross’s interpretation of Stephens’s definition of alloiosis. 163 Luy, Dominus Mortis, 125. See also Kilcrease, The Self-​Donation of God, 171.

64  The Flesh of the Word even medieval scholastics did not understand.”164 These critiques are then leveled equally against the extra Calvinisticum. Let us take a closer look at Zwingli’s definition and use of alloiosis to support the extra, and then we will be in a better position address these two charges. Zwingli uses the term alloiosis in both a general sense, to refer to a rhetorical concept, and in a christological sense. He defines the specific rhetorical concept of alloiosis as follows: “Alloiosis, which I have interpreted as an expression involving a leap, is, according to Plutarch, a trope by which an interchange takes place between members of a category or scheme of things where, namely, on account of some affinity in the grammatical phenomena, a leap or interchange is made from one to the other.”165 According to Fritz Blanke, the work of Plutarch Zwingli is drawing from is The Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, which scholars attribute to a grammarian writing after the death of Plutarch (c. 120) but before 200.166 According to Pseudo-​ Plutarch, the figure of alloiosis occurs “where the normal syntax is changed and varied for the sake of adding grace and ornament to the discourse. The usual syntax appears not to follow, but rather there is a change with regard to some peculiar characteristic [idion].”167 Examples of this trope include shifts in case, number, or other parts of normal syntax.168 Zwingli can use the term in the more general rhetorical sense. Commenting on Isaiah 1:29, which reads, vos pudeat (you will be ashamed), Zwingli argues that this should be interpreted as “they will be ashamed.” He states that a “learned man will easily understand [this] through alloiosis.”169 This demonstrates that the concept of alloiosis in Zwingli should not be understood solely as a feature of his christology but rather as a general rhetorical tool he finds particularly useful for sorting out the predication of the two natures of Christ. Locher also notes that the concept is used in his discussion

164 Sasse, This Is My Body, 150. 165 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 319. Alloeosis, quam nos desultoriam locutionem interpretati sumus, Plutarcho autore tropus est, quo consuetus ordo sive ratio commutatur, cum scilicet propter affinitatem aliquam passionum grammaticarum fit de una ad aliam saltus aut permutatio (Z V 679.7–​10). 166 Z V 679–​681 n.1; Pseudo-​Plutarch, Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, ed. John J. Keaney and Robert Lamberton, American Classical Studies, no. 40 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 9. 167 Pseudo-​Plutarch, Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, 109. 168 Pseudo-​Plutarch, Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer, 109–​31. 169 Ulrich Zwingli, “Complanationis Isaiae prophetae,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, Corpus Reformatorum 101 (Zürich:  Verlag Berichthaus, 1959), 14:127.20–​ 26.; Quo facilius deprehendit eruditus vir per alloeosim discenum esse (Z XIV 127.24–​25). See also Zwingli’s comment on Gen. 48:16 in Ulrich Zwingli, “Farrago annotationum in Genesim,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, Corpus Reformatorum 100 (Zürich: Verlag Berichthaus, 1963), 13:274.30f.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  65 of the doctrine of the Trinity.170 Zwingli offers this in passing at the end of his treatment in Friendly Exegesis: “[A]‌lloiosis occurs not only between the two natures of Christ, but also between the persons of the divine essence, so that sometimes the person is put for the essence, or, again, the essence is put for the person.”171 That for Zwingli alloiosis applies beyond the realm of christology indicates a greater ambiguity in its use than has often been appreciated. Alloiosis functions for Zwingli first as a broader rhetorical concept. This figure of speech has particular usefulness for understanding how properly to predicate attributes of the incarnate Christ. Zwingli therefore uses the name of the trope to refer more technically to the whole interplay of christological predication. While Zwingli understands alloiosis as foundationally a figure of speech, such locutions are allowed and true of Christ because of the unique ontology of the hypostatic union.172 Zwingli justifies the use of the trope with regard to the incarnation because of the hypostatic union: The reason why they [the biblical authors] were all so much given to the use of this exchange or alloiosis of attributes is this: when he who is from all eternity Son of God put on humanity, he was made Son of Man also, not the sense that he who was Son of God lost the lot or condition of being divine, or was transmuted into the position of man, not in the sense that he turned human into divine nature, but in the sense that God and a human being became one Christ, who, in that he is the Son of God, is the life of all (for all things were made by him [John 1:3]) and in that he is a human being, is the offering through which the eternal righteousness, which also is his righteousness, is reconciled.173 170 Gottfried Wilhelm Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Lichte seiner Christologie: Die Gotteslehre (Zürich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1952), 1:128–​32. 171 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 336. Alloeoses non tantum fieri inter duas in Christo naturas, sed etiam inter personas divinae essentiae, sic, ut persona nonnunquam pro essentia et contra essentia pro persona capiatur (Z V 700.24–​26). 172 This is contrary to the claims of many that Zwingli is operating with a mere figure of speech that lacks any connection to the hypostatic union. For Zwingli, alloiosis is appropriate when speaking of Christ only because of the hypostatic union; pace Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus, God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1977), 299. 173 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 320. Hęc autem causa est, quur propensius omnes sint usi hac idiomatum commutatione sive alloeosibus, quod, qui dei filius ab aeterno est, homine adsumpto, hominis quoque filius est factus, non ut qui dei filius esset, sortem aut statum divinitatis vel amitteret, vel in humanam conditionem transmutaret, neque ut humanam naturam in divinam converteret, sed, ut deus et homo unus fieret Christus, qui pro eo, quod dei filius est, omnium vita esset –​nam et omnia per ipsum facta sunt [Joh. 1.3] –​et pro eo, quod homo est, oblatio esset, qua ęterna, quę et sua est iusticia, placaretur (Z V 681.13–​682.6).

66  The Flesh of the Word Alloiosis with respect to Christ is possible because the two natures have become the one Christ. And this is done in such a manner that “the lot or condition of being divine” is not abandoned by the act of the eternal Son but rather by the assumption of the flesh into a unity. So far this is similar to the understanding of Christ’s person expressed in On the Lord’s Supper; however, Zwingli specifies this unity by incorporating the language of person or hypostasis: “These two natures, however, he joined and united into one substance [hypostasim] or person in such a way that they still always retain each its own character, with the one exception that the tendency to sin is utterly foreign to his humanity.”174 The hypostatic union grounds and authorizes alloiosis, which is allowed only when referring to “members of a category or scheme of things.”175 Regarding Christ, the hypostatic union is the ontological relation, the shared membership of the divine and human in the person of Christ, that allows for the linguistic leaps from one to the other. The union ensures that one can speak meaningfully about Christ as acting or being both human and divine simultaneously, yet not in such a way that either nature is changed. Upon this ground Zwingli critiques ubiquity, which would constitute a change in the human nature from spatially located to spatially transcendent. Zwingli argues that one must interpret passages of Scripture that speak of Christ acting in any way that is proper to one nature—​suffering, hungering, dying or conversely creating, performing miracles, or being equal to the Father—​in light of the personal union without change.176 For example, in interpreting John 16:15—​“All things the Father has are mine”—​Zwingli states: Here “mine” indicates his divinity as rightful possessor. For though Christ reigns, and lives, and enriches all things with the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet this is wholly because of his superior nature. It belongs, therefore, of right to him that all that is the Father’s is also his, and when we attribute what we do to his humanity, we are not out of the way, for he who shares these things with the Father shares the nature of a human being with us also.177 174 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 320. Has autem duas naturas sic in unam hypostasim aut personam iunxit et univit, ut tamen utraque ingenium suum perpetuo servet, hoc uno excepto, quod illa ad peccandum propensio longissime ab eius humanitate abfuit (Z V 682.6–​9). 175 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 319. 176 See, for examples, Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 321–​25. 177 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 328. Hic “mea” divinitatem proprie possessorem significant. Tametsi enim Christus regnat, vivit, omnia ditat cum patre et spiritu sancto, id tamen omne propter

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  67 The referent of “mine” in this text is the person of Christ, the “who” of the action, for it is this person who “reigns, lives, and enriches all things.” Given the complex nature of this referent, i.e., possessing two natures, the “how” of this act must be investigated. How can it be said of Christ that he shares all things with the Father and the Spirit? According to the divine nature, the referent of “mine” is the person, yet it “indicates his divinity as rightful possessor.” But then is it inappropriate to say, “The man Jesus possesses all things of the eternal Father”? No, according to Zwingli, since he, the person, shares both in the common Triune divinity and in human nature. Such a statement is by alloiosis, such that one’s thought must leap from the name given of his humanity by means of the hypostatic union to the divine nature to which this attribute is proper. One may rightly object that Zwingli is mistaken in his interpretation of this verse, especially the meaning of “all things,” but this passage effectively illustrates Zwingli’s procedure of reckoning with christological predication with the tool of alloiosis. Having set forth Zwingli’s understanding of the meaning and function of alloiosis, we now turn to his use of the idea to counter ubiquity and support the extra. Of particular importance for his debate with Luther are those passages that speak of Christ ascending and the nature of his body after the resurrection. Zwingli appeals to passages that speak of Christ’s absence, “going away,” or “leaving the world.” In what sense are such passages predicated of Christ’s person? Citing John 13:33—​“Little children, yet a little while I am with you”—​ Zwingli explains, “Here ‘I am’ is said of his human nature, for we cannot say of his divine nature that it is not everywhere. And do you venture to say that his body is everywhere when he himself says that he will be with us but a little while?”178 According to alloiosis, this text is referring to his humanity, since Christ’s divine presence is never removed from his people. Zwingli further supports this point with John 14:25—​“These things I have spoken to you, being yet present with you.” Christ’s words indicate there will come a time when he is not present with them: “Therefore, he went away. But he who is by nature everywhere present cannot go away, therefore the humanity went

naturam potiorem est. Eius ergo est proprie, quod patris omnia eius quoque sunt, et cum ista humanitati tribuimus, non ineptimus. Is enim, qui haec communia habet cum patre, nobiscum quoque communem habet humanam naturam (Z V 691.13–​18). 178 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 324–​25. Hic “sum” de humana natura dicitur; de divina enim dici nequit, quod non sit ubique. Et tu audes dicere corpus eius esse ubique, cum ipse dicat se modicum nobiscum futurum? (Z V 687.35–​688.2).

68  The Flesh of the Word away.”179 Here the reasoning of alloiosis is evident in condensed form. “He went away”: the person of Christ is the subject of this action. How, though, did he do so? Not by his divinity since what is present everywhere cannot “go away,” lest it cease to be everywhere. Therefore, it is the humanity of Christ by which this absence ought to be understood. Zwingli declares that the purpose of this absence was the sending of the Holy Spirit, citing John 14:26, 16:4–​7 in support.180 By alloiosis, texts that speak of “going away” are applying an activity appropriate to human nature to the whole person, while more properly it is only according to the human nature that Christ has gone, while according to his divinity he is everywhere. Therefore, the person of Christ is both everywhere and corporeally absent, the simplest expression of the extra Calvinisticum, and therefore not corporeally ubiquitous. If the Scriptures indicate that Christ has “gone away” according to the human nature, which is fulfilled at his ascension, other passages indicate where he now resides and how he resides there. Zwingli multiplies his appeals to the ascension with citations of the account in Mark (16:19), Luke (24:51), and Acts (1:9–​11), thereby “proving the ascension of the body of Christ and its sitting at the right hand.”181 The place at the right hand of the Father is not a state to which Christ as the divine Son needed to ascend, being always and eternally one with God; therefore this act, by alloiosis, is properly reckoned of Christ’s humanity: “He sat there not only before his sitting there as a human being but before his human birth also. As a human being, therefore, Christ was received up into heaven, who as God had never gone away from there.”182 While Christ as divine from eternity is omnipresent, his humanity is absent after the ascension and dwells bodily in heaven. Zwingli acknowledges that the right hand of the Father is not strictly speaking circumscribed; however, this claim is not sufficient to posit that the human body lacks circumscription. Since Christ’s body is a true body, it must be localized. Zwingli again cites Augustine’s Tractates on John to support the

179 My translation. Pipkin’s translation inaccurately breaks up this sentence by inserting a paragraph break after “cannot go away” and combining the final phrase with the following sentence. Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 326. Ergo abibat. Abire autem non potest, qui natura ubique est; abibat ergo humanitas (Z V 388.37–​389.1). 180 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 326. Pipkin inaccurately notes the second citation as John 16:44ff. 181 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 331–​32. Ut ascensionem corporis Christi adseveremus atque eiusdem ad dexteram sessionem (Z V 695.21–​22). 182 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 332. Isthic sedit non tantum ante sessionem humanam, sed ante vagitum quoque. Adsumptus est igitur Christus homo in coelum, qui deus nunquam illinc abierat (Z V 696.14–​16).

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  69 notion that Christ’s body “must be in one place only.”183 Therefore the theologian can only ascribe to him the place he has revealed himself to be: “[H]‌ence we deny that he can be anywhere else than where the Lord’s word shows that he is.”184 One cannot appeal to a change of the spatially local nature of the body of Christ after the ascension, as already seen in the angelic testimony in Matthew 28:6—​“He is risen; he is not here”—​which Zwingli reiterates. He also draws attention to the passages referring to post-​ resurrection appearances. After the resurrection we see that Christ appears to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, the crowds, the apostles in the upper room, and so on (Luke 24:13–​35; John 20; 1 Cor. 15): “Raised from the dead, he determined to present himself in visible tangible shape to his disciples, but never appeared thus in different places at once.”185 Thus Scripture offers no evidence, according to Zwingli, that Christ is bodily everywhere, since no transition in this quality is spoken of after the resurrection or ascension. Zwingli enhances the case for Christ’s circumscribed body with an argument from the nature of created intelligences, i.e., angels and human beings, who by dint of their created status are circumscribed: Although the divine nature is itself infinite, and certainly cannot be circumscribed in any way, yet all created beings having intelligence are in him just as we are, and are circumscribed. . . . We recognize that Christ, by virtue of his humanity, sits at the right hand of the Father, circumscribed just as the angels and people are circumscribed.186

Therefore, while the right hand of the Father is not itself circumscribed, Christ, according to his humanity, is there circumscribedly because his humanity is created. But this also meets the needs of created intelligences, who, being finite, must encounter God in Christ’s finite, circumscribed humanity after death: “If they are where he is, in virtue of his humanity, namely then,

183 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 333. NPNF VII:186; MPL 35:1632. 184 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 333. Unde negamus aliubi esse posse, quam ubi verbum dominicum esse ostendit (Z V 696.23–​24). 185 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 333. Constituit a mortuis excitatus sese visibilem quidem atque contrectabilem prębere discipulis:  nunquam tamen istud tali ratione fecit, ut simul in diversis locis adpareret (Z V 697.29–​32). 186 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 333. Nam etsi divinitas sit ipsa infinita, quę nimirum nulla circumscribi ratione potest, adhuc tamen circumscriptę sunt omnes intellectuales creaturę, quae apud eum sunt, alio modo quam hic simus in ipso. . . . [A]‌gnoscimus Christum secundum humanitatem ad dextram patris sedere, circumscriptum perinde atque angeli et homines circumscripti sunt (Z V 697.12–​ 14, 16–​18).

70  The Flesh of the Word as they are circumscribed, so must he also be circumscribed.”187 This fulfills the promises of Scripture wherein the elect are said to be with Christ after death, such as John 12:26 and 14:2–​3. These passages cannot refer to Christ according to his divinity or to a ubiquitous humanity because then there would be no meaningful transition from being away from him to being with him.188 Christ will remain circumscribed in heaven, yet “in his divine nature he is still with us secretly and unseen,” until he returns with a true, visible, and circumscribed body, as he left:189 “You have here [Acts 1:11] the circumscribed and visible going away of the body, nor is any return anywhere promised other than one circumscribed and visible.”190 Therefore, for Zwingli, Christ’s presence and absence must be understood through the redemptive career of the incarnate Christ. He is divinely and personally present before the incarnation, during his earthly ministry, during the church age, and in glory, yet corporeally he is present during his life, absent after the ascension, and will be present again only in the eschaton. Zwingli uses alloiosis to support this reading from Scripture by discerning in what sense biblical texts are speaking of Christ’s presence. Through his method he finds no support in Scripture for Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity and attempts to answer Luther’s charge that his doctrine is based on reason rather than Scripture. Having set forth Zwingli’s definition and use of alloiosis to reject ubiquity and support the extra Calvinisticum, it is now possible to address two of the common objections to this understanding:  that it precedes from a Nestorian christology and that it fails to account for the communicatio idiomatum. One standard attack on Zwingli’s doctrine, and on his christology more generally, is that, if not overtly Nestorian, it teeters on the brink of it. This is not the case. Zwingli avoids a crass Nestorianism, which would posit two persons, since alloiosis is possible only because the two natures are united in one person. Zwingli also avoids the subtler form of the error of which Luy accuses him: “divinity and humanity act as their own discrete

187 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 334. Si enim sunt, ubi ipse est, secundum humanitatem scilicet, iam ut isti sunt circumscripti, illum quoque circumscriptum esse oportet (Z V 698.1–​2). 188 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 334. 189 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 334. Divina enim etiamnum tacite atque invisibiliter nobiscum est (Z V 699.1–​2). Pipkin’s translation has been modified, substituting “secretly” for “silently” as the translation of tacite. This rendering is a standard secondary meaning of the term, and the context of the statement puts emphasis not on hearing but on sight. Further, this overcomes any impression that for Zwingli Christ no longer speaks. Rather, Zwingli holds one can still hear Christ in his Word and by his Spirit. See Locher’s discussion of Zwingli’s understanding of the Word and Spirit in preaching in Zwingli’s Thought,  12–​15. 190 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 334.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  71 subjects.”191 For Zwingli, the acting subject is always the one Christ who is God and human, but it is appropriate to speak according to one nature or the other: For as each nature is in him in its entirety, so each nature preserves its own character (as far as their boundaries are concerned). His humanity can no more reign than his divinity die—​even though he who reigns is human, and he who dies is God. We easily admit the expressions, “The son of Man sits at the right hand and reigns” [Matt. 26:64] and “The Son of God died for us” [cf. 1 Cor. 15:3], because of the union of the natures, yet the understanding never confuses the two.192

The key phrase here is etiamsi is, qui regnat, homo sit, et is, qui moritur, deus. The subject of both actions, reigning and dying, is the same “is,” the same active subject. This subject is the person or hypostasis of Christ, who is both God and a human. According to Zwingli, Christ does not reign via his humanity, although the one who reigns is a human, and Christ does not die via his divinity, although the one who dies is God. Zwingli’s statement of the unified acting subject renders the first critique above moot, which claims Zwingli creates separate divine and human subjects. Rather than supporting Nestorianism, Zwingli’s reflection on alloiosis and its basis causes him to ground his christology more firmly in the hypostatic union. Zwingli is working with a firmly Chalcedonian understanding of the hypostatic union in which in the personal union each nature maintains its peculiar properties, and yet there is not separation or division of these natures, as we have seen. The acting subject is always the one person of Christ who is God and man, yet the potentiality of these acts arises from one nature or the other. Zwingli combines this with a classic understanding of the nature of God and a commonsense understanding of the nature of humanity. Divinity is impassible, omnipresent, alone to be worshipped, and so on. Humanity is created, not to be worshipped, spatially located, able to suffer and die, and so on. These qualities are never confused or intermingled between the natures but terminate on the person who is the proper owner of the attributes of each nature. 191 Luy, Dominus Mortis, 125. 192 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 324. Ut enim utraque natura in eo de integro est, ita ingenium suum utraque de integro (quod ad definitionem adtinet) servat. Perinde enim nequit humanitas regnare, atque divinitas mori, etiamsi is, qui regnat, homo sit, et is, qui moritur, deus, facileque admittamus. “Filius hominis sedet ad dexteram et regnat” [Matth. 26. 64] ac: “Dei filius est pro nobis mortuus” [1. Cor. 15. 3], propter naturarum unionem; intellectus tamen ista nunquam confundit (Z V 687.13–​19).

72  The Flesh of the Word Lutheran theologians further assert that Zwingli’s use of alloiosis fails to account for the ancient Christian doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, or the exchange of attributes. This charge, however, results from imposing a post-​ Reformation, Lutheran definition on the expression. Lutheran theologians use the term communicatio idiomatum in such a way that it must include Luther’s position that there is an exchange of properties between the natures themselves. For instance, Haga asks with incredulity, “If Zwingli even accepts the exchange of properties, how can he criticize Luther for blurring the lines between humanity and divinity?”193 The Lutheran scholars who chastise Zwingli for failing properly to uphold the communicatio idiomatum are importing a post-​Reformation meaning of this term determined by Luther’s usage rather than applying the definition of the term from the medieval period, which Zwingli claims alloiosis upholds. Richard Cross clearly defines the communicatio in the medieval scholastic period: “not the communication of properties understood in any sense as the ascription of the properties of the one nature to the other, but the communication of properties understood as the ascription of divine and human properties to the person of the Word.”194 Heiko Oberman offers a further feature of the medieval understanding of the communicatio idiomatum that is pertinent here: “[T]‌he hypostatic union is viewed as the basis of exchange.”195 This criterion means that the modes of speech explained by the communicatio are grounded in the precedent ontology of the hypostatic union. This must be the case lest “the unity of the two natures is captured only in the communicatio idiomatum, with the result that the mutual predication camouflages an essentially Nestorian Christology.”196 Zwingli fulfills these criteria by positing the hypostatic union as the basis of alloiosis and rejecting the ontological attribution between natures that ubiquity presupposes. The medieval definition directly contradicts the understanding of the communicatio by which Lutheran scholars measure Zwingli’s position. For instance, Haga defines the communicatio as “[T]‌he divine and human nature mutually exchanged or shared their properties.”197 By this definition, Zwingli’s understanding of alloiosis would conflict with the communicatio. But given that Haga’s definition is derived from Luther’s attacks on Zwingli’s 193 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 44. 194 Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 184. 195 Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 263. 196 Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 263. 197 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 12.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  73 view and the tradition that follows from Luther’s framing of the issue, that Zwingli fails by this criterion is unremarkable.198 Zwingli’s position on the communication of properties, which he expresses through the rhetorical tool of alloiosis, is largely in line with the medieval understanding. Cross, however, in his article on alloiosis in Zwingli, rejects the conclusion that Zwingli’s understanding of the communicatio is compatible with the medieval position.199 Cross concludes, “Zwingli’s theory of alloiosis differs radically from scholastic theories of the communication of properties—​even though the Christologies of both Zwingli and the later schoolmen are Chalcedonian in their basic shape.”200 On what basis does Cross make this claim? He forms his argument by comparing three renderings of Zwingli’s use of alloiosis in the secondary literature: Locher, Blanke, and Stephens.201 Cross bases his negative conclusion on Stephens’s articulation of Zwingli’s use of alloiosis: “where we name the one nature and understand the other, or name what they both are, and yet understand only the one.”202 Cross interprets this statement in such a way that Zwingli would agree to the attribution of properties from one nature to the other rather than to the person:  “As Stephens describes alloiosis, it seems that what is at issue is not, in fact, our ability to predicate the natures and their properties of the one person. Rather, what is at issue is our ability to predicate the natures and their properties of either the whole God-​man (including both natures) or each other.”203 It is frankly unclear, however, how Cross derives this position from Stephens’s statement. Cross overstates the ambiguity or sloppiness in Stephen’s definition of alloiosis and draws from it a negative assessment of Zwingli’s position with reference to the schoolmen.204 198 After the Reformation the term communicatio idiomatum is used in distinctly different ways according to confessional community. Theologians, however, do not always recognize this equivocal use of the expression. For an explanation of the different confessional uses of the phrase in Protestant Scholasticism, see Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 72–​73. For a clear distinction between these two forms, in the mode of analytical theology, see Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 6–​27. 199 Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli.” 200 Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli,” 122. 201 Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli,” 105–​6. For these accounts, see Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 176; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 113. Blanke’s comments can be found in Z V 679–​681n. 202 Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 113. 203 Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli,” 106. 204 Cross offers a second reason to support his conclusion that Zwingli moves away from the scholastics, which is not particularly important to the discussion here:  the question of whether

74  The Flesh of the Word On my reading, Stephens intends nothing other than Locher, who states, “It is only with regard to the person of the God-​man that one can assert per alloiosim the properties of both natures alike.”205 If this is the case, then the major difference that Cross sees between Zwingli and the scholastic theologians is overcome, because Cross himself admits that “[Locher’s] view, if correct, would make Zwingli to be in complete accord with the schoolmen who  .  .  .  understood the communication of properties in just this sense. Locher’s account of Zwingli would thus agree with Zwingli’s own assessment that his position was in accord with that of the schoolmen.”206 This discussion of Zwingli’s view indicates that Locher’s position better represents Zwingli’s intention. Zwingli’s articulation of alloiosis in Friendly Exegesis is an important development within his christology and the articulation of the extra. Not only does it provide further fodder for rejecting Luther’s exegetical arguments for ubiquity and for biblically supporting the extra, but through this argumentation Zwingli corrects the deficiency in his previous articulations of the unity of Christ. The most significant advance in Friendly Exegesis for Zwingli’s christology, which alloiosis produced, was not the proper predication of the natures, which we have seen since the Commentary on True and False Religion, but using “person” language to account for the unity of Christ. As we saw in On the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli only vaguely expressed the unity of Christ’s natures with the phrase “one Christ.” His return to the scholastic concept of the communicatio idiomatum grounded him more firmly in traditional christological language, guarding him from the charge of undue separation of natures, which could be leveled against his earlier formulation. Therefore, in Friendly Exegesis, Zwingli articulates the final feature of the doctrine of the extra, a view of the hypostatic union and communicatio idiomatum whereby the properties terminate on the person of Christ without an ontological transference of properties between the natures.

these statements about Christ are literally or figuratively true. Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli,” 114–​15, 118–​21. These terms are Cross’s and not Zwingli’s, who does not seem to be concerned with the question of the literal versus figural truth-​value of christological statements. Cross is importing a concern from medieval scholastics onto Zwingli and utilizing an analytic theological method that is foreign to both. Cross finds Zwingli wanting for failing to answer a question that he was not asking by a standard of precision that he would/​could not aspire to in his period.

205 Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 176. 206

Cross, “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli,” 106.

Zwingli and the Birth of the extra Calvinisticum  75

1.5 Conclusion During the eucharistic controversy in the 1520s, Zwingli offered an early articulation of the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum. The theological motivations for this idea were already present in his christology before the controversy and helped account for the seriousness with which he engaged in the debate. His doctrine of Christ was determined by his understanding of the Christian gospel, the focal point of which is the sole mediatorial function of Christ for human salvation. To be this mediator, Christ had to be both fully human and fully divine. The impassible God who alone has saving power took to himself a passible human nature to atone for humanity’s sins. Zwingli’s view of satisfaction, appropriated by faith alone, led to his rejection of any external means of attaining forgiveness. Because of this rejection of external means, Zwingli reacted strongly against the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, which he argued moved one away from God as the only source of salvation into idolatry. One of Zwingli’s chief arguments against a corporeal presence in the Eucharist and to support his symbolic reading of “This is my body,” relied on christological premises that the bodily presence of Christ was removed from the earthly sphere of existence by the ascension. He first put forth this argument in On the Lord’s Supper, wherein he articulated the first three elements of the extra Calvinisticum. First, Jesus Christ maintained an existence extra carnem during his earthly ministry, through his unity with the Father and the divine attribute of omnipresence. Second, after the ascension, Christ’s human body exists in a spatially limited way in heaven, which Zwingli supports through many passages of Scripture that discuss Christ going away from his disciples and considerations of the two natures. Third, Christ’s presence with his church in the time between the first and second comings is through his divine nature and power, although Zwingli does not demonstrate the pneumatological understanding of Christ’s continued presence emphasized in later Reformed thought. This early articulation of the extra Calvinisticum predates Luther’s argument for the ubiquity of Christ’s human body. Yet, at this stage of Zwingli’s development, he had yet to make full use of the language of “person,” which left him open to criticism for failure to account properly for the unity of Christ. In Friendly Exegesis, Zwingli completes the exposition of the extra Calvinisticum. Through his attempt to refute Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity and justify his own understanding of the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli makes use

76  The Flesh of the Word of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum and the rhetorical tools of alloiosis to account more fully for the unity of Christ’s person even while making clear distinctions between the natures. He thereby fulfills the fourth criterion of the extra Calvinisticum: that communicatio idiomatum within the hypostatic union terminates on the person of Christ, therefore excluding a sharing of properties between the divine and human natures themselves. Having established that Zwingli argues for the extra Calvinisticum within the eucharistic debate itself, in the following chapter I will demonstrate how these doctrinal issues contributed to the parting of ways between the German and Swiss reformers at the Marburg Colloquy, discuss Zwingli’s final works, and present the ongoing development of the doctrine after Zwingli’s death up to the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549.

2 The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy to the Consensus Tigurinus 2.1 Introduction As the eucharistic conflict emerged between the Lutheran and Swiss branches of the Reformation in the 1520s, a greater divergence on the understanding of Christ’s person also manifested. Zwingli’s position that Christ’s human body was no longer present in the earthly realm and therefore could not be corporeally present at the Lord’s Table opened up a chasm between the reforming camps. Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity, that Christ’s human body was in fact present not only at the Lord’s Table but everywhere, further widened this gulf. In this chapter I trace the development of this dispute through Zwingli’s later career to his immediate successors and show how the arguments for the extra developed within and alongside the dispute over eucharistic presence. We will begin with Zwingli’s later christology both at the Marburg Colloquy and in his final confessional works, Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, and then turn to the extra’s reception in the emerging Reformed tradition up to the Consensus Tigurinus (1549). Reflection on the Marburg Colloquy will offer an opportunity to elucidate the deeper theological disagreement over the extra Calvinisticum between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions that will mark their polemic throughout the sixteenth century and beyond. The debate at the historic meeting between Luther and Zwingli reveals the deeper currents of difference between the two reformers surrounding the conceptual framework underpinning the extra Calvinisticum. Zwingli and Luther’s positions stem from different understandings of the use of reason in theology. This methodological conflict issues into contrasting views of the locatability and finitude of Christ’s human body. In his later christology, Zwingli further develops the extra by incorporating both conciliar christology and an/​enhypostasis understanding of Christ’s person—​that the human nature of Christ subsists

The Flesh of the Word. K.J. Drake, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.003.0003

78  The Flesh of the Word only in the hypostasis of the eternal Son. These alterations further solidify the unity of Christ’s person in Zwingli’s thought. In the final section of the chapter I investigate the proliferation of the concept of the extra Calvinisticum in the nascent Reformed tradition through analysis of the early christology of Bullinger, Calvin’s use of the extra in the 1536 Institutes of the Christian Religion, and their agreement on the Eucharist, the Consensus Tigurinus. Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor at Zürich, carried forth Zwingli’s christological project in his An Orthodox Assertion of the Two Natures of Christ (1534). This work is the first Reformed treatise dedicated to christology wherein Bullinger develops Zwingli’s christology in response to not only Lutheran polemics but also christological errors from the radical wing of the Reformation. Calvin makes use of the extra in his first edition of the Institutes as a christological touchstone to avoid various eucharistic errors. In the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549, Bullinger and Calvin come to a compromise position on the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and in the process solidify the extra Calvinisticum as a unifying doctrine between Zürich and Geneva, thereby securing its place as a foundational element of the Reformed tradition. This dénouement between Geneva and Zürich would reignite the fervor of Lutheran theologians, initiating the so-​ called second eucharistic debate, which will be discussed in the next chapter.

2.2  The Marburg Colloquy 2.2.1  The Marburg Colloquy, Politics, and the Parting of Ways The Marburg Colloquy has come to symbolize the discord within Protestantism, which has marked it from its earliest days. At this historic event Luther and Zwingli would meet for the first and last time, and the eucharistic controversy, which had been fomenting for five years, would be set as a defining boundary between the Reformed and Lutheran strands of the Reformation. The colloquy was an attempt to heal the theological divide between the reform movements in the Swiss Confederation and the Holy Roman Empire to clear the way for a Protestant alliance against the forces of international Roman Catholicism that threatened it. As early as 1524 alliances had been forming among the various evangelical factions within the Holy Roman Empire, with the Torgau League in 1524 and the Magdeburg

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  79 League of 1525, which included both Philip, Landgrave of Hesse and John Elector of Saxony.1 After the Second Diet of Speyer, in March 1529, and the protest act, which would lend its name to half of the Western church, the situation in the empire changed and the need for a larger pan-​Protestant alliance grew more desperate. As William Wright comments, “The security of the Protestants seemed gravely threatened again, by the emperor as well as by Catholic princes.”2 Philip of Hesse was optimistic about the possibility of accord because to him the issue was primarily a disagreement over words. According to Wright, Philip had two main goals for the colloquy, namely, “the establishment of a pan-​Protestant alliance” and “the recognition of Christian brotherhood among all Protestants, with an end to the Sacramentarian controversy.”3 Luther, on the other hand, had theological misgivings about the prospect of a political alliance for the sake of the gospel at this time: In May 1529 he [Luther] argued that God has always condemned such alliances in the Old Testament. But the most vexing problem with an alliance such as Philip was proposing, one without a common confession, was that it would necessitate allying with the enemies of God. Such an act, the reformer wrote, would grant these enemies of God aid to the detriment of souls.4

Zwingli was not opposed to an alliance with the German Protestants, but the matter was in the hands of the Zürich Council. He did not, however, find the possibility of rapprochement likely.5 Luther’s reluctance and Zwingli’s pessimism were warranted. Despite the various political needs of the period, Luther and Zwingli would not be

1 William J. Wright, “Philip of Hesse’s Vision of Protestant Unity and the Marburg Colloquy,” in Pietas et Societas: New Trends in Reformation Social History Essays in Memory of Harold J. Grimm, ed. Kyle C. Sessions and Phillip N. Bebb, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 4 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1985), 164. For more background on the colloquy, see Wright, “Philip of Hesse’s Vision of Protestant Unity and the Marburg Colloquy”; Martin Lehman, “Introduction to The Marburg Colloquy and The Marburg Articles,” in Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament IV, ed. Martin Lehman and Helmut T. Lehmann, 55 vols. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971), 38:5–​14; George Richard Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 316–​20; Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1959), 187–​215. 2 Wright, “Philip of Hesse’s Vision of Protestant Unity and the Marburg Colloquy,” 164. 3 Wright, “Philip of Hesse’s Vision of Protestant Unity and the Marburg Colloquy,” 163. 4 Wright, “Philip of Hesse’s Vision of Protestant Unity and the Marburg Colloquy,” 170. 5 Potter, Zwingli, 320.

80  The Flesh of the Word swayed by circumstance. The decisive factor in this debate was theological and intellectual, and neither Luther nor Zwingli would be content with mere verbal agreement. Heiko Oberman states: Whatever further significance may and must be attached to the event Marburg 1529, i.e. the eucharistic debate between Luther and Zwingli, stands out as the example of the irreducible impact of intellectual history. The divisive nature of the discord cannot be contested:  notwithstanding all the political pressures and economic interests involved, the Protestant leaders did not compromise or yield to the obvious need for establishing a united front.6

Oberman draws our attention to the theological stakes at the colloquy; while both Luther and Zwingli felt the need for mutual protection in the face of mounting Catholic opposition, neither was willing to compromise the essence of Christian theology, which both thought was in the balance. For this study of the extra Calvinisticum, the Marburg Colloquy reveals the growing divergence between the emerging wings of Protestantism. The root of this divergence is found in the opposing theological methods of Luther and Zwingli. Each side at the colloquy exhibited a differing view of the place of reason in the theological endeavor, which led to different criteria for true statements about Christ’s presence in the eucharistic elements and consequently the constitution of his human body. For Luther, reason is not a reliable tool for understanding Christ’s humanity, and revelation does not require reason for its interpretation and should not be made to conform to it. Zwingli, on the other hand, while not a rationalist, as some critics have claimed, understood reason as an auxiliary tool for the interpretation of Scripture along with the theological tradition. Particularly, he argues that with respect to Christ’s human nature and body reason can be a reliable guide to understanding its qualities, unless revelation specifies otherwise. This divergence in theological method drives Luther’s and Zwingli’s opposing doctrines of the extra Calvinisticum and ubiquity. Related to the place of reason in theological method at the colloquy, Zwingli’s and Luther’s understandings of the body of Christ take center stage, with Luther arguing that Christ’s body can be simultaneously 6 Heiko A.  Oberman, “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna:  Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 463.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  81 everywhere—​in the eucharistic elements and in heaven. Zwingli counters that this conception of Christ’s body goes against the scriptural and patristic testimony, removes him from our common understanding of humanity, and compromises the reality of the incarnation and, therefore, salvation. For Zwingli, the only way adequately to account for the human body of Christ requires the extra Calvinisticum. The debate over the Eucharist and the spatial locality of Christ’s human body brings to the fore God’s omnipotence, developing brief arguments presented in Luther’s previous works against Zwingli. According to Luther, by his omnipotence God may make a body to be in two places at once or even in no place at all; God is not limited by the nature of created realities. Against this, Zwingli argues that, considered in the abstract, God may have this power, but this does not entail that God has, in fact, done this, nor does Luther properly take into account the distinction between God’s potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata. This debate over omnipotence suggests, following Oberman, that the division between the Lutheran and Reformed understandings of the body of Christ and the extra Calvinisticum have medieval roots in the division between the via antiqua and the via moderna. According to Luther’s wishes and over the objections of Zwingli, no official record of the colloquy was made.7 Several participants took notes or recorded lengthy recollections after the event. Because of this, seven partial reports of the colloquy have come down to us.8 Various historians have used these sources to reconstruct the debate.9 The most extensive of these reconstructions is the work of Walter Köhler.10 Hermann Sasse, who makes use of these sources and the reconstruction of Köhler, has produced the most accessible English reconstruction, which will be used here.11 The Marburg Colloquy was held from Friday, October 1, 1531, through Monday, October 4, with Philip of Hesse presiding over the debate as moderator. Preliminary discussions occurred on Friday between the major 7 Lehman, “Introduction to The Marburg Colloquy and The Marburg Articles,” 10. 8 These accounts can be found in translation in LW 38.15–​85 and critical editions in WA 30.III. For an evaluation of these sources, see George John Beto, “The Marburg Colloquy of 1529: A Textual Study,” Concordia Theological Monthly 16, no. 2 (February 1945):  73–​94; Walther Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger Eger & Sievers, 1929); Sasse, This Is My Body, 220–​23; Lehman, “Introduction to The Marburg Colloquy and The Marburg Articles,” 11–​12. 9 Sasse, This Is My Body, 222–​23. 10 Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch. 11 Sasse, This Is My Body, 223–​68. I have used Sasse’s reconstruction because of its accessibility. All citations from these sources will also be supplied from Köhler’s reconstruction, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, which is the standard edition within the literature.

82  The Flesh of the Word representatives of the Wittenberg and the Swiss delegations—​Luther with Oecolampadius and Zwingli with Philip Melanchthon. The main debate took place in four sessions held on Saturday and Sunday. During the debate itself representatives of each party—​Luther with occasional assists from Melanchthon for the Wittenbergers and Zwingli and Oecolampadius for the Swiss—​traded arguments in an attempt to find a pathway for concord. Final negotiations took place Sunday evening with the signing of the Marburg Articles the following day. Although the debate ended in an impasse, at the behest of Philip of Hesse Luther proposed fifteen articles for agreement.12 The gathered parties were able to agree on fourteen of them. Although the Marburg Articles present a unified, public face to the colloquy, the division runs deep, to the level of theological method. Each party maintained its original view on the fifteenth point regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. All parties could reject transubstantiation and agree to the status of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrament ordained by God and the need for communion in both kinds. Additionally, they even affirm that the Holy Spirit may “excite to faith” by the Supper and that spiritual feeding was necessary for all Christians, although whether this is achieved through the sacrament is ambiguous.13 The Marburg Articles and the colloquy bring the separation between Zwingli and Luther on christology into sharper relief. Luther, Zwingli, and their respective parties were deadlocked regarding the nature of Christ’s presence: “We have not reached an agreement as to whether the true body and blood of Christ are bodily present in the bread and wine.”14 Despite this continued disagreement the Articles called for “each side to show Christian love to the other side insofar as conscience will permit.”15 Some scholars have praised the Articles as a real step toward unity. For instance, the nineteenth-​ century Reformation historian Merle d’Aubigne declares that the Articles represent the “first bulwark erected in common by the reformers against Rome.”16 Most other scholars, however, have seen the agreement reached as 12 Sasse notes that a misprint occurred in the WA, which resulted in only fourteen articles. This was corrected in later editions; however, Beto follows this numbering. Sasse, This Is My Body, 268n112; Beto, “The Marburg Colloquy of 1529,” 91–​93. 13 LW 38.88 14 LW 38.88. 15 LW 38.88. 16 Merle J. H. d’Aubigné, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vols. 1–​5, trans. Henry White, Religious Heritage Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), 535. See also Owen Chadwick’s claims: “The Swiss proposed that they agree to disagree—​they could be Christians in full communion with each other and yet hold different doctrines on the sacrament. The Lutherans said that this was not possible. But otherwise they agreed on common articles of faith. Hence the Marburg

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  83 paper-​thin. Potter notes, “[T]‌he difference was wider than it might seem, an unbridgeable gap of highest import for the future.”17 This can be seen in the articles regarding the person of Christ, not so much for what is confessed but for the lack of specificity on any point of debate offered at the colloquy.

2.2.2  Scripture and Reason at Marburg Luther opened the colloquy’s first session on an inauspicious note, which anticipated the ultimate outcome of the debate. According to Luther, more than enough had been written on the subject of the Supper, and his position was “absolutely firm.”18 After outlining the main issues before the gathered representatives, Luther set forth his understanding of the Swiss theologian’s rationale: “As to the Lord’s Supper, your fundamental principles are these: (1) You want to prove your case by way of logical conclusions; (2) you hold that a body cannot be in two places at the same time, and you put forward the argument that a body cannot be without limitation; (3) you appeal to natural human reason.”19 Luther recognized that the determining factor of the disagreement was christological and the understanding of how human reason relates to theological thinking either as a model of argument or an authority. This departure in theological method would underlie the argumentative strategies of both Luther and the Swiss delegations. The main point of contention was the use of reason in relation to interpreting Scripture, specifically the phrase “This is my body,” and its implication for understanding Christ’s body. These competing strategies undergirded Zwingli’s articulation of the extra juxtaposed with Luther’s espousal of ubiquity. From the opening arguments, Luther’s position is intractable:  “This is my body,” which Luther cites at least twenty-​one times in the course of the debate, can only be understood as a statement of Christ’s corporeal presence in the elements. Addressing Philip of Hesse, Luther states, “I beg Your

Colloquy did not do the harm which used to be attributed to it. There was a confession of an evangelical faith.” Owen Chadwick, The Early Reformation on the Continent, The Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 237. 17 Potter, Zwingli, 329. 18 Sasse, This Is My Body, 229. “Felsenfest” (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 7). 19 Sasse, This Is My Body, 231. Eure Fundamente seind diese: Ihr wollet schlüsslich beweisen: ein Leib kann nicht an zwei Orten sein, und bringet Argumente vom unbegrenzten Leib vor. Ihr weiset auf die natürliche Bernunft (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 8).

84  The Flesh of the Word Highness’s pardon, but the words ‘This is my body’ have captured me. Even if Augustine or any other doctor would interpret the words symbolically, they should take place behind Christ and accept His interpretation.”20 For Luther, “This is my body” need not be interpreted as the quotation shows. It comes with the interpretation of Christ himself built in: “This bread is my bodily presence.” The four sessions of the colloquy had no obvious effect on Luther’s position, as he states firmly at the end of the final session, “I do not know of any other means but to give honor to the Word of God and to believe with us. I remain in my faith and I cannot give in.”21 Luther’s commitment to these words comes from his understanding of the nature of theology and reason. He declares late in the debate, “Every article of faith is a principle in itself and does not need to be proved by another.”22 According to Bernhard Lohse, Luther held that “reason cannot grasp trinitarian doctrine, the doctrine of the two natures, or the presence of Christ in the Supper. These as well as other doctrines can only be grasped by faith; reason can merely ‘think after’ them.”23 Reason needs to be enlightened by the work of the Holy Spirit to grasp the meaning of Scripture in these areas of Christian theology.24 For Luther, the affirmation of corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist stands on its own, proved by Spirit-​enabled understanding and not reason or systematic theological principles. For Luther, the Swiss refusal to agree with his doctrine can only be the result of their lack of spiritual enlightenment. This is illustrated by two comments at the close of session 4; Luther tells Zwingli and Oecolampadius to “ask God that you may be enlightened” and rebuffs Bucer’s parting desire for recognition as Christian brothers with the words, “It is quite obvious that we do not have the same Spirit.”25 For Luther, the colloquy was not about the interpretation of “This is my body” but a test of obedience and faith for

20 Sasse, This Is My Body, 236. Verzeihet, gnädiger Fürft und Herr! Jene Worte, “das ist mein Leib” halten mich gefangen. Und wenn Augustin oder andere Lehrer wollen “die Zeichen auch deutten, so sollen sie hinder Christum tretten und deutten, wie ers deuttet” (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 12). 21 Sasse, This Is My Body, 264. “Ich weiss kein ander Mittel, denn dass sie Gottes Wort die Ehre geben und glauben mits uns.” Ich bleib bei meinem Glauben und kann nicht weichen (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 37). 22 Sasse, This Is My Body, 261. Jeder Glaubensartikel ist sich selbst Prinzip und bedarf nicht des Beweises durch einen anderen (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 34). 23 Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 204. 24 Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology,  203–​5. 25 Sasse, This Is My Body, 264, 265. “Bittet Gott,” dass Ihr zur Einsicht kommet. . . . sonder ist offenbar, dass wir nicht einerlei Geist haben (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 37, 38).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  85 the Swiss and South Germans. Would they hold to the word of God or the machinations of human reason? Luther did not come to the colloquy to persuade but to proclaim. He was clear on where he stood: “If we continued our discussion for a hundred years, still nothing would be proved. If you can do away with the text, I am satisfied.”26 The chief strategy of Zwingli and Oecolampadius at Marburg was to demonstrate that Luther’s reading of “This is my body” was neither necessary nor consonant with other scriptural texts. Zwingli and Oecolampadius argued that the phrase must be interpreted by what Zwingli called the collation of Scripture. By this method, unclear and apparently contradictory text must be compared with other clear passages regarding the same subject. This comparison must be done with special care to the use of metaphorical and tropic language to avoid positing contradictions. The Swiss argued that Luther’s literal reading of the words of institution caused difficulties when compared with other teachings of Scripture, which resulted in contradictions; therefore, Luther’s reading was to be rejected in favor of interpreting the text as a trope. The Swiss had already used this method of argumentation against Catholic opponents during disputations at Zürich and Berne, and now attempted to assault Luther’s position with it.27 In his initial argument against Luther, Zwingli set forth his method of collation of Scripture in Friendly Exegesis; to understand the argumentative strategy of the Swiss at Marburg it is helpful to backtrack to his description. Zwingli comments, “There are countless passages in both testaments which at first sight present the greatest diversity and the greatest opposition to each other, but when you compare them properly and without partisan bias, there is nothing more harmonious or plainer. The passage under discussion [‘This is my body’] is one of these.”28 Zwingli bases his understanding of the collation of Scripture on the presence of apparent contradictions and difficulties within the Bible and his overarching commitment to the impossibility of its

26 Sasse, This Is My Body, 237. Wenn wir hundert Jahre lang mit einander stritten, es wird michts bewiesen. Schafft mir den Text heraus so bin ich zufrieden (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 13). 27 Irena Backus, “The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528:  Neutralizing the Early Church,” Studies in Reformed Theology and History 1, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 80–​82. 28 Ulrich Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis, That Is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, ed. H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, trans. H.  Wayne Pipkin (Eugene, OR:  Pickwick, 1984), 2.337. Infiniti sunt in utroque instrumento loci, qui prima specie antinomiam ac diversitatem summam prę se ferunt; sed iidem, dum recte et absque factionis studio conferuntur, nihil est illis concordius ac planius. Ex quibus hic noster unus est (Z V 701.23–​27).

86  The Flesh of the Word falsehood. He holds that God accommodates the truth of the Scriptures in line with human language and tropes. Therefore the theologian must properly account for this accommodation to avoid absurdities.29 It is not as if any text can be collated with any other; rather the interpreter must seek proper comparisons that exhibit similarity or difference with reference to the same event, doctrine, or article of faith.30 For the question of the Lord’s Supper this entails comparison with other passages or doctrines that refer the relationship of believers to Christ’s flesh as well as the nature and current state of Christ’s body. This is not merely a rational or rhetorical hermeneutic. Zwingli affirmed the centrality of the Spirit’s illumination and faith for interpreting the Bible: “Scripture is to be interpreted only under the lead and guidance of faith or anointing [of the Spirit], there is yet no one who cannot by the aid of hypocrisy make a show of faith.”31 Therefore, to avoid false interpretation one must in faith and bowing to the Spirit use proper interpretive method, which requires the ancillary of reason, to avoid attributing absurdities. For “if you assign to the Spirit what is not consistent with Scripture, you will introduce a confused and fanatical wonderment and make a mess of everything.”32 At the end of Friendly Exegesis, Zwingli sums up his method of argument against Luther as the collation of Scripture: “We do not rest on cunning, but now that, by reconciling apparent inconsistencies, collating Scriptures, we have brought things to the point that, whether one will or no, one is forced to admit that the words in question cannot have the simple meaning they present at first sight.”33 At Marburg, Oecolampadius and Zwingli attempted to do the same thing. 29 “That after the human tongue began, by means of tropes and figures and varieties of expression, to season its speech with sweet smelling spices, or paint it with varying hues, as it were, then the divine Goodness (which everywhere babbles to us like parents to their infants, and uses our own language), condescended in talking with us, to use our own tropes and figures.” Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 350. Quod posteaquam humanum os coepit tropis, figuris ac locutionibus orationem veluti odoribus aut pigmentis condere et variegare, divinam quoque bonitatem (quae ubique parentum instar nobiscum balbutit linguaque nostra loquitur) huc sese demisisse, ut et ipsa nobiscum loquens tropis ac schęmatismis nostris uteretur (Z V 729.27–​730.4). 30 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 352. 31 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 353. Quandoquidem fide sive unctione magistra ac pręitore constat scripturam unice esse interpretandam, attamen nemo est, qui fidem hypocriseos artificio non possit ostentare (Z V 733.29–​31). 32 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 354. Et contra, si spiritu quidquam tradas, quod scripturę non est conforme, confusaneo fanaticoque stupore omnia miscebis (Z V 734.12–​14). 33 Zwingli, “Friendly Exegesis,” 361–​62. Non enim nitimur arte, sed posteaquam ex scripturae contradictione et collatione argumentisque ex eadem scriptura petitis rem huc adegimus, ut velit, nolit confiteri cogatur haec verba simplicem ac prima fronte sese offerentem sensum habere nequire (Z V 745.23–​26).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  87 In his opening remarks before the colloquy, Oecolampadius concisely offers the Swiss argumentative strategy, which seeks to demonstrate by collation of Scripture that “This is my body” should be understood in a figural sense. Luther set the criteria for debate in his first speech, declaring that all must acquiesce to the Word of God and not resort to human reasoning: “I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as e.g., that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics.”34 Luther therefore places the burden of proof on Oecolampadius and Zwingli to show with “a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say.”35 Oecolampadius is eager to do so and states in his opening remarks, “I am not desirous of appealing to reason or geometry—​I do not deny the power of God—​but possessing the sum total of faith, I speak by that.”36 His case has two key planks: John 6:63, “the flesh profits nothing,” and Christ’s bodily ascension into heaven: It is the sixth chapter of St. John that explains the other passages of Scripture. There Christ (When speaking of His flesh) does not speak of a local presence. He even says “The flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:63). . . . For Christ is risen (and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; consequently His body is not here on earth).37

Throughout the exchange, Zwingli and Oecolampadius will return again and again to these points and employ the logic of the extra Calvinisticum, which rest for them not on human reason but the interpretation of the Word of God, as the alternative to Luther’s doctrine. The divergence in the theological method in the argumentative strategies of Luther and the Swiss can be clearly illustrated by the flow of the argument in the first session of the colloquy, in which the Swiss repeatedly bring the debate to the collation of Scripture and Luther remains dogged in his

34 Sasse, This Is My Body, 231, italics in original. Fleischliche Beweise, geometrische Argumente verwerse ich gänzlich. . . . Gott ist über alle Mathematik (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 9). 35 Sasse, This Is My Body, 231. Ich bitte also um “ein bestendige Beweisung” aus heiliger Schrift (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 9). 36 Sasse, This Is My Body, 232. Nicht will ich aus der Vernunft oder aus der Geometrie heraus sprechen—​dem göttlichen Vermögen widerspreche ich nicht—​sondern dieweil ich des Glaubens Summe besitze, rede ich aus ihr (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 9). 37 Sasse, This Is My Body, 232. Das 6. Kapitel Johannis erkläret die übrigen Schriftstellen. Christus redet dort nicht von lokaler Präsenz. ‘Das Fleisch ist nichts nütze!’ sagt er.  .  .  . Denn Christus ist auferstanden, und sitzet zur Rechten des Vaters, also ist er nicht im Brote (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 9).

88  The Flesh of the Word understanding of “This is my body.” According to Oecolampadius, Luther proposes a bodily eating (manducatio corporalis), which has no use when the spiritual eating (manducatio spiritualis) is granted—​that is, faith in Christ’s death manifest in the soul. This is what the “profits nothing” of John 6:63 means. For the Swiss, this text does not refer to the Lord’s Supper per se but shows the error of seeking bodily presence, which was the error of the Jewish crowd in the text, when the point is eating Christ spiritually—​that is, having faith in his body slain. Therefore, by the collation of John 6:63 with “This is my body” one arrives at a spiritual rather than bodily eating. Luther rejects this, saying that “it is not our business to judge whether it is useful or not.”38 It is not for human reason to pass judgment on the words, merely to obey them, whatever they may be. According to Luther, “[I]‌f He ordered me to eat dung, I would do it. Let not the servant inquire about the will of his Lord. We ought to close our eyes.”39 Luther’s recourse to what seems to amount to fideism annoys both Zwingli and Oecolampadius. At this point in the debate, the latter exclaims with a clear hint of exasperation, “Doctor, where is it written that we should go through the Scriptures with closed eyes?”40 Zwingli pushes the critique further by arguing that Luther is working from “prejudice” or a prejudgment of the meaning of a text in the face of any contrary evidence, and Zwingli rhetorically ties this to the “prejudice” of the heretic Helvidius, “who denied that Jesus was the only son of Mary because Scripture speaks clearly of ‘brothers.’ ”41 According to Zwingli, this was the error of failing properly to collate Scripture and clarify potentially ambiguous passages with clearer ones.42 Zwingli redoubles the use of John 6:63, and while he agrees that this does not prove that one must take “This is my body” in a figurative sense, it leads “us away from bodily eating.”43

38 Sasse, This Is My Body, 236. Darnach forsche ich nicht, ob es notwendig sei oder nicht, dazu sind wir nicht da (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 13). 39 Sasse, This Is My Body, 237. Wenn Er mir gebieten würde, Mist zu essen, ich würde es tun, da ich genugsam weiss: es ist mir heilsam. Der Knecht grüble nich über den Willen seines Herrn. Man muss Augen schliessen (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 13). 40 Sasse, This Is My Body, 237. Wo stehet geschrieben, dass wir mit geschlossenen Augen in der Schrift wandeln sollen, Herr Doctor? (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 13). 41 Sasse, This Is My Body, 237. Der leugnete, dass nur Jesus der Sohn der Maria sei, weil ganz klar geschrieben stehe:  Da, sprachen seine Brüder zu ihm (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 13–​14). 42 There is a certain irony in Zwingli’s argument here, considering later Protestantism’s stance toward Mary’s perpetual virginity. 43 Sasse, This Is My Body, 238. Dass Er verführt von leiblicher Niessung (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 14).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  89 To bolster the appeal to John 6:63, Zwingli advances several arguments against a corporeal eating. He argues by collation of Scripture that est can mean significat. Also, Zwingli argues that the ascension of Christ renders the bodily presence impossible: “ ‘Me ye have not always’ Christ says in John 12:8, thus excluding a bodily presence.”44 Luther rejects all this: “I do not discuss the ‘is,’ but I am satisfied that Christ says it.”45 Zwingli accuses Luther of begging the question, or petitio principii.46 Luther rejects Zwingli’s argument and any application of John 6 to the matter at hand, claiming the burden of proof is with Zwingli: “The obligation to prove rests on you, not on me. But we will let that text in John 6 go, since it has no bearing on the understanding of the words of the Lord’s Supper.”47 With comments such as this, the inability of the Swiss strategy to move Luther and the ultimate futility of the colloquy’s debate is clear. Luther does not engage with the Swiss argument from John 6, which relies on collation to show that although Christ is not speaking of the Eucharist in this text, he is referencing corporeal eating and rejecting it. Zwingli sees Luther making the same error as the crowds in John 6 who misunderstand the call to faith in Christ come-​in-​the-​flesh for a literal eating of his flesh. Luther’s flippant rejection of the use of John 6:63 frustrates Zwingli to the point of incivility. As his key prooftext is dismissed entirely at the end of the morning session, Zwingli asserts almost in desperation, “And yet it can be proved that John 6 speaks of bodily eating.” Luther tersely replies, “Your logic is very poor.” Zwingli exclaims, “No, that passage will break your neck.” At this point he apologizes for speaking coarsely in an expression of his people, and Philip of Hesse asks Luther to accept the apology and move on.48 Thus ends the morning session of the first day of the colloquy. Unfortunately, this first session sums up the exegetical discussion of the whole debate. Throughout the colloquy the divergent methodologies of the Swiss and the Wittenbergers make their rapprochement impossible. Luther is firmly ensconced in a tower built out of obedience to Christ’s words “This is by body.” Nothing will bring him out or knock it down. And if one agrees with 44 Sasse, This Is My Body, 241. “Ich werde nicht sichtbar bei Euch sein,” sagt Christus, also ist er auch nicht im Nachtmahl leiblich (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 16). 45 Sasse, This Is My Body, 242. Ich disputier nicht um’s “ist,” sondern bin zufrieden, dass Christus es sagt (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 18). 46 Sasse, This Is My Body, 243; Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 18. 47 Sasse, This Is My Body, 243. Eure Sache ist’s zu beweisen, nicht meine. Doch lassen wir das, es dienet nicht zur Sache (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 19). 48 Sasse, This Is My Body, 244; Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch,  19–​20.

90  The Flesh of the Word Luther, one can applaud his commitment to the Word of God and his full-​ hearted devotion. Zwingli and Oecolampadius array all the weapons at their disposal to break down Luther’s fortifications, but to no apparent avail. They muster collation of Scripture, rhetorical analysis and the nature of tropes, the ascension of Christ, the spatial location of Christ’s human body, and the tool of logic. But Luther declares that all these arguments are unable to overturn the single statement “This is my body.” The fundamental impasse between the two sides is over reason as it applies to theology and Christ specifically. This disagreement is in line with the conclusion of Lee Palmer Wandel, who argues, “Marburg was a watershed, let me suggest, not because evangelicals disagreed over a theological point, but because the two sides were mutually incomprehensible: the very conceptual categories each took up to articulate his understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist—​each side’s physics and metaphysics—​were, for the other, unintelligible.”49 In the following section, we will see how this divergence played out and contributed to the opposing doctrines of Christ’s body after the ascension.

2.2.3  The Ascension of Christ’s Circumscribed Body Having set forth the methodological divide between Luther and the Swiss, let us turn to the place of the extra Calvinisticum proper in the argumentation at Marburg. In the second session, held Saturday evening, attention turns to the finitude and locality of Christ’s human body. The Swiss seek to destabilize Luther’s claim that “This is my body” requires a corporeal presence in the Eucharist. Zwingli and Oecolampadius use the extra to demonstrate the inadequacy of Luther’s position that requires a corporeal presence in the eucharistic elements and to offer an alternative case. They argue that because the body of Christ is like unto humanity in every way, sin only excepted, it is therefore spatially finite and locatable. Therefore, as a result of his bodily ascension into heaven he cannot be locally, and therefore corporeally, at the Lord’s Table. In the course of this argument, Zwingli and Oecolampadius advance the previous arguments for the extra by reflecting on the finitude of human nature, appealing to the eschatological correspondence between

49 Lee Palmer Wandel, “The Body of Christ at Marburg, 1529,” in Image and Imagination of the Religious Self in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Reindert Falkenburg, Walter S. Melion and Todd M. Richardson (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2007), 197.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  91 Christ’s body and that of the risen saints, enlisting the support of Augustine on the nature of a body and rejecting an appeal to divine omnipotence. Oecolampadius and Luther trade texts over the ascension and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Oecolampadius’s goal is to establish that there is an insurmountable difficulty if one holds that the body of Christ is both in heaven and at the Lord’s Table. Citing John 16:28, where Christ speaks of “leaving the world,” Oecolampadius argues, “This passage excludes the presence from the Lord’s Supper and compels us to admit a trope in the words of institution.”50 He buttresses this point by claiming that if the body of Christ is in heaven and at the Table, then “our hope of resurrection corresponding to the resurrection of Christ is destroyed.”51 Although he does not elaborate, his argument seems to be that the hope of resurrection rests on humanity attaining bodies like unto Christ’s resurrection body. If his resurrection body is ubiquitous, something possible for Christ only, according to Luther, because of the hypostatic union of the divine and the human natures in Christ, then any claim that humanity will be like him is destroyed because we are not united to divinity in like manner. Therefore, based on the eschatological likeness of the glorified body of Christ and the glorified body of the saints, the spatial locality of Christ’s body must be maintained. Otherwise, one has introduced a fundamental dissimilarity between the two, thus destroying the hope of resurrection. Luther retorts that looking at the risen body in the sacrament does not destroy but establishes this hope. Frustration in the room seems to grow at this point as Luther responds: It annoys you that I always stick to the words “This is my body.” I am not doing this without consideration. I confess that the body is in heaven, but I also confess that it is in the Sacrament. I desire to stick to these words that Christ is in heaven and that He is in the Sacrament. I do not ask what is against nature, but only what is against faith.52 50 Sasse, This Is My Body, 249. Diese Stelle schliesst die Gegenwart des Leibes Christi im Nachtmahl aus und zwingt, in den Worten des Herrn den Tropus zuzulassen (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 25). 51 Sasse, This Is My Body, 250. Dass unsere Hoffunge auf die Auferstehung dahinfällt und uns genommen wird, wenn wir das Brot Christi Leib sein lassen (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 25). 52 Sasse, This Is My Body, 250. Es störet Euch, dass ich immer an den Worten hänge: “Das ist mein Leib.” Das geschieht mit Grund. Mir genügt das, beweist Ihr dar Eurige. Ich bekenne mich zu Christus im Himmel, bekenne mich aber auch zu Christus im Sakramente. Ich will an jenen Worten hängen, das Christus im Himmel und im Abendmahl sei. Was gegen die Natur ist, kümmert mich nicht, wenn es nur nicht gegen den Glauben ist (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 25).

92  The Flesh of the Word The methodological tensions issue into differing conceptualities of Christ’s body itself; for Zwingli and Oecolampadius Christ’s body is natural, while Luther rejects consideration of nature. The theological method of each party accounts for this difference. The Swiss focus on the scriptural assertion of Christ’s body as like unto the rest of humanity, which therefore authorizes the application of natural categories to it. Luther sees such an application as rationalism and is content to affirm Christ in heaven and at the Table without explication. The Swiss refuse to accept such a multilocal position and push Luther to offer an account of Christ’s presence. Despite Luther’s rebuttal, Oecolampadius continues in his case that Christ’s human nature is finite by citing Christ’s words in Matthew 26:11—​ “The poor you will have with you always but you will not always have me”—​ and explains this statement with a summary of the extra: According to His divinity, grace, and power Christ is present to all always and everywhere. If, however, He speaks of His absence, then necessarily He will be absent as far as His humanity is concerned. Thus in the Supper He cannot be present bodily. He has become “in all things like . . . unto his brethren” (Heb 2:17). As He is of one substance with the Father according to His divinity, so He is of one substance with us according to His humanity. What we are agreed on is that Christ is present in heaven (according to His divinity and humanity) and in the Supper (according to his divinity).53

This argument is based on the scriptural testimony that in some sense Christ is not with his people always. In what sense is that? Since Christ is understood through the hypostatic union of the two natures, the same substance of the omnipresent Father and the full substance of finite humans, this absence must be reckoned properly of the human nature. Luther states, “[This is the] best argument you have put forward today. It sounds fairly plausible.” Nevertheless, he rejects Oecolampadius’s interpretation of the absence spoken of in Matthew 26:11. For Luther it is an absence of visibility but not of bodily presence.54 53 Sasse, This Is My Body, 251–​52. Daraus folgt:  nach der Gottheit, Gnade und seiner Macht ist Christus immer und überall allen gegenwärtig. Wenn er aber sagt, er werde abwesend sein, so muss er nach seiner Menschheit abwesend sein. Ist er aber nach der Menschheit abwesend, so kann er nicht leiblich im Nachtmahl sein. Christus ist uns in allen Stücken ähnlich geworden; wie er nach der Gottheit gleichen Wesens mit dem Vater ist, so nach der Menschheit gleichen Wesens mit uns. Darin sind wir eins: Christus ist praesent, wie im Himmel, so im Nachtmahl (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 26). 54 Sasse, This Is My Body, 252; Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch,  26–​27.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  93 Zwingli tags into the debate at this point and supports Oecolampadius’s argument that Christ’s body is in heaven with an argument from Scripture and with support from the church fathers. He introduces five scriptural passages to support the finitude of the humanity of Christ and its likeness to our human flesh (Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:6ff.; Heb. 2:17, 4:15; 1 Cor. 15:28): I will not allow these passages to be passed over. They show that the humanity of Jesus was finite like ours. “If Christ’s body is above, it must be in one place,” as Augustine says, supported by Fulgentius. Luther, however, makes it to be everywhere (ubique) as something infinite (infinitum). As our body is in one place, so also His body cannot be in two places, or as our bodies, after having been transformed into His image, would be without a place or in several places simultaneously.55

Zwingli combines many arguments in this small quotation. First, he argues from Scripture establishing that Christ’s body is the same as the rest of humanity, sin only excepted, and that the resurrection body of believers is made after the likeness of Christ’s resurrected flesh. Zwingli is appealing to the whole course of Christ’s ministry, from the incarnation to his final coming and judgment of the world at the final resurrection. By so doing he establishes the permanence and consistency of Christ’s true human nature. Zwingli supports this contention with a citation of Augustine and invocation of Fulgentius. This appeal to the fathers attempts to establish that this doctrine is not an innovation but has grounds in the earlier tradition.56 He is also driving a wedge between this tradition and Luther, who is introducing an innovation with the doctrine of ubiquity. Zwingli cites Augustine’s Letter to Dardanus to support his claim that a body cannot be except in a place:  “Augustine says again, ‘Take away space from bodies, and you will

55 Sasse, This Is My Body, 255. Ich lasse es dabei nicht bewenden, die Worte anzuführen. “Ist Christi Leib droben, so muss er auch an einem Orte sein,” sagt Augustin. Wenn Christi Leib an verschiedenen Orten ist und wir ihm ähnlich werden müssen, so müssten auch unsere Körper gleichzeitig an mehreren und verschiedenen Orten sein. Wenn er allenthalben uns ählich ist, auch in unserer Gestalt erfunden wurde, und wir nicht an verschiedenen Orten sein Konnen, so kann er es auch nicht, eben weil er uns ähnlich ist. Wir bringen nichts Neues vor, Augustin, Fulgentius denken wie wir. Luther sagt, Christi Leib sei überall, also etwas Unbegrenztes. Christi Leib ist an einem Orte und kann nicht an vielen Orten sein (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 29). 56 For Zwingli’s use of the church fathers see Irena Backus, “Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer and the Church Fathers,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2:627–​60.

94  The Flesh of the Word have taken away the bodies.’ ”57 This is a significant step in the argument for Zwingli because as the debate progresses, he and Oecolampadius will push Luther to define in what sense regarding locality Christ’s body is present in the elements. Zwingli supports his contention that Christ’s body must exist locally by drawing on the human experience of embodiment to the nature of Christ’s embodiment. The grounding for this move is based on the scriptural citations given. If Christ is in the “likeness of sinful flesh,” in “the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man” and “like unto his brethren,” then by looking at the constitution of our own flesh we can make valid inferences about his flesh, insofar as the sinful nature of humanity is accounted for. Therefore, if human bodies have the property of being in a place and are finite, and this is not a result of sin but the very condition of humanness, then it is proper to understand Christ’s humanity as sharing these properties. If our body cannot be in more than one place, then neither can his, not because of any lack on his part but because of his gracious condescension to take up our humanity. Zwingli further prohibits Luther’s claim that the preservation of properties applies only to the pre-​resurrected body of Christ by arguing that the likeness of Christ to human flesh is maintained into the eschatological future, elaborating on the argument made formerly by Oecolampadius. Zwingli builds on the logic of 1 Corinthians 15:48; humanity is to be made unto the likeness of the resurrected Christ. But if the resurrected body of Christ is everywhere, then the resurrected bodies of believers will likewise share this quality “after having been transformed into His image.” According to Zwingli, the result would be bodies “without a place or in several places simultaneously.”58 Zwingli has already established from Augustine and common experience of human embodiment that such “bodies” would not be bodies at all. Luther rebuffs Zwingli’s argument for the spatial locality of Christ’s human body as based on faulty reasoning. According to him, Zwingli has failed to reason properly and has committed the fallacy of argumentum ab accidente ad substantiam, an argument from the accidental qualities of a thing to conclusions regarding its substance.59 Luther’s rebuttal has power only if the 57 Sasse, This Is My Body, 258–​59. Sasse does not give the citation for this passage from Augustine. This text comes from the “Letter to Dardanus,” PL 33:839. See translation of this letter in Augustine, Letters 156–​210:  Epistulae II, trans. John E. Rotelle (New  York:  New City Press, 2004), 232–​50. Augustin sagt weiter: “nimm den Körpern die räumliche Umgrenztheit, so sind es keine Köper mehr” (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 32). 58 Sasse, This Is My Body, 255. Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 29. 59 Sasse, This Is My Body, 255; Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 29.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  95 locality of the human body is conceived of as an accidental property of humanity rather than as essential to its substance. The property of being in any particular place is certainly an accidental property. Luther misses the force of Zwingli’s argument because it is not that Christ is in any particular place that is essential, but that the human body must be in a place at all, that is, to be spatially localized or locatable. For instance, the property of being in Marburg or Wittenberg is not essential to any human body yet being at/​in some place rather than no place seems to be. Zwingli indicates this in his response where he focuses on the word morphe in Philippians 2. “The word ‘morphe’ in Philippians 2 has these two meanings (divine infinite form, and human finite form). Christ is finite as we are finite.”60 It is not accidental for the form of a servant to be finite, but rather this is one of the distinguishing characteristics between the divine morphe and the human morphe. Zwingli returns to this point at the opening of the third session to further support this claim: “The words ‘morphe’ (form) and ‘schema’ (fashion) indicate that the body of Christ must occupy a certain space and exist locally.” By nature, Christ’s body must be locatable; if this locatability is removed, the form itself is destroyed. In response to the argument of the Swiss, Luther supports the locality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist with an appeal to omnipotence. Luther’s christological position at Marburg is determined by his reading of the words of institution, which by his understanding teach a corporeal and substantial presence, even if he is unclear whether this presence is local or not. “I am bound and held captive by the words of the Lord, spoken at the institution, and therefore cannot accede to your opinion on the basis of your remarks. The words ‘This is my body’ prove that the body of Christ can be in many places simultaneously. For these words prove the presence of the body in the bread.”61 According to Luther, confessing that Christ is both present in heaven and at the Lord’s Table is simply obedience to Christ’s words. For Luther, the corporeal presence, as we have seen, is beyond the bounds of human reason and need not be substantiated from other texts, because it is a principle of the faith in its own right and “every article of faith is a principle

60 Sasse, This Is My Body, 256. Μορφὴ im Philipperbriefe bedeutet beides, begrenzte und unbegrenzte Gestalt. Christus ist begrenzt, wie wir begrenzt sind (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 30). 61 Sasse, This Is My Body, 260. Ich bleibe gefangen und gebunden in diese Worte des Herrn und kann daher um Eurer Glossen willen Eurer Meinung nicht beitreten. “Das ist mein Leib,” damit ist bewiesen, dass Christi Leib an vielen Orten sein kann (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 34).

96  The Flesh of the Word in itself and does not need to be proved by another.”62 If Luther is correct, then the texts that Zwingli and Oecolampadius marshal in defense of reading “This is my body” as a trope—​texts mentioning the ascension or that Christ will not always be with his people—​could sooner bear a figural reading than the words of institution.63 Throughout the colloquy, Luther shows little interest in determining how the body of Christ can be present in the elements. It is enough for him that it is present without explanation. He cares little for how this is possible, resting it on God’s omnipotence rather than any consideration of physics (mathematics): I do not want to hear mathematical distinctions in this connection. For God, as the Aristotelian philosophers also admit, can cause one body to be either in one place only, or in several places at the same time, or outside of every place, or He is even able to bring it about that several bodies are simultaneously in one place.64

Luther claims that even if one brings physics into the discussion, divine omnipotence allows more options for a bodily presence with reference to locality than the Swiss acknowledge. To understand Luther’s claim here and the course of the Marburg debate, it is necessary briefly to set forth the medieval scholastic understanding of how a thing can be present. This medieval conception underlies Luther’s claim that a body can exist in one place (locally), in more than one place (multilocally), outside of place (illocally), or in the same place as another body (colocally). According to the medieval scholastic tradition, a thing can be in a place in three ways:  locally, definitively (illocally), and repletively.65 Each mode 62 Sasse, This Is My Body, 261. Jeder Glaubensartikel ist sich selbst Prinzip und bedarf nicht des Beweises durch einen anderen (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 34). 63 “If you make a trope out of the words of the Lord’s Supper, why not make one out of ‘He ascended into heaven’ Mark 16:19?” Sasse, This Is My Body, 243, see also 249. Wenn Ihr hier, beim Abendmahl, einen Tropus setzt, warum nicht hier bei den Worten:, “Er ist ausgestiegen gen Himmel”? (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 18). 64 Sasse, This Is My Body, 251. Mathematische Harspaltereien will ich hier nicht hören. Gott—​das geben sogar die Aristoteliker zu—​kann machen, dass ein Körper nur an einem Orte oder an mehreren Orten zugleich oder ganz ausserhalb jeden Ortes ist, und dass zugleich mehrere Körper an einem Orte sich befinden (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 26). 65 For a more thorough discussion of these difference modes of presence, see Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:  Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 238–​43; Heiko A.Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 462; Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ in Its Physical, Ethical and Official Aspects (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1895), 91n3.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  97 presupposes an Aristotelian conception of place, which can described as a container or receptacle view: “That is what place is: the first unchangeable limit of that which surrounds.”66 The place of a thing is thus determined by something that bounds it. The first way a thing could be in a place according to medieval scholastic conception corresponds exactly to this definition and is known as local or circumscribed presence. In this sense a body occupies a space in all of its parts and is denoted by a definite physical boundary, like water in a vase. This is the mode of presence of all normal physical objects. The second mode of presence can be labeled definitive or illocal presence. Richard Muller defines this mode as “the mode of presence characteristic of an immaterial but finite being, which by its nature is not confined dimensionally to a given locus, or place, but which in its power and operations is nevertheless delimited or defined.”67 This is the mode of presence of angels and the human soul.68 Medieval theologians also attribute this mode of presence to Christ’s body on the altar.69 The final mode of presence applies only to God, who is present wholly in all places yet contained by none, which is labeled “repletive presence.” Although these categories are not used with precision at Marburg, they represent the conceptual background for much of the debate over locality. Luther wavers between affirming that the body is present illocally and refusing to come down on this question one way or another. Because God is all-​powerful and not bound by physics (mathematics) he can make Christ present in an illocal manner. As Luther claims, “God is higher than all mathematicians. Christ can keep His body without space at a certain place. He is in the Sacrament (but) not as in a place.”70 To support the possibility of this and

66 Aristotle’s Physics, 212a20–​21, citied in Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place:  A Philosophical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 55. For a fuller discussion of Aristotle’s view, see 50–​71. See also the extended discussion of this concepts in Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976); Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarnation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). 67 Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 241–​42. 68 For how this idea of definitive presence was formed in the Middle Ages through reflection on angelic nature, see David Keck, Angels and Angelology in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 109–​12; Richard Cross, “Angelic Time and Motion: Bonaventure to Duns Scotus,” in A Companion to Angels in Medieval Philosophy, ed. Tobias Hoffmann (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 117–​47; Martin Lenz and Isabel Iribarren, eds., Angels in Medieval Philosophical Inquiry: Their Function and Significance (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 20012), part 4. 69 Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 275–​77. 70 Sasse, This Is My Body, 255, emphasis in original. Gott ist über alle Mathematiker, Christus kann seinen Leib ohne Ort wie an einem Ort halten. Er ist Abendmahl nicht wie an einem Orte (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 29–​30).

98  The Flesh of the Word reject Zwingli’s appeal to Augustine on this question, Luther alludes to the distinction from the scholastics: The schoolmen have held that one body can be in many places, or many bodies in one place, or that a body can be in no place at all. They say that God can do the same with all bodies, let alone the body of Christ. Who am I to measure the power of God? He maintains the largest organism existing, the universe, without space [a place]. Therefore the world does not have a place where it exists.71

For Luther, the presence of Christ at the Table need not lead to a contradiction, as the Swiss maintain, since these various options for presence are possible given the divine power. He supports this idea with the example of the universe itself, which is a body but is not in a place, since according to the Aristotelian concept of place it lacks any other thing to bound it. Ultimately, even if it were possible for him to specify in what manner Christ is bodily present, Luther finds it of little importance. As he said at the beginning of the debate, he prefers to obey God’s word rather than to speculate on what has not been revealed through faith: “I leave it to God whether or not the body of Christ is in a place (in loco). For me this is enough: ‘This is my body.’ ”72 Oecolampadius and Zwingli seem to concede the point that by his omnipotence God may be able to make a body in more than a single place. Yet, turning the table on Luther, they demand a scriptural text be given that shows that God in fact does do this; otherwise one is merely reasoning from the possible to the actual: “God certainly can make it possible for one body to be in different places at the same time. We, however, demand proof that He does so in the Lord’s Supper.”73 Pressing this point further Zwingli declares, “I have proved that Christ was in one place. It is up to you to prove that he 71 Sasse, This Is My Body, 258. Dass ein Körper an vielen Orten sein kann, umgekehrt viele Körper an einem Ort, ebenso ein Körper überhaupt an keinem Ort, dass Gott solches mit allen Leibern machen kann, von Christi Leib gar nicht zu reden, sagen auch die Scholastiker, das will ich nicht leugnen. Wer bin ich, dass ich Gottes Macht messen wollte? Den grossen Leib der Welt “enhält Gott ohn ein Statt, darum hat die Welt kein Statt, darin sie ist” (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 32). For this distinction in the medieval via moderna see Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 462. For more on the influence of the via moderna on Luther in this debate, see Oberman, “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna.” 72 Sasse, This Is My Body, 261. “Gott geb, er seh in loco oder nicht,” das überlasse ich Gott. Mir genügt: “Das ist mein Leib” (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 34). 73 Sasse, This Is My Body, 256. Gewiss kann Gott einen Leib an verschiedenen Orten sein lassen, aber dass er das im Abendmahl tut, dafür verlangen wir den Beweis (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 30).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  99 is in no place or in many places.”74 Luther retorts, “[W]‌e do not owe you a proof.”75 Zwingli redoubles his demand, claiming one should teach no doctrine without supplying support from Scripture. At this point the debate reaches at least its narrative climax as Luther pulls back the tablecloth to reveal hoc est corpus meum scrawled upon the table. Luther proclaims, “This is our Scripture passage. You have not yet taken it from us, as you promised to do. ‘This is my body’—​I cannot pass over the text of my Lord Jesus Christ, but I must confess and believe that the body of Christ is there.”76 In the fourth session, Luther expresses exasperation over the discussion of whether Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist as in a place, but in doing so he fails to understand the purpose behind the argument of the Swiss theologians: “I am wondering why we quarrel about the ‘place,’ it being agreed by the whole of Christendom that God can exist outside of space or in a specific place.”77 This is the only evidence in the debate of Luther’s understanding of the communicatio idiomatum, which would allow the question of the omnipresence of God as repletive presence to resolve the question over whether Christ’s human body was in a place. For Luther, the quality of repletive presence is shared with the human nature, which therefore funds whatever sort of presence Christ’s body has on the Table, whether local or illocal. Nevertheless, it seems that Luther is failing to see the essence of the debate. Neither Oecolampadius nor Zwingli denied that Christ’s divinity transcends spatiality. Rather, the question at hand was the implications of Luther’s claim that Christ is present “substantially” and corporeally in the elements of the Table and therefore exists in many places via ubiquity. Luther assumes that he can appeal to divine omnipresence as if it proved ubiquity of Christ’s human body and a real and necessary sharing of attributes between Christ’s natures. For the Swiss, however, this very move is the question that must be resolved.

74 Sasse, This Is My Body, 257. Ich hab bewiesen, dass Christus an einer Stat ist gewesen; beweiset Ihr herwiederum, dass er gar an keiner oder aber an vielen Steten sei (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 31). 75 Sasse, This Is My Body, 257. Das seid Ihr schuldig zu tun, und nicht Beweisung von uns fordern, denn wir find Euch keine schuldig (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 31). 76 Sasse, This Is My Body, 257. Allhie stehet unser Schrift. Die habt Ihr uns noch nicht abgedrungen, wie Ihr Euch erboten habt, wir bedrürfen keiner andern. Meine allerliebsten Herrn, dieweil der Text meines Herrn Jesu Christi alba stehet: Hoc est Corpus meum, so kan ich warlich nicht füruber, sondern muss bekennen und gleuben, dass der Leib Christi da sei (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 31). 77 Sasse, This Is My Body, 262. Wir wundern uns aber, warum wir über den Ort streiten, wo es doch feststeht und von der ganzen Christenheit angenommen ist, dass Gott ausserhalb von Ort und Raum existieren kann (Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 35).

100  The Flesh of the Word Zwingli and Oecolampadius press Luther to be consistent with regard to how he articulates Christ’s eucharistic presence. Based on the appeal to Augustine and Fulgentius, Oecolampadius argues that if the body is in the Supper “not as in a place,” as Luther claimed, then “the body of Christ is not really in the Sacraments ‘somatikos’ ” or corporeally because this would necessarily entail placeness.78 This argument reveals that for the Swiss the question is not bodies in general but the nature of a human body. All human bodies we have experienced exist only locally. Luther’s appeals to the universe as a body existing illocally and the definitive presence of angelic bodies and human souls are irrelevant to the discussion. Luther seeks to maintain an illocal, human corporeal presence, which is a contradiction or special pleading. Zwingli and Oecolampadius argue that Luther’s reading of the words of institution, far from securing the humanity of Christ as he hopes, renders Christ’s body not a body at all. Wandel argues similarly: For Luther, it was inconceivable for God to have taken on a human body, in other words, precisely because that body was bonded, materially finite. . . . Christ’s body was not the same as the human body. God took on a body which looked like a human body, but was different, materially different. Physics might apply to human bodies, but not to Christ’s.79

Therefore, according to the Swiss, Luther’s understanding of “This is my body” leads to deeper theological problems, which should force a figurative reading of the text to bring it in line with other passages of Scripture and Christian doctrine. Their alternative to this “nonlocal” presence of the body in the elements is a local presence of Christ’s body in heaven, which can be in only one place, while maintaining his continued presence according to his divinity everywhere—​the extra Calvinisticum. At the Marburg Colloquy, the arguments for the extra broaden from what we have seen in Zwingli’s earlier works through additional scriptural and theological arguments as well as support from the Christian tradition. Zwingli and Oecolampadius use the extra to demonstrate the inadequacy of Luther’s position, which requires a corporeal presence in the eucharistic elements and to offer an alternative case. They argue that because the body of Christ is like unto humanity in every way, sin only excepted, it is therefore

78 Sasse, This Is My Body, 262; Köhler, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch, 35. 79 Wandel, “The Body of Christ at Marburg,” 201.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  101 spatially finite and locatable. Therefore, as a result of his bodily ascension into heaven he cannot be locally, and therefore corporeally, at the Lord’s Table. In the course of this argument, Zwingli and Oecolampadius advance the previous arguments for the extra by reflecting on the finitude of human nature, appealing to the eschatological similarity between Christ’s body and that of the saints, enlisting the support of Augustine on the nature of a body, and rejecting an appeal to divine omnipotence. In the final analysis we could compare the two sides at the Colloquy of Marburg as follows: Luther presents a christology that is determined by his understanding of the sacraments; Zwingli offers a doctrine of the sacraments determined by his christology. The division is deeper than the question of the Eucharist alone, since it involves competing views of God, humanity, and Christ’s hypostatic union. These divergent conceptualities will be perpetuated within the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

2.3  Zwingli’s Late Christology: Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio Zwingli’s christology and his doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum are most fully expressed in the two confessional works written in the final year of his life: Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio. Owing to the similar confessional structure, audience, and time period of these works, they will be treated together. The treatment will be organized around the latter because of its clearer structure and greater attention to issues surrounding the extra. Fidei Ratio was Zwingli’s response to the calling of the Diet of Augsburg in the summer of 1530, in which he attempted to set forth his faith to Emperor Charles V. After having received from allies an outline of Luther’s confession presented at the Diet, which became the Augsburg Confession, Zwingli thought it prudent to set forth his own faith and that of his Zürich compatriots, so it might gain a hearing before the emperor and collected dignitaries. Zwingli wrote the Fidei Expositio to Francis I of France at the urging of the French ambassador Lambert Maigret.80 Francis was entertaining the

80 Ulrich Zwingli, “Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio ad regem Christianum,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. Emil Egli and Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum, 93.5 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), 6.5:50–​163, hereafter Z VI.5.

102  The Flesh of the Word possibility of an alliance with the Swiss against Emperor Charles V.81 There is no evidence, however, that the king paid any attention to this work, which lay buried in the Royal Library in Paris.82 Despite its failure to sway discourse or events, “it remains the author’s last, and not least impressive, apology,” as Potter notes.83 Bullinger later published the work in 1536 along with the First Helvetic Confession. According to Bullinger, in Fidei Expositio Zwingli “sang a sort of swan-​song upon the true faith when near his death.”84 In these later works, Zwingli presents the fruit of his career as a reformer, theologian, and pastor, written in a form not primarily concerned with doctrinal controversy. In Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, he sets forth his comprehensive and positive understanding of the Christian faith. He builds on his previous arguments for the extra and refines the doctrine. Zwingli argues for his understanding of the extra Calvinisticum based on the nature of Christ’s atoning work to be the mediator pro nobis. In order for this to be the case, Christ must be truly human and truly divine: if he is not truly divine, God is not truly for us; if he is not truly man, God is not truly for us. The eternal Son takes on a true human nature as the instrument by which the saving mercy and justice of God is both enacted and exhibited. For Zwingli, any deviation from the veracity of humanity would compromise this salvation, the gospel, and the Christian religion itself. In these final two confessional works, Zwingli reasons from the nature of God and the human sinful condition and need for salvation to his understanding of the incarnation. In Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, he grounds the incarnation on the soteriological purposes of God and his understanding of the essence of the Christian religion. Only the Creator, who is eternal, infinite, and uncreated, is to be trusted and worshipped. These qualities cannot be given to or ascribed properly to the creature without elevating it to divine status, which is blasphemous. The absolute nature of the Creator-​creature distinction is not abandoned with the incarnation and stands at the basis of Zwingli’s understanding of the Christian faith. “This is the fountainhead of my religion, to recognize God as the uncreated Creator of all things, who solely and alone has all things in his power and freely gives us all things. They, 81 James T. Dennison Jr., “Introduction to Fidei Expositio,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:176. 82 Potter, Zwingli, 396. 83 Potter, Zwingli, 396. 84 Heinrich Bullinger, “Preface to Exposition of the Christian Faith,” in On Providence and Other Essays, ed. Willian John Hinke, trans. Henry Preble (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983), 236.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  103 therefore, overthrow this first foundation of faith, who attribute to the creature what is the Creator’s alone.”85 The difference between the Creator and the creature is absolute for Zwingli, and honor, worship, and the act of salvation are proper of God alone. This theocentric tenor motivated Zwingli’s thought; however, far from annulling the importance of the humanity of Christ, Zwingli’s doctrine of God solidifies its necessity. Since humanity has rebelled against the Creator and he desires, out of his goodness, to save them, the true God must become a true man. Zwingli uses the Anselmic logic of satisfaction to explain why the incarnation was needed, which continues to ground his doctrine of Christ in his final works.86 He understands the purpose of the incarnation is to bring about the salvation of humanity through the sacrifice of the incarnate one who is mediator, through death, while at the same time preserving the nature of the divine, which is unique and unchanging, and the nature of the humanity of Christ, which must be truly and fully human. Further, the human nature of Christ secures the pro nobis quality of God since it was for this purpose only that human flesh was assumed: “For what he took on for our sake was derived from us, so that he is wholly ours.87 Therefore, for Zwingli nothing less is at stake in the incarnation than the very question of human salvation and the inviolability of God’s nature and character; only the one who is simultaneously truly God and truly man will suffice. The extra is an outworking of this understanding of the necessity of the God-​man for the purpose of salvation. As truly God, Christ transcends spatial reality, and as truly human he takes on the complete and unaltered condition of human particularity, including spatial circumscription. Anything less for Zwingli would compromise the nature of the incarnation, the nature of God, and the pro nobis quality of redemption. This emphasis is constant from Zwingli’s earlier writings. The foundational theologic of the extra Calvinisticum in Zwingli’s thought is neither the divine nor the human nature but Jesus Christ, the God-​man, as mediator, and this emphasis remains consistent from his earliest works to the 85 Huldrych Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. S. M. Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:180–​81. Hic est religionis nostrę fons, ut deum agnoscamus esse, qui increatus creator rerum omnium est, quod ille unus ac solus omnia habet, gratis donat, quodque primum hoc fidei fundamentum evertunt, quicumque creaturę tribuunt, quod solius creatoris est (Z VI.5 61.3–​7). 86 For a discussion of the Anselmic nature of Zwingli’s soteriology in Fidei Ratio, see Gottfried Wilhelm Locher, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives, trans. Milton Aylor and Stuart Casson, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 165. 87 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 186. Nam quod propter nos adsumpsit, de nostro est, ut totus noster sit (Z VI.5 140.14–​141.1).

104  The Flesh of the Word end of his career. From his earliest reforming work until the end of his life Zwingli’s christology is determined by his understanding of soteriology. In his final works, Zwingli grounds his doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum on a sophisticated understanding of the hypostatic union. In Fidei Ratio, after a brief confession of the Trinity according to the Nicene Creed and the Quinque vult, Zwingli produces the most systematic exposition of Christ’s two natures in his oeuvre. From his earlier christology through to Friendly Exegesis, Zwingli’s understanding and articulation of the hypostatic union developed to remove the early Nestorian tendency with his incorporation of “person” language in place of a vague unity between Christ’s natures. At the end of his life, he further specifies the nature of the hypostatic union through greater reflection on the person of the hypostatic union as the personhood of the eternal Logos. He begins with a statement regarding the reality and scope of the human nature, consisting in body and soul, and in fact the “whole man.”88 The whole human nature is united to the person of the eternal Son in one hypostasis. This is done in such a way that the whole human nature is united to the person of the eternal Son but not so as to constitute a new or other person, “but this in such a manner, that the whole man was so assumed into the unity of the hypostasis or person of the Son of God, that the man did not constitute a separate person, but was assumed into the inseparable, indivisible and indissoluble person of the Son of God.”89 As we have seen, one of the oft-​made critiques of Zwingli’s christology is that he separates the natures so much that it devolves into Nestorianism, especially regarding his concept of the extra.90 To avoid this accusation, Zwingli here expresses the unity of the natures first, rather than the distinctiveness, and guards against the charge of Nestorianism with the concept of the anhypostasia-​enhypostasia distinction, in concept if not in word. He expresses the same idea in Fidei Expositio along with an appeal to the general counsel of the church fathers:

88 Huldrych Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. S. M. Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:114; Z VI.5 792.18. 89 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 114. Id autem hoc modo, ut totus ille homo in unitatem hypostaseos sive personę, filii dei, sic sit adsumptus, ut peculiarem personam homo non constituerit, sed adsumptus sit ad filii dei personam inseperabilem, indivisibilem et indissociabilem (Z VI.5 793.2–​5). 90 See for examples of these claims, E. M. Henning, “The Architectonics of Faith: Metalogic and Metaphor in Zwingli’s Doctrine of the Eucharist,” Renaissance and Reformation/​Renaissance et Réforme 10, no. 4 (1986): 357n80; Joar Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism, REFO500 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 88; Brian Lugioyo, “Martin Luther’s Eucharistic Christology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Christology, ed. Francesca Aran Murphy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 278.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  105 He took up human nature into the unity of the hypostasis or person of the Son of God, not as if the humanity taken on were a separate person, and the eternal divinity were also a separate person. The person of the eternal Son of God assumed humanity into and by virtue of its own power, as holy men of God have truly and clearly shown.91

To follow Zwingli’s thought here, I will briefly discuss the historical background of this christological concept, the possible sources for it in his thought, and its implication for the doctrine of the extra within his theology. The origins of the formulation and the concept of the anhypostasia-​ enhypostasia are disputed. Scholars attribute the formal articulation of the distinction to Protestant scholastics while also finding the idea in post-​ Chalcedonian fathers; however, the historical formation of this distinction need not detain us.92 At its most basic articulation, the an/​enhypostasia distinction attempts to express the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ’s one person. In the union of natures there is one person. The divine nature has prior personal existence; therefore, the human nature cannot have personal existence apart from the Logos, and the human nature subsists within the hypostasis of the Logos. G. C. Berkouwer states the distinction clearly: “With ‘anhypostasy’ is meant that the human nature of Christ cannot exist for a moment outside the Logos, while ‘enhypostasy’ indicates that the reality of the human nature is concretely that of the acting Lord.”93 This definition is not intended to detract from the reality of the perfection of the human nature of Christ. Rather, the distinction seeks to affirm that in no sense does or could the human nature of Christ exist apart from the personal existence of the Logos to which it is united, and in that sense the human nature is impersonal, considered in itself.94 It is not an abstract divine nature that assumes 91 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 2008, 183. Adsumpsit autem humanam naturam in unitatem hypostaseos sive personę filii dei; non quasi homo adsumptus peculiaris persona et ęterna divinitas quoque persona peculiaris sit, sed quod persona ęterni filii dei in et ad unitatem suam hominem adsumpserit, quemadmodum sancti dei homines vere et clare demonstrarunt (Z VI.5 68.1–​6). 92 F. LeRon Shults, “A Dubious Christological Formula from Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth,” Theological Studies 57, no. 3 (September 1, 1996):  431–​46; Uwe Michael Lang, “Anhypostatos-​ Enhypostatos: Church Fathers, Protestant Orthodoxy and Karl Barth,” Journal of Theological Studies 49 (October 1, 1998):  630–​57; Matthias Göckel, “A Dubious Christological Formula? Leontius of Byzantium and the Anhypostasis-​Enhypostasis Theory,” Journal of Theological Studies 51, no. 2 (October 2000): 515–​32. 93 G.  C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1954), 308. 94 Ivor Davidson, “Theologizing the Human Jesus:  An Ancient (and Modern) Approach to Christology Reassessed,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 3, no. 2 (July 2001): 129–​53; Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 72–​89.

106  The Flesh of the Word flesh but the eternal Son himself. With the addition of this concept, Zwingli’s christology arrives at its most mature form. Zwingli has moved beyond the vague notion of “one Christ” expressed in The Commentary on True and False Religion and further specified the nature of the “hypostatic” language he appeals to in Friendly Exegesis. The source for Zwingli’s use of the anhypostasia-​enhypostaia concept in his latter christology is unclear, but several possibilities exist. U. M. Lang has indicated that Zwingli might have taken this concept from John of Damascus, whom he studied throughout his career.95 Another possible source for the concept in Zwingli’s work could be the via antiqua, particularly Duns Scotus, in which he was trained and continued to engage throughout his life. Matthias Göckel has argued that the enhypostasis concept was already clear in the work of Aquinas, while Richard Cross has demonstrated its place in the thought of Scotus.96 In another work, Cross has claimed that the concept of the enhypostasis was widespread if not universal in medieval scholasticism.97 Zwingli’s use of the concept does not seem specific enough to draw a clear line of influence. Whatever its source, we see from the inclusion of the enhypostasis of the human nature in these later confessional works that Zwingli’s understanding of christology grew in sophistication over his career as he continued to engage with the Christian tradition. One benefit of this development was his offering of a firmer and more rigorous doctrine of Christ’s hypostatic union, which more securely grounds both his concept of the communicatio idiomatum and the extra Calvinisticum in the unity of Christ’s natures. In Fidei Ratio, after establishing the unity of the two natures in the one person of the eternal Son, Zwingli discusses the crucial distinction that is maintained even in the hypostatic union. Following the Chalcedonian Decree, Zwingli characterizes this unity as one in which the particular characteristics of each nature remain intact:

95 Lang, “Anhypostatos-​Enhypostatos,” 655; Alfred Schindler, “Zwingli als Leser von Johannes Damascenus,” in Auctoritas Patrum: Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993), 185–​95. 96 For the concept in Thomas Aquinas, see Göckel, “A Dubious Christological Formula?,” 526–​ 27; for Scotus, see Richard Cross, Duns Scotus, Great Medieval Thinkers (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1999), 117–​21. For the Scotian influence on Zwingli’s thought, see Daniel Bolliger, Infiniti Contemplatio:  Grundzüge der Scotus-​und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 97 Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 245n26.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  107 And, although both natures, the divine and the human, have so preserved their character and peculiarity that both are truly and naturally found in Him, yet the distinct peculiarities and activities of the natures do not separate the unity of the person any more than in man soul and body constitute two persons.98

This retention of distinct properties does not compromise the unity of the person, according to Zwingli, any more than acknowledgment of different qualities between the human soul and body results in two persons.99 As an example he uses an image of the effects on the soul and body when one is stabbed. A sword wounds the body but can in no way harm the immaterial soul. Each in this case is behaving according to its peculiar properties. It is a quality of a body to be wounded by martial attack and of the soul, owing to it immateriality, to be immune from such attacks. Yet, we still understand that the person as a whole is injured. Nevertheless, one does not agree that the sword wounds the soul.100 Zwingli uses this analogy to support his contention that neither the integrity of each nature with its peculiar properties nor the acknowledgment of this in our manner of speaking and interpreting Scripture results in a separation of Christ into two persons. Zwingli also enumerates the properties and works proper to the character of each nature while unified in the same person: Hence one and the same Christ, according to the character of the human nature, cries in infancy, grows, increases in wisdom [Luke 2:52], hungers, thirsts, eats, drinks, is warm, is cold, is scourged, sweats, is wounded, is cruelly slain, fears, is sad and endures what else pertains to the penalty and punishment of sin, though from sin itself He is most remote.101

Zwingli pushes into the full humanity of Christ in all of its earthly emotion and weakness. Christ bears a human nature that is, for Zwingli, exactly as 98 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 114. Quamvis autem utraque natura, divina videlicet et humana, ingenium ac proprietatem suam sic servaverit, ut utraque in illo vere et naturaliter esse deprehendatur, adhuc tamen naturarum distinctae proprietates et opera personae unitatem non dissociant. Non magis quam in homine animus et caro duas personas constituunt, (Z VI.5 793.5-​10). 99 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 183. 100 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 115. 101 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 115. Hinc unus et idem Christus pro humanae naturae ingenio vagit, incrementum capit, proficit sapientia, esurit, sitit, edit, bibit, aestuat, alget, vapulat, sudat, vulneratur, trucidatur, timet, tristatur et caetera, quae ad mulctam et poenam peccati attinent, fert; nam ab ipso peccato alienissimus est (Z VI. 5 793.17–​22).

108  The Flesh of the Word other humans possess, including the effects of sin on human existence, while remaining pure from its corruption.102 According to the divine nature, “with the Father He [Christ] controls the highest and the lowest [i.e., heaven and earth], he pervades, sustains and preserves all things, gives sight to the blind, restores the lame, calls to life the dead, prostrates His enemies with His word, when dead resumes life, ascends to heaven and sends from His home the Holy Spirit.”103 According to Zwingli, the divine nature is responsible for the upholding of the providential ordering of the world and the power behind the miracles seen in the earthly life. Here we see a much more trinitarian emphasis in Zwingli than he has hitherto presented, as the Son works in concert with the Father and the sending of the Spirit. Although these various peculiar acts are properly ascribed to the power of one nature or the other, Zwingli understands the agent of all these acts to be the same person, Jesus Christ: “All these things, however diverse in nature and character, the one and the same Christ does, remaining the one person of the Son of God.”104 While there are distinct qualities and acts that derive their source from one nature or the other, the active subject—​the “who” or “whose”—​is only the person of the eternal Son. This union of action of the eternal Son who has assumed the full human nature, therefore, is the ontological ground for the linguistic convention in Scripture whereby attributes of one nature are predicated of another.105 With the addition of the enhypostasis concept, Zwingli can better account for this diversity of properties within the unity of the hypostasis, which is the fundamental insight of the extra. The one eternal person who subsists in two natures, one eternally and necessarily and the other temporally and contingently, has a unified action even though certain acts are properly attributed 102 The extent to which Zwingli stresses the weakness and development of Christ’s human nature was not well received in his day and went beyond the mainstream Catholic theology of the period. Responding to this section of Fidei Ratio, John Eck accuses Zwingli of outright heresy: “But Zwingli consents to explicit heresy when he says here of our Lord Jesus Christ that He increased in wisdom, for which he has elsewhere as the reason that Christ is subject to limitation and measure in His human nature. But this is the heresy of Nestorius . . . hence this part of the Confession is to be absolutely rejected, since the whole Church admits that Christ even according to His human nature is omniscient.” John Eck, “Refutation of the Articles of Zwingli,” in On Providence and Other Essays, ed. Willian John Hinke, trans. Henry Preble (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983), 71. 103 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 115. Cum patre summa et ima temperat, omnia permeat, sustinet ac fovet, caecos illustrat, claudos restituit, mortuos evocat, hostes verbulo sternit, mortuus ipse vitam resumit, coelos petit, spiritum sanctum de suo mittit (Z VI.5 793.22–​25). 104 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 115. Et haec omnia unus idemque Christus, quantumvis natura ingenioque diversa facit, una dei filii persona manens (Z VI.5 793.22–​24). 105 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 115; Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 183. It is interesting to note that by the end of Zwingli’s career, while his doctrine has not changed with regard to predication, he has abandoned the use of the term alloiosis.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  109 to only one nature. Therefore, Christ qua person can simultaneously uphold the world by the word of his power and be a particular human agent within the world he upholds, without separation of personal action. Building on this understanding of Christ, Zwingli in both texts refutes Roman and Lutheran understandings of the Eucharist, which he argues compromise the integrity of the human nature.106 He begins with a statement of the presence of the “true body of Christ” in the Supper through “the contemplation of faith,” but denies “that the body of Christ in essence and really, i.e., the natural body itself, is either present in the supper or masticated with our mouth and teeth.”107 From this we can see the development of Zwingli’s view of the Supper from something like memorialism to a more sacramental view of Christ’s presence, in line with Barclay’s and Riggs’s assessment of Zwingli’s late period.108 This position is likewise expressed in Fidei Expositio: “The other thing which I have undertaken to set forth here is this—​that that natural, material body of Christ’s, in which he suffered here and now sits in heaven at the right hand of the Father, is not eaten literally and in its essence, but only spiritually, in the Lord’s Supper.”109 Zwingli articulates his understanding of the Supper from the foundation of the previous discussion of the nature of Christ’s person and the retention of peculiar properties. As he is bodily in heaven, he cannot be so in the Supper. This critique is largely aimed at the Roman concept of the Mass, but Zwingli quickly moves to reject the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature following much of the argument we saw earlier.110 Zwingli, charting familiar territory from the colloquy, quotes Jesus’s words to his disciples that “the poor you will have always with you; but me you will have not always” (John 12:8). From this text and building off of the christology presented earlier, Zwingli argues that only recognition of the peculiar properties of each nature and their operation within the one person can account for the dynamic of presence and absence implied in Christ’s words. 106 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126–​31; Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 184–​93. 107 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126. Coena verum Christi corpus adsit fidei contemplatione.  .  .  . Sed quod Christi corpus per essentiam et realiter, hoc est: corpus ipsum naturale, in cęna aut adsit aut ore dentibusque nostris manducatur (Z VI.5 806.7, 12–​13). 108 John W. Riggs, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 72–​73; Alexander Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: A Study in the Eucharistic Teaching of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie, 1927), 100–​103. 109 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 186. Alterum vero quod me hic expositurum recepi, hoc est, quod in coena domini naturale ac substantiale istud corpus Christi, quo et hic passus est et nunc in coelis ad dexteram patris sedet, non naturaliter atque per essentiam editur, sed spiritualiter tantum (Z VI.5 140.2–​5). 110 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126–​28; Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 186–​89.

110  The Flesh of the Word Christ could not be saying that he would not be with the disciples according to his divinity “for according to His divinity He is always present, because He is always everywhere.”111 Therefore this absence is with regard to the body of Christ, which according to the nature of human bodies is spatially circumscribed. If this spatial finitude is removed or compromised, as in the doctrine of ubiquity, humanity loses its stake in the incarnation. “For what he took on for our sake was derived from us, so that he is wholly ours.”112 Zwingli ties the understanding of Christ’s body to the human body of common experience. Owing that Christ took his flesh from his human mother so that he might be “wholly ours,” Zwingli asserts that the pro nobis nature of Christ is secured and established by his taking a true human nature without sin but with every other quality common to human existence. From the pro nobis quality of the incarnation, Zwingli draws two corollaries:  (1) “that the characteristics which are present in our body are also present in Christ’s body” and (2)  “that whatever there is in Christ’s body, that was corporeal, belongs also to our bodies.”113 One can therefore rightly move from an understanding of the qualities of human nature, as it is known through common human experience, to understand Christ’s humanity. The human nature of Christ is not something other or fundamentally beyond human understanding to any degree higher than normal human experience is a mystery. This is further tied to the pro nobis quality of Christ: “For if anything which has to do with the nature and character of the body were in his body but lacking to ours, he would seem to have assumed that not for our sake.”114 Therefore, Zwingli draws on his christological formulations of the hypostatic union and the communication of properties both to reject the concept of ubiquity and to establish the extra, which secures the pro nobis quality of Christ’s incarnation because he truly shares their bodily existence in all its aspects and does not abdicate this state. Contrary to his opponents’ claims, however, the limitation on Christ’s humanity does not compromise the unity of the person. “Neither is there any 111 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126. Nam secundum divinitatem semper adest, quia semper ubique est (Z VI.5 807.3–​4). 112 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 186. Nam quod propter nos adsumpsit, de nostro est, ut totus noster sit (Z VI.5 140.14–​141.1). 113 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 187. Unum quod hi modi, qui adsunt nostro corpori, Christi quoque corpori adsint; alterum quod, quicquid in Christi corpore est, quod ad corporis modum pertinet, nostrorum etiam sit corporum (Z VI.5 141.2–​4). 114 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 187. Nam si quicquam, quod ad corporis modum et proprietatem attinet, in illius esset corpore, quod nostro deesset, iam videretur istud non nostra causa adsumpsisse (Z VI.5 141.5–​7).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  111 foundation for the assertion of the opponents that the humanity of Christ is wherever the divinity is, otherwise the person is divided; for this would destroy Christ’s true humanity.”115 For Zwingli, the nature of the unity between the human and the divine nature is not a matter of place or spatial identity but in the personal union of the eternal Son, which he has established with the enhypostatic human nature. According to the peculiar properties of each, the divine nature is everywhere and the human nature is in a specific place. The Word who is encountered in his universal presence, after the incarnation, is the one who has assumed a full humanity, suffered, died, risen from the death, and is ascended. Zwingli buttresses this claim with a comparison to the Triune life. The dynamic of the human and divine natures in Christ “divides the person just as little as the Son’s assumption of humanity divides the unity of the divine essence.”116 Just as the unity of the Trinity is maintained although the eternal Son takes to himself a human nature while the Father and the Spirit remain without such a nature, so also the human and divine natures are unified even if difference in place is asserted on the level of human nature.117 Zwingli elaborates on the rejection of ubiquity and support for the extra by drawing on the eschatological uniformity of Christ’s body, the resurrection bodies of believers, and support from Augustine—​arguments he utilized at Marburg and expands here. The first point Zwingli takes from Paul’s discussion of the resurrection of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15: “But Paul’s reasoning has its strength in this that whatever Christ’s body has, as far as nature, endowment and characteristics of body are concerned, it has for us, as our archetype as it were, and it is ours.”118 Therefore, as Christ rose from the dead pro nobis, so Christians will rise likewise and be as he is. Because the human resurrected body is not everywhere, the body of Christ, which is the archetype of this resurrected state, is not everywhere. Zwingli appeals once again to Augustine for the locality of Christ’s body:

115 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126. Nec est, cur causentur adversarii humanitatem Christi esse, ubicunque est divinitas, alias dividi personam; nam id tolleret veram humanitatem Christi (Z VI.5 807.7–​9). 116 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126. Ita non dividit personam, sicut humanitatem adsumpsisse filium non dividit essentiae unitatem (Z VI. 5 807.11–​12). 117 Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” 126–​27. 118 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 187. Sed Pauli argumentatio cum hic robur habeat: Quicquid Christi corpus habet, quod ad modum, dotes et proprietatem corporis pertinet, nobis habet tanquam noster archetypus nostrumque est (Z VI.5 141.16–​19).

112  The Flesh of the Word From these sources drew Augustine, that pillar of theologians, when he said that Christ’s body must be in some particular place in heaven in virtue of its character as [a]‌real body. And again, “Christ’s body which rose from the dead must be in one place.” Christ’s body, therefore, is not in several places any more than our bodies are. And this view is not mine, but the apostle’s and Augustine’s and that of faith in general, which, though we had not witnesses to the fact, would suggest that Christ became in all things like ourselves.119

Zwingli is clear that he is drawing not from philosophic reason but from the Scriptures and the theologians of the church to make his claim: “I have never taught a single word that I have not drawn from the divine Scriptures or the holy theologians.”120 Whether or not one is convinced by Zwingli’s claim on the matter, here and elsewhere he makes plain his design and intent to avoid any sort of innovation or deviation from the Christian tradition normed by the Scriptures. In Fidei Expositio, Zwingli does move into a discussion of philosophical arguments against ubiquity, but only in an offhand way, saying to King Francis that he is discussing these arguments “if you should happen to come upon such.”121 The argument goes: For all the learned have condemned as exploded and impious the opinion which some have ventured to maintain that Christ’s body is just as much everywhere as his divinity. For it cannot be everywhere unless in virtue of being infinite in nature, and what is infinite is also eternal. Christ’s humanity is not eternal; therefore it is not infinite. If it is not infinite, it must be finite. If it is finite, it is not everywhere.122

119 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 187. Ex his fontibus hausit theologorum columen Augustinus, ut dixerit Christi corpus in aliquo coeli loco esse oportere propter veri corporis modum; et iterum: “Christi corpus, quod a mortuis resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet.” Non est igitur Christi corpus magis in pluribus locis quam nostra corpora, quę sententia non nostra est, sed apostoli, sed Augustini, sed ipsius omnino religionis, quę, etsi testibus destitueremur, suadet tamen Christum per omnia nobis similem esse factum (Z VI.5 141.21–​142.6). 120 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 187. Cum ne verbum quidem unquam docuerimus, quod non ex divinis aut literis aut theologis hauserimus (Z VI.5 142.10–​11). 121 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 188. Si quando in eam incideres (Z VI.5 143.7). 122 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 188. Nam docti omnes pro explosa et impia damnarunt hanc sententiam, qua quidam ausi fuerunt adseverare Christi corpus perinde esse ubique atque divinitatem. Ubique enim esse nequit, nisi quod natura infinitum est; quod infinitum est, simul est ęternum. Christi humanitas non est ęterna, ergo neque infinita. Si non est infinita, ergo nequit non esse finita. Si finita est, iam non est ubique (Z VI.5 142.18–​143.5).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  113 Zwingli here is presenting a standard modus tollens argument, which can be expanded as follows: 1. To be everywhere is a property of something that is infinite. 2. What is infinite is also eternal (e.g., not bounded by any limitation including time). 3. Christ’s humanity is not eternal, since it had a beginning in time. 4. Therefore, Christ’s humanity is not infinite. 5. If Christ’s humanity is not infinite, it is finite. 6. If it is finite, it is not everywhere. Therefore, Christ’s humanity is not everywhere. After this aside “in order not to fail to meet the demand of philosophical argumentation,” Zwingli moves back to the “impregnable testimonies of Scripture.”123 The testimonies he turns to demonstrate the dynamic of presence and absence of Christ with examples of the virgin birth, ascension, and second coming. Zwingli self-​consciously distinguishes between a scriptural and a philosophical argument against the doctrine of ubiquity and therefore in favor of the extra. By making this distinction and handling it in such a quick and nonchalant manner, he forestalls any attempt to place his concerns on a primarily philosophical foundation. Moving on to the “impregnable testimonies of Scripture,” Zwingli presents an understanding of the extra that acknowledges the continued nature of this interplay of Christ’s presence and absence from the moment of incarnation through to the eschaton and perpetually. After restating his argument for the unity of the two natures in the one person, the maintenance of properties in this union, and the communicatio idiomatum, he frames his scriptural argument around the narrative structure of the Apostles’ Creed, moving from Christ’s birth through his ascension, heavenly session, and concluding with the second coming.124 Citing Luke 2:7, Zwingli argues that because of Christ’s birth, Mary is rightly called theotokos, for the one she bore was God, yet she bore, properly speaking, only the humanity while the divine nature is begotten of the Father before all ages. It is the whole Christ who is born and laid in the manger and simultaneously fills all things:

123 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 188. Ut philosophicę ratiocinationi non deessemus, si quando in eam incideres, o rex, ad impenetrabilia scripturę testimonia accedemus (Z VI.5 143.6–​8). 124 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 188–​89.

114  The Flesh of the Word Furthermore, that he who occupies and fills the heavens and the realms below was laid in a manger applies to the human nature in like manner. But when these things are attributed to the whole Christ—​his being born and laid in the manger—​no difficulty arises, and that because of the conjunction and union of the two natures in one person.125

Here we see Zwingli’s mature understanding of christology in application; while in former works he quickly applies such events as the birth of Christ to the human nature, he less frequently makes the clear connection to the unity of action and application to the person of Christ. While speaking in terms of nature it is only the human nature that is born and laid in a manger, since the eternal Son has no beginning in time and is not circumscribed by space, yet according to his person, Christ is at once in the manger and beyond it. Zwingli makes a similar point regarding the ascension, much as we have seen at the Marburg Colloquy: This [ascension] equally applies to the humanity, in the main, though the humanity was not carried there without the divinity; indeed the latter carried and the former was carried. This humanity, as has been said, remains circumscribed forever; otherwise it would cease to be true humanity. But the divinity is unlimited and uncircumscribed forever; hence it does not move from place to place, but is everywhere and remains the same forever.126

This is one of Zwingli’s most concise and clear expressions of the extra Calvinisticum:  the person of Christ is simultaneously circumscribed and uncircumscribed according to the proper nature, and this relationship maintains forever. The dynamic of the divine omnipresence and the human spatial finitude is the same in the event of the incarnation and birth as well as the ascension; what changes is the particular locality of the human body. At the incarnation Christ’s human body exists in the accessible earthly sphere, 125 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 188. Porro, quod in pręsepium depositus est, qui coelos ac inferos implet ac tent, eodem modo ad humanitatem pertinet. Verumtamen cum ista toti Christo tribuuntur, nasci ac poni, nihil incommodi oritur; id autem propter duarum naturarum in unam personam coniunctionem et unionem (Z VI.5 144.7–​11). 126 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 188–​89. “Ascendit ad coelos” [Lk 24,  51]. ęque ad humanitatem principaliter refertur, cum tamen sine divinitate non sit lata humanitas, sed illa ferebat, hęc ferebatur. Illa, ut iam est dictum, perpetuo circumscripta manet; nam alias desineret esse vera humanitas; hec vero perpetuo infinita et incircumscripta est, unde non transit a loco in locum, sed eadem indidem perpetuo manet (Z VI.5 144.12–​17).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  115 while at the ascension it is no longer accessible there but resides in heaven. In the ascension both the human and the divine nature have a role, with the human nature being lifted and the divine the cause of the lifting. This phrasing in the quotation is infelicitous given that it might open up Zwingli once again to the charge of two active subjects. But given the immediately precedent articulation of the unity of the person, this statement should be understood as the unified action of Christ’s person, who in the ascension lifts qua divine and is lifted qua human. Zwingli then turns to the presence of Christ after his ascension and here once again points to the interrelation of the presence and absence of Christ between his advents. Christ claims to be with his disciples “even unto the end of time” (Matt. 28:20) and yet to “leave the world” (John 16:28) and “not be in the world hereafter” (17:11).127 In what sense does Christ leave the world, and in what sense is he present? According to Zwingli, this can be clearly stated when the relationship of the two natures of Christ in the one person and the predication of properties is properly understood. Christ is present with his church according to his divinity, which continues to fill all things and because of this does not move from place to place. And he has left and is present no more according to his human body. For this christological reason he is not present as the Roman and Lutheran doctrines of the Supper indicate: Therefore, the human leaves it [the world], and since it has left the world, you will understand, O King, as regards natural, substantial, local presence, it is not here. The body of Christ is, therefore, not eaten by us, literally or in substance, and all the more not quantitatively, but only sacramentally and spiritually.128

Zwingli then moves to the words of the angels who address the disciples in Acts 1 immediately after the ascension:  “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Zwingli understands this text to be positing a likeness between the mode

127 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 189. 128 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 189. Ergo humana relinquit. Quę cum mundum reliquerit, intellige, o rex, naturali, essentiali localique pręsentia; non est ergo hic. Non editur itaque a nobis naturaliter aut per essentiam corpus Christi, quanto magis non mensuraliter, sed solum sacramentaliter et spiritualiter (Z VI.5 145.3–​7).

116  The Flesh of the Word of the ascension and the mode of the second coming, which cannot be preempted at the Supper: But how has he gone away? In a bodily and literal sense, and as he really is by the essence of his humanity. When, therefore, they say, “shall so come,” he means in bodily and literal sense and in substance. But when shall he so come? Not when the Church celebrates the Supper, but when she is to be judged by him at the end of the world.129

Therefore, even while connecting this argument to his understanding of the Supper, Zwingli does not restrict the doctrine of the extra to reflection on the Supper but considers it the proper understanding of the human and divine natures of the one person of Christ from his incarnation through to the final state. Throughout his career as a reformer, Zwingli’s christology develops according to the pastoral, theological, and polemical needs of the period. Based on his understanding of the soteriological function of the human nature of Christ, he concludes early on that Christ’s body must remain as other human bodies even after the ascension. From these insights he formulates the doctrine, which will be named the extra Calvinisticum, in his early rejection of transubstantiation. In light of the controversy over the Eucharist, he develops his christology to hold both the extra Calvinisticum and avoid separating the person of Christ. Throughout his opus the soteriological concern for the formation of christology and his christological rejection of corporeal presence and ubiquity remain consistent. The christology underlying these formations increases in rigor as Zwingli attempts to avoid any theologically fatal separation of Christ’s person. Zwingli moves from the language of “one Christ” in his earliest works to “one person” in Friendly Exegesis to a consistent enhypostatic view of Christ’s humanity, which subsists only in the eternal person of the Logos, in his final works. Correlative to this is his commitment to an understanding of the communicatio idiomatum, which preserves both natures. Zwingli has brought many of these themes together in his later work and connects the extra to the pro nobis nature of the gospel, displaying a greater vision for how the divine omnipresence and the human 129 Zwingli, “Fidei Expositio,” 189. At quomodo abiit? Corporaliter, naturaliter et quomodo per humanitatis essentiam vere est. Cum ergo dicit: “Sic veniet”—​nimirum corporaliter, naturaliter ac per essentiam. Verum quando sic veniet? Non cum ecclesia coenam celebrat, sed cum per illum sub mundi finem iudicanda est (Z VI.5 146.8–​12).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  117 circumscription relate to Christ’s mediatorial career, from conception in Mary’s womb to coming again in glory. Because of Zwingli’s sudden death in the Second Kappel War on October 11, 1531, as well as the death of Oecolampadius the following month and the lack of attention to these later works by his contemporaries, the concept of the extra as a focus of theological controversy might have died with him. In the next section, I will turn to the reception of the extra after Zwingli’s death by Bullinger and John Calvin through to the Consensus Tigurinus, which marks the official emergence of a more unified Reformed tradition and kicked off a new round of controversy over the divergent christological views with the Lutheran party.

2.4  The Reception of the extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli’s Death to the Consensus Tigurinus Zwingli’s mature articulation of the extra Calvinisticum, which incorporated an enhypostatic understanding of Christ’s human nature and reflection on the extra’s import beyond eucharistic polemics, came only on the eve of his death, and these final works, Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, failed to have a broad influence or readership. The doctrine of the extra, however, would not die along with Zwingli but was carried forward in the continued doctrinal debate with Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism through the work of Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin. Each of these men, who would be the dominant leaders of the Swiss Reformation and beyond until the 1560s, argued for the integrity of Christ’s human nature against both ubiquitarianism and the growing challenge presented by elements of the Radical Reformation, which reenvisioned Christ’s humanity along docetic lines. The doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum is carried forward in the work of Bullinger and Calvin with clear affirmations of Christ’s existence beyond the flesh at the time of the incarnation, the circumscription of the human body, and the communicatio idiomatum terminating on the person. The enhypostatic understanding of Christ’s human nature established in Zwingli’s later works is neglected, and new questions come to the fore regarding the nature of heaven and the right hand of the Father. In this section I outline the reception and development of the extra from Zwingli’s death in 1531 up to and including the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549. Over this period the fervor of the early eucharistic controversy subsided

118  The Flesh of the Word largely owing to the need for the Zürich reformers to regroup after the loss of Zwingli and the Wittenberg Concord of 1536. This document allowed for eucharistic détente between the Lutherans and the South German Reformed spearheaded by Martin Bucer, thereby isolating the Swiss.130 Yet this agreement did not represent an actual consensus. As Amy Burnett has argued, the “formula was made possible by terminological ambiguity and strategic silence.”131 Calvin’s signing of the Augsburg Variata in 1540 further isolated Zürich from the other Swiss Reformed communities.132 This version of the 1530 Augsburg Confession, amended by Melanchthon, softened the Lutheran distinctive position on the presence of the Supper, allowing for greater apparent unity between Calvin’s Geneva and Wittenberg. These attempts at resolving the eucharistic controversy were thwarted by the lack of substantial theological agreement with Luther and the emerging Gnesio-​ Lutheran party and the defeat of the Schmalkaldic League in 1547. After the defeat of the League, Emperor Charles V imposed the Augsburg Interim on all churches in the empire, which attempted to reinstate religious uniformity and cease the spread of Protestantism, including reinstituting the Mass and prayers for the dead.133 Lutheran submission to the Augsburg Interim would alienate Calvin in his attempts at rapprochement with the German Protestants. According to Bruce Gordon, “Calvin described [the Augsburg Interim] as an adulteration of the Christian faith.”134 130 Bullinger refused to accept the Wittenberg Concord on the Lutheran terms and pressed for a clearer statement on the nature of Christ’s presence and the place of faith for the reception of the blessings of the Supper. Martin Friedrich, “Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Konkordie: Ein Ökumeniker im Streit um das Abendmahl,” Zwingliana 24 (1997):  59–​79. Further, the Concord avoided the christological underpinnings of the eucharistic controversy, which for the heirs of Zwingli left the heart of the conflict unaddressed. “Finally, Bucer entered the arena of Christology, only to declare it closed. The Wittenberg Concord had avoided Christology, for the Swiss this was impossible. But the difference between ubiquity achieved through the communication of the two natures’ properties and the local placement of a human body was irresolvable. Therefore, Bucer took the question up, only to declare it invalid.” Ward Holder, “The Pain of Agreement: Calvin and the Consensus Tigurinus,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016): 88. 131 Amy Nelson Burnett, “From Concord to Confession:  The Wittenberg Concord and the Consensus Tigurinus in Historical Perspective,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016): 53. 132 Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2009), 99. See also Willem Nijenhuis, “Calvin and the Augsburg Confession,” in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 97–​114. 133 “Despite the apparent concessions to Protestant sensibilities in its teaching on justification, the Interim lays out a plan for a church that both served the interests of the empire and made the priest the central figure of religious life. The Interim’s opponents insisted on the absolute autonomy of the church and on the centrality of the believing layperson.” Nathan Baruch Rein, “Faith and Empire: Conflicting Visions of Religion in a Late Reformation Controversy—​The Augsburg Interim and Its Opponents, 1548–​50,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 71, no. 1 (March 2003): 50. 134 Gordon, Calvin, 176.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  119 These events necessitated a united confession regarding the Lord’s Supper between Zürich and Geneva, which would have far-​reaching assent from the emerging Reformed churches.135 This document, the Consensus Tigurinus or Zürich Consensus, drafted by Calvin and Bullinger in 1549, would form a unifying confessional basis for the Reformed churches. The Consensus would be the definitive document in setting forth the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and consequently would cement the confessional separation of the Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Reformation.136 Central to this understanding was the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum, which is one of the essential christological claims of the Consensus. This document represents the definitive confessional statement of the extra within the second generation of the Reformation and would be one of the chief sparks for the so-​called second eucharistic controversy.137

2.4.1  Bullinger and the Continuation of Zwingli’s Christology With the death of Zwingli, the Zürich Reformation suffered a devastating blow. Foes old and new threatened the gains made in the reform effort of previous years. In response to these struggles, the Zürich Council appointed Heinrich Bullinger to the Grossmünster, the highest ecclesial office in Zürich. They required an outsider who was both committed to the Reformation and yet not tainted by Zwingli’s military and political failure, as were Leo Jud and Oswald Myconius, after the fallout of the Second Kappel War.138 Bullinger, who is ever destined with the epitaph “Zwingli’s successor,” took up the reins of the evangelical cause in Zürich and functioned as one of the chief proponents of the Reformation in Switzerland and abroad until his death in 1575.139 135 Emidio Campi, “The Consensus Tigurinus:  Origins, Assessment, and Impact,” in Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition, Reformed Historical Theology 27 (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 117. 136 “The Consensus Tigurinus expressed a theology of the Lord’s Supper that would become normative for the Reformed churches, and so made permanent the division of Protestantism.” Burnett, “From Concord to Confession,” 57. 137 Campi, “The Consensus Tigurinus,” 118–​20. 138 Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation, New Frontiers in History (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 2002), 140. 139 Bullinger’s influence throughout the Reformed movement can be seen through his voluminous correspondence. See Rainer Henrich, “Bullinger’s Correspondence:  An International News Network,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, ed. Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 231–​41.

120  The Flesh of the Word Before he took the main ecclesial position in Zürich, Bullinger had been an active, if minor, participant in the eucharistic controversy that occupied much of the 1520s. In these early works there is evidence that he had already come to some notion of the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum through the influence of the Hussite Bohemian Brethren and his own reflections on the two natures of Christ. Bullinger had come to reject the doctrine of transubstantiation as early as 1525. And like Oecolampadius and later Zwingli, Bullinger was influenced by the sacramental thought and polemics of the Bohemian Brethren, especially their insistence on communion in two kinds: rejection of the adoration of the host and the claim that Christ’s ascension ruled out his corporeal presence on earth.140 In his De Institution Eucharistiae (1525), Bullinger further develops these ideas to formulate a rejection of the corporeal presence in the Eucharist based on Christ’s circumscribed body and the ascension. According to Stephens, in this work, “[Bullinger] writes that Christ, as he is a man, cannot at the same time be in many places, for the creed states clearly that he sits at the right hand of God and that he will not come from there until he comes to judge the living and the dead.”141 In these early works, Bullinger is treading much the same ground as Zwingli in the establishment of the doctrine. After his arrival in Zürich, Bullinger continued this development of christology in light of the theological challenges of the Reformation’s radical wing, in the earliest treatise dedicated to christology in the Reformed tradition, An Orthodox Assertion of the Two Natures of Christ (1534).142

140 Amy Nelson Burnett, Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy:  A Study in the Circulation of Ideas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 85–​87. Burnett argues that in Bullinger’s 1525 unpublished work, Against the Idolsbread, he “drew on arguments made by the Bohemian Brethren to condemn the veneration of the host. Thus he stated that bread was a created thing, and whoever worshipped a created thing instead of the Creator was an idolater” (88). 141 W. P. Stephens, “The Person and Work of Christ in the Theology of Heinrich Bullinger,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 17, no. 3 (November 2015): 235n30, citing Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrich Bullinger Werke: Theologische Schriften, ed. Zwingliverein in Zurich (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2008) 2:104.25–​105.7. 142 Heinrich Bullinger, Utriusque in Christo naturae tam divinae quam humanae, contra varias haereses, pro confessione Christi catholica assertio orthodoxa (Zürich:  Christoffel Froschouer, 1534), hereafter Assertio Orthodoxa. The title of this work has been variously translated into English: “The Two Natures of Christ” (Stephens, “The Person and Work of Christ in the Theology of Heinrich Bullinger,” 235); “Orthodox Statement on both of the two Natures of Christ” in Bruce Gordon, “Heinrich Bullinger,” in The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, ed. Carter Lindberg (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 172; “An Orthodox Assertion of the two natures of Christ” in Edward A. Dowey, “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, ed. Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 45. I will use the short title An Orthodox Assertion in English and Assertio Orthodoxa in Latin.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  121 Bullinger first presented the substance of the Orthodox Assertion on the feast day of the patron saints of Zürich, Felix and Regula, in the fall of 1533 to counteract an emerging anti-​Trinitarianism among the radical wing of the Reformation, which threatened to destabilize Zürich. The principal target of his polemic was Claudius of Savoy, who rejected not only the Trinity as polytheistic but also the two natures of Christ.143 Besides challenges to the full divinity of Christ, Caspar Schwenckfeld and others rejected the full humanity of Christ’s body, arguing rather that it was of a different substance from other human bodies. Christ’s body was composed from a heavenly flesh and came through Mary, not of her substance but merely as water through a pipe.144 Bullinger attempts to address both errors through a careful exposition of the ancient church’s confession of faith from the Scriptures, councils, and fathers of the church. Thus Bullinger adds to Reformed christology by incorporating additional theological arguments from the earlier theological tradition, thereby grounding Reformed christology in the councils and guarding it against the charge of novelty. Bullinger begins his treatise by setting forth the heretical positions from the early church regarding the person of Christ, and divides them into those against his divinity, those against his humanity, and those against the unity of his person.145 After expounding these heretical positions, he asserts the orthodox and catholic doctrine of Christ in the form of a creed or confession, before moving on to expound the doctrine of Christ.146 Bullinger’s confession follows the trinitarian structure of the Apostles’ Creed, with three articles, on the Father, Son, and Spirit. The first and third part of this confession, on the Father and the Spirit, are cursory owing to the christological focus of the treatise. The first article, on the Father, is identical to the Apostles’ Creed.147 The third, regarding the Holy Spirit, incorporates elements of the Western reception of the Niceno-​Constantinopolitan Creed by asserting the 143 Mark Taplin, “Bullinger on the Trinity:  ‘Religionis Nostrae Caput et Fundamentum,’” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, ed. Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 78–​79; Dowey, “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian,” 45. 144 Yasukazu Morita, “Bullinger und Schwenckfeld,” in Heinrich Bullinger 1504–​1575 Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag Zweiter Band:  Beziehungen und Wirkungen, ed. Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 7 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1975), 143–​56. Bullinger will label those who hold such positions as “the Phantasmatics” and refute the ancient exponents of these views, Marcion, Valentines, and Apelles. Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B8v–​B9r. 145 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B7r–​B10r. 146 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B10r–​B11r. 147 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B10r.

122  The Flesh of the Word equality of the Spirit with the Father and Son, incorporating the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as well as highlighting the Spirit’s activity in revelation with the phrase “who spoke by the prophets.”148 The second article, regarding Christ, of Bullinger’s opening creed is expanded considerably by including elements of the Chalcedonian Definition and incorporating within the confession itself the rejection of the ancient heresies. Bullinger declares both the full divinity and humanity of Christ. Christ is “the true and living son of the true and living God, begotten from eternity from the substance of the Father, and therefore coeternal or homoousios, that is consubstantial with the Father.”149 He has also become a “true man” by his incarnation. Bullinger then specifies what constitutes a true man, “consisting of a rational soul and our true flesh.” This “true flesh” is further qualified to exclude the ancient heresies that posit a less-​than-​human body and contemporary advocates of the same: “[H]‌e neither took with him from heaven nor formed from the air or ethereal substance, but, working together with the Holy Spirit, he assumed flesh from the substance of the spotless Virgin Mary.”150 Christ is therefore fully and completely what God is and what humanity is; this distinction of the natures is not taken away by the incarnation. Rather, the two natures are united in one person. To express this union, Bullinger weaves in terms from the Chalcedonian Definition: “[R]‌emaining in these two substances or natures, indeed neither comingling them nor transforming one into the other, by the union and in an ineffable manner, they are united inseparably in one person.”151 He follows this up with a clause that attempts to close any doors for Nestorianism: “For we do not confess two Christs or Sons, but one Son true God and man.”152 And yet even in this unity of person the natures retain their properties: “He humiliated himself, therefore he emptied himself, which is the same as he humiliated himself. Therefore, we see the one Jesus Christ has two natures,

148 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B11r. 149 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B10r. Verum et viuum veri et vivi dei filium, genitum ab aeterno de substantia patris, ideo et coaequalem sive ὁμοουισιον, id est, consubstantialem patri. My translation of this text thoroughout. 150 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B10r–​v. Quam necque de coelis secum tulit, neque de aëre vel de aere vel sydribus finxit, sed cooperante sancto spiritu ex substantia intemeratae virginis Marie assumpsit. 151 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B10v. Manens in duabus illis substantiis sive naturis, non ipsis quidem inter sese commixt is vel conversis, sed societate et modo quodam ineffabili in unam personam inseparabilem unitis. 152 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B10v. Non enim duos Christos aut filios confitemur, sed verum deum et hominem unum filium.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  123 divine and human, not having been intermingled with each other, but the properties being distinct.”153 In this introductory creed, Bullinger demonstrates an awareness of and care to avoid the ancient heresies and protect the burgeoning Reformation from their sixteenth-​century heirs. While not as advanced as the christology of Zwingli’s later works, lacking the teaching of Christ’s enhypostatic human nature and reflection on the communicatio, in this treatise Bullinger makes a more conscious attempt to situate the Reformed christology in the tradition of the councils and the church fathers.154 Structuring his confession around the Apostles’ Creed serves Bullinger’s broader purpose of securing the Zürich Reformation within the catholic and conciliar church against the radical reformers. Bullinger comments, “This is the orthodox confession of the catholic faith especially concerning each nature in Christ, which by its simplicity and purity easily shatters all the fog of error and heresies. This confession was guarded sincerely and entirely from the beginning by all the saints and elect of God.”155 He supports this claim by invoking the first six ecumenical councils, from Nicaea to Constantinople III, naming each with its date and purpose, and the work of Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzus, Cyril, Hilary, Augustine, and Ambrose.156 It is this conciliar and patristic understanding of the orthodox and catholic doctrine of Christ that Bullinger will seek to defend throughout the treatise. In later works touching on the extra he will carry forward and expand this emphasis on the continuity of Reformed christology with the councils, especially Chalcedon, and the church fathers. In addition, Bullinger’s understanding of the necessity of the incarnation, and especially the necessary function of each nature in humanity’s salvation, follows the same logic as Zwingli. Both Zwingli and Bullinger emphasize the role of Christ as the mediator and his unique suitedness for this role because of his two natures. Both function with a basic Anselmic model. Only God properly has the power to save, and yet suffering and death are needed to

153 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, H56r–​v. Humiliavit seipsum, Proinde inanivit se, idem est quod humiliavit se. Videmus ergo unum illum Iesum Christum duas habere naturas divinam et humanum, non sibi invicem immixtas, sed proprietate distantes. 154 In his section on the two natures of Christ alone, Bullinger cites Hippolytus, Amphilochus, Chrysostom, Antiochus, and Tertullian. Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, H56v–​H60r. 155 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B11r. Haec est catholicae fidei in primis utriusque in Christo naturae orthodoxa confessio, quae una ac sola simplicitate et puritate sua facile discutit omnem erroris ac haeresum caliginem. Haec confessio syncere et illibate custodita est ab initio a sanctis et electis dei omnibus. 156 Bullinger does not mention the seventh ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, likely owing to this Council’s approval of the veneration of images. Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, B11r–​v.

124  The Flesh of the Word atone. Stephens argues that soteriological concerns drive both Bullinger’s christology and his sacramentology in this text: The necessity of the incarnation for our redemption is sometimes expressed explicitly in terms of the characteristics of the different natures. In discussing the body of Christ in the Eucharist, Bullinger maintained that no human being could help fallen humanity, but only God who is perfect. At the same time, however, redemption is not possible without the shedding of blood, which is possible only for human beings. Therefore, God, who is invisible and impassible, resolved that the Son should assume human nature, and so he was able to suffer and die for us.157

Therefore God, in whom saving power, life, and love reside in impassible purity, takes to himself a passible nature to bring about human reconciliation. In An Orthodox Assertion, Bullinger follows Zwingli’s lead in order to refute the rising tide of anti-​Trinitarianism and docetic christology emerging from the Radical Reformation. By this he seeks to guard the Zürich church from both internal error and external aspersions. This text does avoid the explicit exposition of the extra Calvinisticum found in Zwingli’s later work, even though all the christological premises are in place already in Bullinger’s thought and within the treatise itself. Yet this work demonstrates both the continued emphasis on the soteriological necessity of Christ’s two natures found in Zwingli and broadens the theological base for Reformed christology by incorporation of conciliar christology and the fathers, which will form a central feature in later Reformed discussions. The absence of an explicit statement of the extra is likely due to the more irenic moment necessary for Zürich after the blow of Zwingli’s death and before the Wittenberg Concord of 1536. In this period of the early 1530s, Bullinger was more open and hopeful of eventual accord with the Lutherans, as Martin Friedrich has argued.158 This can be seen in the final section of the Assertion, which Bullinger calls a “digression” on the Eucharist, where he argues that the eating of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is not corporeal but is through contemplation and faith, which is not available to the impious. In confessing this brief position, he does not engage in polemics either with the Roman Catholic or the Lutheran position.159 Only after concord with the Lutheran side seems

157

Stephens, “The Person and Work of Christ in the Theology of Heinrich Bullinger,” 237. Friedrich, “Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Konkordie.” 159 Bullinger, Assertio Orthodoxa, I64r–​I67v. 158

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  125 impossible, after the Augsburg Interim and Luther’s final invectives against Zwingli, will Bullinger reintroduce the doctrine of the extra in the Consensus Tigurinus. Before turning to this document, I will briefly sketch the reception of the extra in the work of the other main author of the Consensus, John Calvin.

2.4.2 The extra Calvinisticum in John Calvin’s Institutes (1536) In the first edition of what would become his magnum opus, John Calvin clearly formulates the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum and uses this doctrine to reject positions on the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper that violate his understanding of Christ’s circumscribed body. Much of the historical and theological scholarship on the extra has focused on the place of the doctrine in Calvin’s thought.160 Here I will focus on Calvin’s doctrine of the extra in the 1536 edition of the Institutes and seek to place this doctrine within the developmental line leading from Zwingli to the Consensus. Calvin’s exposition of the doctrinal matrix that will become the extra takes place in his exposition of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, as a means of explaining the errors of the Roman and Lutheran doctrines. Calvin begins his discussion with a christological preamble, stating that so far the various positions, which he alludes to as the Roman, Lutheran, and Zwinglian positions, fail to get at the matter correctly. Therefore, by turning to christology before the sacraments proper, he indicates that the root of these eucharistic errors can be corrected only by a correct christological formulation. Calvin states: Therefore, we must hold the following by way of summary. Christ, as he took our true flesh when he was born of the virgin, suffered in our true flesh when he made satisfaction for us, so also both in rising again received that same true flesh and bore it to heaven. For we have this hope of our resurrection and of our ascension into heaven: that Christ rose again and ascended. 160 E. David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966); Heiko A. Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” in The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1986); Daniel Y.  K. Lee, The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought (Bern: Peter Lang, 2011); Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 58–​92. See the introduction for review of this literature.

126  The Flesh of the Word But how weak and fragile that hope would be, if this very flesh of ours had not entered into the Kingdom of Heaven! But it is the unchangingly true nature of a body to be contained in a place, to possess its own dimension and to have its own shape.161

Calvin’s exposition draws on much the same resources we have seen already in the work of Zwingli. Christ’s body is the same as all human bodies, which he took upon himself both to suffer for their sake and so that they gain a share in his glorification. The ascension is an act by which the human body of Christ is removed from the earthly sphere into the heavenly. In addition, following the same line of Augustinian thought as Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy, it is the nature of a human body to be in a place and to maintain its normal qualities.162 Building on this christological foundation, Calvin addresses the question of ubiquity: “I know how certain obstinate fellows quibble to defend an error once rashly conceived, that the only dimensions Christ’s flesh ever possessed extended as far and wide as heaven and earth.”163 Although Calvin does not specify the proponents of this view, which is not surprising in the Institutes, when he rejects the eucharistic views of the Lutheran, Roman, and Züricher camps he names no names. The critique is directed toward the Lutheran attempt to overcome Zwingli’s argument against corporal, and therefore local, presence. Calvin will not allow this position to stand because it compromises the human nature of Christ. “What is this but to raise Marcion from hell? For who will doubt that if Christ’s body existed in this state, it was a phantasm?”164 Calvin will go on to state that such a body would not be a body 161 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 1st ed. (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975), 142. Itaque sic in summa habendum est. Christus, ut veram nostram carnem induit, cum e virgine natus est, in vera carne nostra passus est, cum pro nombis satisfecit; ita eandem veram carnem et resurgendo recepit et in coelum sustulit. Haec enim nobis nostrae resurrectionis et in coelum ascensionis spes est, quod Christus resurrecit et ascendit. Porro, quam infirma et fragilis spes foret ista, nisi haec ipsa nostra caro in Christo vere suscitata et in regnum coelorum ingressa esset? Atqui haec est perpetua corporis veritas, ut loco contineatur, ut suis dimensionibus constet, ut suam faciem habeat. John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, 59  vols. ed. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum vols. 29–​87 (Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863–​1900), 58.iii.121, hereafter CR 58.iii. All citations of the Institutes (1536) from the CR have been checked against the original Basel edition of the text and are identical to it in substance. 162 This can be seen through Calvin’s quotation of Augustine’s “Letter to Dardanus” to this effect at the Lausanne Disputation in October of 1536. John Calvin, “Two Discourses on the Articles (1536),” in Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. J. K. Reid (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 2000), 42. 163 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 143. Scio quid cavillentur cervicosi quidam, quo errorem semel susceptum obstinate tueantur: non alias unquam dimensiones habuisse Christi carnem nisi quam longe lateque coelum et terra patent (CR 58.iii.121). 164 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 143. Quid hoc est, nisi Marcionem ex inferis suscitare? Quis enim dubitet corpus Christi phantasticum fuisse, si ea conditione fuit? (CR 58.iii.121). The reference to Marcion here is connected to Calvin’s reading of Tertullian’s descriptions of Marcion’s teaching. At

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  127 at all, but lacking space and sensibility it would be indistinguishable from spirit.165 Calvin then addresses the supposed prooftext for this position that Christ’s body is immense and exists beyond the bound of normal human circumscription: “They allege Christ himself has said: ‘No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven.’ ” Calvin’s retort relies upon a proper understanding of the communicatio idiomatum: “But are they so senseless as not to see that this was said through ‘communication of properties’? Surely, when the Lord of glory is said by Paul to have been crucified [1 Cor. 2:8], it is not because he suffered according to his divinity, but because Christ, who cast down and despised, suffered in the flesh, was very God and Lord of glory.”166 Calvin has established his understanding of this term earlier in the work in his exposition of the second article of the Apostles’ Creed. After a discussion of how Christ can have two natures united in a single person through the analogy to the human constitution of body and soul, Calvin offered his understanding of the communicatio idiomatum: Thus, also, the Scriptures speak of Christ; they sometimes attribute to him what must be referred exclusively to his humanity, sometimes, what refers particularly to his divinity; sometimes what embraces both natures but fits neither one alone. Finally, through “communication of properties” they assign to his divinity the things that belong to his humanity, and to his humanity those that pertain to his divinity.167

Calvin expresses much the same definition of the communicatio as Zwingli, even using the same analogous argument from the distinctive properties of the human body and soul. Calvin, however, has a third category that Zwingli the Lausanne disputation on October 5, 1536, Calvin makes the same argument against his Roman opponents. Calvin, “Two Discourses on the Lausanne Articles (1536),” 40. 165 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 145. 166 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 143. Verum suntne obtuso adeo sensu, ut non videant id dictum per communicationem idiomatum? Qualiter a Paulo (1 Cor. 2) Dominus gloriae crucifixius dicitur, non quia secundum divinitatem sit passus, sed quia Christus, qui abiectus et contemptus in carne patiebatur, idem Deus erat et Dominus gloriae (CR 58.iii.122). 167 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 70. Sic et de Christo scripturae loquuntur. Attribuunt illi interdum, quae ad humanitatem singulariter referri oporteat, interdum, quae divinitati peculiariter competant, nonnunquam, quae utramque naturam complectantur, neutri seorsum satis conveniant. Postremo, et per idiomatum communicationem, ipsius divinitati assignant quae humanitatis propria erant, et humanitati quae as divinitatem spectabant (CR 58.iii.66).

128  The Flesh of the Word lacked—​namely, that set of properties that apply not to either nature simpliciter but are possible only by the union itself. Chief among these for Calvin’s thought is the office and function of mediator between God and man.168 Calvin combines his previous statements about the true humanity of Christ and his understanding of the communicatio to formulate his alternative reading of John 3:13 (Vulg.) and to refute the ubiquity doctrine: In this way he was also Son of man in heaven, for the very same Christ, who, according to the flesh, dwelt as Son of man on earth, was God in heaven. In this manner, he is said to have descended to the place according to his divinity, not because divinity left heaven to hide itself in the prison house of the body, but because even though it filled all things, still in Christ’s very humanity it dwelt bodily [Col. 2:9], that is, by nature, and in a certain ineffable way.169

Christ is able, according to Calvin, to simultaneously fill all things according to his divinity and be present on earth in the body, which is proper to the nature of that body, and based on his previous statements one can properly conclude that this relationship of omnipresent divinity and circumscribed humanity persists through the ascension afterward.170 Calvin shies away from a clear explanation of this dynamic, offering it as something ineffable. Later editions of the Institutes retain this compact statement, which has come to be a locus classicus for the extra Calvinisticum.171 In Calvin’s exposition of this doctrine he must solve the problem of the mode of Christ’s human presence to the church in the interadventum. How is it that the human nature of Christ, and therefore the benefits he has secured through his incarnation, death, and resurrection, can be made present, when Christ’s human body is separated from his people? Zwingli addressed this problem through christological means with his enhypostasis christology, which allows for a unified action of the natures in the person. Calvin offers a different attempt to resolve the tension between the state of Christ’s

168 Stephen Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 205. 169 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 143. Ad hunc modum et filus hominis in coelo erat, quia ipse idem Christus, qui secundum carnem hominis filis habitabat in terris, Deus erat in coelo. Qua ratione, eo ipso loco, descendisse dicitur secundum divinitatem; non quod divinitas coelum reliquerit, ut in ergastulum corporis se abderet, sed quia, tametsi omnia impleret, in ipsa tamen Christi humanitate corporaliter, id est, naturaliter habitabat et ineffabili quodam modo (Col. 2) (CR 58.iii. 122). 170 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 143–​45. 171 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  26–​31.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  129 circumscribed body and the right hand of the Father. Unlike his opponents, who opt to modify circumscription, Calvin finds the solution in his understanding of the Father’s right hand: But though [Christ] has taken his flesh away from us, and in the body has ascended into heaven, yet he sits at the right hand of the Father—​that is, he reigns in the Father’s power and majesty and glory. This Kingdom is neither bounded by any location in space nor circumscribed by any limits. Thus uncircumscribed, Christ can exert his power wherever he pleases, in heaven and on earth; he can show his presence in power and strength; he is always able to be among his own people to live in them, sustain them, strengthen, quicken, keep them, as if he were present in the body.172

If the right hand of the Father, being the reign and power of God, is everywhere, Christ’s entering into this power allows him the power of action at all places. Muller has argued that here Calvin is using Melanchthon’s interpretation of Colossians 3:1.173 Muller concludes, however, that this Melanchthonian moment in Calvin’s thought is short-​lived, to be replaced by his more recognizable pneumatological approach: The pneumatological turn of Calvin’s eucharistic thought that became evident in the Institutio of 1539 and in the French and Latin catechisms of 1545, marks a significant alteration of direction. In both of these documents, the right hand of God is interpreted for eucharistic purposes no longer as divine power but, in accord with Calvin’s reading of the ascension, as a location, and the agency of the Spirit is the basis of union between earthly believers and the heavenly body of Christ.174

172 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 145. Caeternum, tametsi carnem suam a nobis sustulit et corpore in coelum ascendit, ad dexteram tamen patris sedet, hoc est in potentia, maiestate, et gloria patris regnat. Hoc regnum nec ullis locorum spatiis limitatem, nec ullis dimensionibus circumscriptum; quin Christius virtutem suam, ubicunque placuerit, in coelo et in terra exerat, quin se praesentem potentia et virtute exhibeat, quin suis semper adsit, in iis vivat, eos sustineat, confirmet, vegetet, conservet, non secus ac si corpore adesset (CR 58.iii. 123). 173 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 143; Richard A Muller, “From Zurich or From Wittenburg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 249. 174 Muller, “From Zurich or From Wittenburg?,” 254. For the development of the pneumatological aspect of Calvin’s christology and especially as it related to the extra, see Lee, The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought.

130  The Flesh of the Word While Calvin will quickly supplement this answer with a pneumatological bond that affects union with Christ, which we will see in the Consensus, this question of the nature of a place, heaven, and the right hand of the Father will become of great importance in later Lutheran-​Reformed debate. From this section of the 1536 edition of the Institutes, we can see that the extra Calvinisticum is present in Calvin’s earliest thought as a reformer.175 Yet the influence that produced this doctrine is unclear. While statements by Calvin at the Lausanne Disputation indicate that he derived at least some of these ideas from his reading of Augustine,176 there are also several indications that an additional line of influence might flow directly from Zwingli. The influence of Zwingli’s thought on Calvin’s eucharistic thought is hotly debated.177 In The Young Calvin, Alexandre Ganoczy argues that Zwingli influenced Calvin in the first edition of the Institutes, including his argument against idols and his rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass. He attributes Calvin’s similarities to Zwingli to Calvin’s reading of The Commentary on True and False Religion.178 Ganoczy, however, does not mention the influence with regard to Christ’s body being in heaven or the extra Calvinisticum.179 Muller too has indicated that Fidei Ratio possibly influenced Calvin’s understanding of the role of faith in the Lord’s Supper and with respect to the circumscribed body in heaven, even though Muller thinks this is modified with elements from Melanchthon.180 Besides the similarities with Zwingli just mentioned, such as the rejection of ubiquity because it compromises the human nature of Christ and the insistence on a bodily ascension, two other aspects of Zwingli’s earlier thought can be seen in Calvin’s writings. From the claim that Christ is made like humanity in every way except sin, and from our common understanding of embodied human experience, Calvin, just like Zwingli, infers the necessary circumscription of Christ’s body: “But it pleased him [God] that Christ be made like his brethren in all things except sin [Heb. 4:15; cf. ch. 2:17]. What

175 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  28–​31. 176 Calvin, “Two Discourses on the Lausanne Articles,” 40–​42. 177 For an overview of this scholarship, see Muller, “From Zurich or From Wittenburg?,” 243–​46. 178 Alexandre Ganoczy, The Young Calvin, trans. David Foxgiver and Wade Provo (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1987), 151–​58. 179 This possibility is also not entertained by Willis, who neglects entirely the question of influence on Calvin’s early thought by antecedent reformers. The only contemporary investigated is Jacques LeFévre, the French humanist; however, Willis concludes that it is unlikely for Calvin to have taken his doctrine from LeFévre, and then he immediately turns to medieval and ancient sources. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  43–​44. 180 See Muller, “From Zürich or From Wittenberg?,” 247.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  131 is the nature of our flesh? Is it not something that has its own fixed dimension, is contained in a place, is touched, is seen?”181 Like Zwingli, Calvin also rejects an appeal to divine omnipotence to overcome Christ’s body being spatially located. He does so because it is a question not of what God can do in abstraction but of what he actually willed by his good pleasure to do. Echoing the Swiss delegation at Marburg, Calvin follows this with a move to the ascension as that which God has willed to do.182 These similarities are not sufficient to establish Zwingli’s influence on Calvin’s thought regarding the extra, but they do indicate a fundamental unity of theological purpose between the two figures in this doctrine. Calvin will build on these similarities to form a common confession on the eucharistic presence with Bullinger.

2.4.3 The extra Calvinisticum and the Consensus Tigurinus Amid the growing pressures of the defeat of the Schmalkaldic League, the imposition of the Augsburg Interim, and the precarious political position of the Swiss Confederation, Bullinger and Calvin engaged in a two-​year negotiation to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding of the Eucharist that could bind together the two poles of the Swiss Reformation.183 The product of this negotiation, through correspondence and two face-​to-​face meetings, was the Consensus Tigurinus, which eventually united the Swiss Reformation on the Eucharist. Scholars debate how much of their particular teachings on the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper Calvin or Bullinger had to relinquish for this consensus to come about. The document’s composite or compromise position gave room either for Calvin’s pneumatological construal of Christ’s presence or for Bullinger’s sacramental parallelism.184

181 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 144. Placuit autem, Christum fratribus per omnia similem fieri, excepto peccato. Qualis est nostra caro? Nonne quae certa sua dimensione constat, quae loco continetur, quae tangitur, quae videtur? (CR 58.iii.123). 182 Calvin, Institutes (1536), 144–​45. 183 Paul Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, Alcuin/​GROW Liturgical Study 12 (Bramcote, UK: Grove Books, 1989); Timothy George, “John Calvin and the Agreement of Zurich,” in Calvin and the Church, ed. Timothy George (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), 42–​58; Emidio Campi and Ruendi Reich, eds., Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung Zwischen Heinrich Bullinger Und Johannes Calvin Über Das Abendmahl (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009); Campi, “The Consensus Tigurinus.” See also the series of articles published in Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016), which was dedicated to the Consensus. 184 For the most up-​to-​date discussion of the eucharistic views of Bullinger and Calvin, see Riggs, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition, 81–​111.

132  The Flesh of the Word In this section I focus on the christological underpinnings of the Consensus and its declaration of the extra—​that Christ’s human body is in heaven after the ascension. Like Zwingli before them, Calvin and Bullinger grounded their eucharistic teaching on the salvific role of the true humanity of Christ, the integrity of which could not be compromised in any doctrine of the Eucharist. The key to preserving the humanity is the spatial circumscription of the body of Christ, which after the ascension into heaven is no longer in the earthly sphere of existence. This doctrine of the extra and the complete rejection of corporeal presence in or alongside the elements mark the definitive theological break between the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. As Burnett has argued, “The Consensus Tigurinus expressed a theology of the Lord’s Supper that would become normative for the Reformed churches, and so made permanent the division of Protestantism.”185 As we will see, an essential component in this division was the doctrine of Christ’s body and its spatial locality, and therefore the extra Calvinisticum ought to be regarded as a constitutive theologoumenon of the Reformed tradition vis-​à-​vis Lutheranism. The Consensus opens its exposition of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist by laying a christological foundation, following Zwingli and Oecolampadius’s method as utilized at the Marburg Colloquy. Article 1 of the Consensus states, “Since Christ is the fulfillment of the law and because knowledge of him comprehends in itself the sum of the gospel, there is no doubt that the entire spiritual government of the Church looks to this end, that is to lead us to Christ, for it is by following him alone that one comes to God who is the final goal of a happy life.”186 For Calvin and Bullinger, the sum of the gospel, and therefore the raison d’être of the evangelical movement, is Christ’s person and his personal governance of the church, and which is solely to be followed in matters of faith. This includes the church’s theology and practice of the sacraments: “Since the sacraments are supplements to the gospel, only one who begins with Christ can expound correctly and usefully their nature, power, office, and enjoyment.”187 Calvin and Bullinger argue 185 Burnett, “From Concord to Confession,” 57. 186 John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus, 1549,” trans. Torrance Kirby, Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016): 35. Article 1 Cum Christus sit finis legis, et eius cognitio totam in se evangelii summam compraehendat, non dubium est, quin huc spectet totum spirituale ecclesiae regimen, ut ad Christum nos ducat: sicuti per eum solum ad deum pervenitur, qui ultimus est beatae vitae finis. Emidio Campi and Ruendi Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” in Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 127. 187 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 35–​36. Article 2 Cum autem sacramenta sint evangelii appendices, is demum et apte et utiliter de eorum natura, vi, officio et fructu disseret (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 127).

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  133 that the sacraments are not the center of the Christian confession; Christ himself and his identity as the Son of the eternal Father become man must be the starting point for proper theological reflection. The sacraments are “supplements” (appendices); they do not stand on their own but have their meaning and power only in relationship to Christ, their author and securer. As Emidio Campi has argued regarding this christological introduction to the Consensus, “By taking Christology as the starting point of the exposition . . . the Consensio seems to emphasize that Christology set the ground rules for sacramental theology.”188 This follows the pattern we have seen from Zwingli’s works and from the Swiss at Marburg, placing the Consensus firmly within the trajectory of the previous work in both content and theological prioritization.189 The act by which Christ is known and the benefits, nature, and power on which the sacraments draw is the incarnation and salvific work of Christ: “Thus it is consequently held that Christ, being the eternal Son of God and of the same essence and glory as the Father, clothed himself with our flesh in order to communicate to us by right of adoption that which belonged to him by nature, that we might truly be sons of God.”190 The hope of humanity’s adoption as sons and thereby partaking of all that Christ has offered to them is made possible by the assumption of the human nature whereby he is able to incorporate into his body the elect. This is effected by the union that believers have with Christ: “[I]‌t is necessary that we be made one with him and that we grow together in his body.”191 Through this union the salvation that has been wrought by Christ in the human nature is made accessible to his people, since in his flesh he is the priest and king of the human race. By his humanity Christ becomes “a priest on our behalf, who expiated our sins by the sole sacrifice of his own death . . . [the one who] now intercedes on our behalf in order that we may stand before God . . . an atoning sacrifice . . . [and] a 188 Campi, “The Consensus Tigurinus,” 103. 189 Stephens argues that this christological introduction is evidence of the theological priorities of Zürich: “It is significant for Bullinger’s theology that in The Zurich Agreement (1549), which is concerned with the sacraments, the starting point is Christ. The opening articles appear to come from Zurich (there is no parallel in these opening articles to the twenty articles offered by Calvin to the Synod of Bern in March 1549).” Stephens, “The Person and Work of Christ in the Theology of Heinrich Bullinger,” 232. 190 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 36. Article 3 Sic ergo habendum est Christum, cum aeternus esset dei filius eiusdem cum patre essentiae et gloriae, induisse carnem nostram, ut iure adoptionis id, quod natura proprium habebat, nobis communicaret, nempe ut simul filii dei (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 127). 191 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 36. Article 5 unum cum ipso nos effici et in eius corpus coalescere oportet (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 128).

134  The Flesh of the Word brother who, from our condition as miserable sons of Adam, has rendered us blessed sons of God” as well as the restorer of the nature he has taken unto himself.192 By the incarnation, he is humanity’s king who rules, protects, and secures our afterlife until the time of resurrection: “And so he is to be considered in order that he may raise us to himself, the true God and Father, until that is brought to fulfillment which is finally to take place, when God is truly all in all.”193 As we saw earlier, Calvin and Bullinger defined their christology by the soteriological necessity of the incarnation and further developed this concept around the offices of Christ, which took on greater weight in Calvin’s use of the triplex munus.194 These aspects of Christ’s work were possible only because he took to himself the fullness of humanity, securing not only redemption by his atoning death but also continued intercession with the Father and the hope of resurrection. The integrity of Christ’s humanity and its soteriological function is thus proclaimed at the outset of the Consensus and shapes the confession’s statement on Christ’s presence in the sacraments. The heart of the Consensus is the exposition of the sacraments and especially the understanding of Christ’s presence in the Supper, which is bracketed by reflection on Christ’s nature at the beginning and end of the document. The eucharistic theology of the text exhibits both Calvinian and Zwinglian themes regarding the nature of the Supper, the presence of the body and blood of Christ, and the activity of the Holy Spirit in effecting the blessing offered in the signs. Particularly prominent are Zwingli’s insistence on the ineffectuality of externals or objects of sense perception to effect internal spiritual realities, and Calvin’s attempt to bridge this divide with a strong pneumatological emphasis. In article 21, the local presence is excluded based on the distance of Christ’s human body from the perceptual world: “The notion of any kind of local presence ought especially to be set aside. While signs are present in this world, they are discerned by the eyes and touched by the hands, but Christ, so far as he is man, is to be sought nowhere other than in heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and the understanding of faith.”195 Christ 192 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 36. Article 4 Ita Christus in carne sua considerandus est nobis sacerdos, qui peccata nostra unico mortis suae sacrificio expiavit . . . qui nunc intercedit pro nobis, ut accessus nobis ad deum pateat . . . victima expiatrix . . . frater, qui nos ex miseris Adae filiis effecit beatos dei filios (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 128). 193 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 36. Article 4 Atque ita considerandus, ut ad se deum verum et ad patrem nos evehat, donec impleatur illud, quod tandem futurum est, nempe ut sit deus omnia in omnibus (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 128). 194 See, for instance, Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology, 8. 195 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 40. Article 21 Praesertim vero tollenda est quaelibet localis praesentiae imaginatio. Nam cum signa hic in mundo sint, oculis cernantur,

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  135 according to his sensible nature has removed himself from the normal realm of sense perception. It is not by means of the senses that humanity now seeks him but rather through intellection and faith that allow us to move beyond the sensible appearance of things. Christ’s Spirit bridges the distance between the sensible and the suprasensible realms: “When by the power of his spirit Christ nourishes our souls through faith by means of eating his flesh and drinking his blood . . . we draw life from flesh offered once for all in sacrifice, and from bloodshed [sic] in expiation.”196 Here and elsewhere in the Consensus, Calvin’s emphasis on the bond of the Holy Spirit as effecting the presence of Christ and bridging any distance between the believer and Christ overcomes the pneumatological defect in Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s views.197 For my purposes, the most significant feature of the Consensus is the definitive status of the integrity of Christ’s human nature and the consequent spatial circumscription of his body. On this christological basis, Calvin and Bullinger reject any form of corporeal presence within the elements of the Supper. Both the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation and the Lutheran position that situates the presence of Christ’s body in, with, and under the bread and the wine are rejected because they “either detract from his [Christ’s] celestial glory or are less than consistent with the true reality of his human nature.”198 For the Consensus, the reality and integrity of the human nature is compromised if it is conceived of as being in multiple places at once or takes on the divine property of omnipresence, which would render the human palpentur manibus, Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo nec aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 136). 196 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 40. Article 23 Quod autem carnis suae esu et sanguinis potione, quae hic figurantur, Christus animas nostras per fidem spiritus sui virtute pascit . . . ex carne semel in sacrificium oblata et sanguine in expiationem effusio vitam hauriamus (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 137). 197 Campi, “The Consensus Tigurinus,” 111–​12; Lee, The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought, 21–​22. For further discussion of the Holy Spirit’s activity according to the Consensus, see “For it is God alone who acts by his Spirit; and when he employs the service of the sacraments he neither infuses his own power into them nor does he derogate in any respect from the efficacy of his Spirit.” Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 38. Article 12 Deus enim solus est, qui spiritu suo agit et, quod sacramentorum ministerio utitur, in eo neque vim illis suam infundit nec spiritus sui efficatiae quicquam derogat (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 131) and “For as he enlightens in faith none but those whom he has preordained unto life, so by the secret agency of his Spirit he brings about that the elect actually receive what the sacraments offer.” Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 38–​39. Article 16 Nam quemadmodum non alios in fidem illuminat, quam quos praeordinavit ad vitam, ita arcana spiritus sui virtute efficit, ut percipiant electi, quod offerunt sacramenta (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 133–​34). 198 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 40. Article 24 vel coelesti eius gloriae detrahunt vel veritati humanae eius naturae minus sunt consentanea (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 137).

136  The Flesh of the Word body not a body at all. Article 25 makes the reason for this more explicit by confirming the circumscription of Christ’s body and its distance from humanity by the ascension into heaven: And lest any ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, this manner of speaking denotes and expresses to us distance of place. Although philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ bears the nature and mode of a human body, it is finite and is contained in heaven as it were in place; it is necessarily as distant from us by as great an interval of place as heaven is from earth.199

This article forestalls any doctrine of ubiquity with a thorough affirmation of the circumscription of the human body of Christ and the difference of place between heaven and earth. Bullinger and Calvin qualify this statement with philosophical reserve, which leaves the statement ambiguous as to its exact meaning, giving a certain elasticity to the Consensus. How is it that “philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies” and yet Christ’s body exists there “as it were in place”? Is heaven a place, or is Christ’s body in heaven locally despite its not being technically a place itself? Whatever the answers to these questions might be, the theological rationale for this statement is very clear. Christ’s body is finite and bears the “nature and mode” of other human bodies. Therefore, for Bullinger and Calvin, its locality cannot be abandoned. Some scholars have seen article 25 as a great concession on Calvin’s part. R. Ward Holder has argued regarding this article, “This truly was the triumph of Zwinglian theology. Calvin never previously suggested language that specified place. . . . In this case, we see Calvin achieving consensus by surrendering.”200 Paul Rorem concurs: “Calvin had always been careful not to express his understanding of heaven in simplistic spatial terms. The ascension of Christ’s body to heaven did imply distance, never put it as baldly as in the Züricher’s addition of a phrase, ‘is contained in heaven as in a place.’ ”201

199 Calvin and Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus,” 2016, 41. Article 25 Ac ne qua ambiguitas restet, cum in coelo quaerendum Christum esse dicimus, haec loquutio locorum distantiam nobis sonat et exprimit. Tametsi enim philosophice loquendo supra coelos locus non est, quia tamen corpus Christi, ut fert humani corporis natura et modus, finitum est, et coelo ut loco continetur, necesse est a nobis tanto locorum intervallo distare, quantum coelum abest a terra (Campi and Reich, “Consensio Tigurinae,” 138). 200 Holder, “The Pain of Agreement,” 91–​92. 201 Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, 45.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  137 Yet, whether Calvin conceived of heaven as a place is debatable, as Muller has argued. Both Holder and Rorem overlook the preceding clause, which qualifies this statement, “Although philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies,” and the possible meanings of the phrase ut loco. Calvin makes the same assertion in his commentary on Ephesians 4:10: Non quod proprie locus sit extra mundum.202 The thrust of both Calvin’s comment on Ephesians and the statement in article 25 is to acknowledge the prevailing theory of Aristotelian physics that considered the highest sphere not a place because it is not surrounded by other bodies.203 Therefore, in whatever way one takes the phrase ut loco, the Consensus is drawing a clear distinction between the philosophical (according to physics) concept of place and their theologically construed concept. Even while acknowledging the common philosophical understanding, Bullinger and Calvin do not feel bound by it and can conclude things on theological grounds that are in tension with it. This also leads to the question of whether this statement is calling heaven a place. The phrase ut loco can be understood as either an adverbial or an appositional phrase. The English translations of the Consensus reflect this ambiguity, rendering it variously “as its place,” “as it were in place,” and “as in a place.”204 Given the two possible meanings of ut loco, and the foregoing repudiation of the notion that heaven is a “place” in the philosophical sense, Holder’s and Rorem’s claims that heaven is crudely construed here seem to fail. In article 25, Calvin and Bullinger are making a careful yet vague claim that Christ’s human body continues to exist in a normal human mode of finitude and circumscription even after the ascension, and therefore exists “placedly” even if the “where” of its existence, philosophically considered, is not itself a place. This idea might be made clearer if one returns to the understanding of local presence in the medieval scholastics, which was based on the Aristotelian concept of place as container. To be locally present is to be surrounded by another body, the boundary between which constitutes the place a body is in. A common example of this is water in a vase. The place of 202 John Calvin, Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas Ad Galatas Ad Ephesios Ad Philippenses Ad Colossenses, ed. Helmut Feld, Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, II (Genéve: Librairie Droz, 1992), 16:227. 203 Cees Leijenhorst, “Place, Space and Matter in Calvinist Physics,” Monist 84, no. 4 (October 2001): 524. 204 Respectively, George, “John Calvin and the Agreement of Zurich,” 53; Campi and Reich, Consensus Tigurinus, 264; John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger, “Consensus Tigurinus (1549),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. I. D. Bunting (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:545.

138  The Flesh of the Word the water is determined by its being contained within the walls of the vase. Calvin and Bullinger seem to state that Christ’s body exists in heaven locally; i.e., it is surrounded by whatever medium constitutes heaven. Heaven itself, however, is not a place since it lacks a surrounding body to contain it. We might conceive of a vase full of water in a vacuum.205 According to the Aristotelian conception of place, the vase is not in a place since there is no externally bounding body. Yet the water is still locally present since it remains bounded by the walls of the vase. In this example, the vase is not a place, yet the water exists locally in the vase. Christ’s body likewise exists locally in heaven, even if heaven philosophically considered is not a place. In their attempt to work out the implication of Christ’s human body and the ascension, Calvin and Bullinger conclude that while philosophically considered heaven is not a place, it is theologically. Yet the existence of Christ locally in heaven does not create a problem of distance between the believer and Christ, even though they are at a distance, because the Holy Spirit both effects union with him, even as ascended, and can make his body fully present despite distance in space, as the Consensus has established. The Consensus Tigurinus marks the official confessional acceptance of the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum within the Reformed tradition. In their attempt to hammer out concord on the eucharistic presence, Calvin and Bullinger produce a christologically determined sacramentology, in line with the previous thought of Zwingli and Oecolampadius. The document, however, lacks a thorough exposition of the underlying christology. Christ assumed a full human nature with every aspect of human finitude, and while his body is glorified by the ascension, this quality is not removed or changed. Bullinger and Calvin use this doctrine to reject both the Lutheran and the Roman concepts of the Supper that demand a corporeal presence at the Table. Through this agreement, the ground for further controversy with the Lutheran party has been set; this not only marks a definitive break within the Protestant ranks but reorients the debate of the Supper from the question of presence simpliciter to the mode of Christ’s presence, either spiritual or corporeal.206 The Consensus also brings to the fore new questions, which were only hinted at in previous debate, regarding the nature of heaven 205 The concept of a vacuum or void space was a controversial and hotly debated issue in medieval and early modern physics. See Edward Grant, Much Ado about Nothing:  Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 206 Campi, “The Consensus Tigurinus,” 118–​20.

The extra Calvinisticum from the Marburg Colloquy  139 and the right hand of God, which will be taken up in the second eucharistic controversy sparked by the publication of the Consensus in 1551.

2.5 Conclusion The confrontation between Luther and Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy would contribute to a lasting division between the Lutheran and Reformed churches over christology. Each tradition developed rival understandings of the dynamic of Christ’s presence and absence:  ubiquity and the extra Calvinisticum. The divergence on this point can be traced to different understandings of the relationship of reason and Scripture, which affect how the nature of Christ’s body and especially his ascension was conceptualized. Zwingli and Oecolampadius argue for a necessary finitude of Christ’s body, as a proper quality of all human bodies, and they used this doctrine as a touchstone to judge sacramental theology. In his later confessional works, Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, Zwingli built on his previous doctrine and secured the unity of Christ’s person by his use of an enhypostatic understanding of Christ’s human nature. Calvin and Bullinger, each in his own way, would carry forward the doctrine of the extra culminating in its confessional acceptance in the Consensus Tigurinus. In this work, they maintain the emphasis on the integrity of Christ’s human and divine natures and establish the extra on the theological motivation of the salvific value of Christ’s flesh. They also made use of the doctrine to reject claims of corporeal presence in the eucharistic elements. The christological foundation for the doctrine seen in Zwingli, however, is weakened by a lack of attention to the nature of the hypostatic union and a careful articulation of the communicatio idiomatum. In some measure, the reception of the extra after Zwingli’s death up to the Consensus can be seen as a devolution from Zwingli’s late works. These doctrines, as well as the relationship between heaven, the right hand of the Father, and Christ’s presence, will increasingly come to the fore in the subsequent Lutheran-​Reformed polemics of the second eucharistic controversy.

3 Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum 3.1 Introduction The declaration of eucharistic concord among the Swiss Reformed reignited intra-​Protestant polemics on this doctrine in the second eucharistic debate. The Lutheran riposte to the Consensus Tigurinus utilized new arguments to support their eucharistic view and the ubiquity doctrine underlying it. The Reformed theologian Peter Martyr Vermigli rose to meet these new challenges in his work Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ. Vermigli utilized new theological sources in support of the extra to respond to the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity presented by Johannes Brenz. Vermigli’s argument against ubiquity combines biblical and patristic sources, theological reasoning, and Aristotelian philosophy to support the doctrine of the extra; however, this was not to distort the doctrine as developed before but to use new polemical tools as the Lutheran-​Reformed dispute over the Eucharist shifted firmly onto christological ground. Scholarship on Vermigli has come into full flower only in the past two generations as scholars have sought to broaden the understanding of the Reformation beyond a few towering figures.1 Yet up to this point only slight attention has been paid to either Vermigli’s christology or his doctrine of the extra in particular.2 The most influential work touching on the extra in Vermigli comes from a study on his chief opponent, Brenz.3 Hans Brandy 1 See John Patrick Donnelly S.J., A Bibliography of Peter Martyr Vermigli, vol. 13, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1990); Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, eds., A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 2 John Patrick Donnelly S.J., “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations:  Semper Reformanda, ed. Frank A. James III, Studies in the History of Christian Transitions 115 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177–​96; William Klempa, “Classical Christology,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 321–​53. 3 Hans Christian Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991). The Flesh of the Word. K.J. Drake, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.003.0004

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  141 was the first to note the doctrine of the extra within Vermigli’s Dialogue, which he connects to a nominalist tendency in Vermigli. Drawing attention to Vermigli’s statement in the Dialogue “But the whole God did not shut himself in that man so that he was not outside [extra] him elsewhere,”4 Brandy concludes, “the term ‘extra’ is first used by Vermigli in the summer of 1561! [sic] The extra Calvinisticum is genetically an extra Vermiglianum.”5 Brandy’s claim here is more modest than some have assumed.6 He is not arguing for the unique presence of the doctrine in Vermigli over and against other Reformed theologians. He is claiming that the term extra is first found in Vermigli to designate the existence of the Son beyond the flesh and that Vermigli contributed significantly to the doctrine that will eventually bear the name extra Calvinisticum. The first claim seems of little consequence given the prevalence of the concept in the works of Zwingli and the Consensus Tigurinus, as I  argued earlier. Nor does the coining of yet another phrase seem warranted given that the term extra Calvinisticum was not intended to mark out Calvin as the originator of the idea but was rather the product of the early seventeenth-​century Lutheran practice of pejoratively labeling all the Reformed tradition “Calvinist.”7 Brandy’s second claim, that Vermigli contributed greatly to the articulation of the extra, will be borne out in this chapter. Nonetheless, with support from Michael Baumann, I  will challenge the claim that Vermigli’s doctrine evidences a nominalist tendency.8 Building on this scholarship, I will seek to demonstrate Vermigli’s theological rationale for the extra and how it arose from his rejection of Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity. In his Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ, Vermigli carries forth several aspects of the extra seen in the works of Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin, while also broadening the argumentative basis for the doctrine and elaborating on the nature of heaven as a place. Vermigli follows his predecessors by grounding the extra in the soteriological necessity of Christ’s mediatorial

4 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, ed. and trans. John Patrick Donnelly S.J., The Peter Martyr Library 2 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995), 30. 5 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 80. Der Begriff “extra” ist erstmals bei Vermgili im Sommer 1561 belegt! Das Extra Calvinisticum ist genetisch gesehen ein Extra Vermiglianum. 6 Contra Klempa, “Classical Christology,” 344n81. 7 E. David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 11. 8 Michael Baumann, Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich (1556–​1562): Dieser Kylchen in der Heiligen Gschrifft Professor und Laeser, Reformed Historical Theology, vol. 36 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 253.

142  The Flesh of the Word office, arguing for an enhypostatic human nature, and articulating a doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum that terminates on the hypostasis. In addition, Vermigli contributes to the doctrine of the extra in two main ways. First, he produces a wider range of theological and philosophical arguments to support the doctrine in the face of Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity, which is significantly more elaborate and worked out than Luther’s. Building on his training in both humanist and scholastic method, Vermigli supports the extra with a wide range of patristic testimony, going well beyond what we have seen in Zwingli and Bullinger, to demonstrate that the Reformed tradition is not setting forth something new but a position in line with Christian tradition, especially the Chalcedonian Formula. Second, Vermigli makes judicious use of Aristotelian thought to counter Brenz’s formulation of the doctrine of ubiquity. While Vermigli uses Aristotle for support, he is just as likely to reject him when scriptural or theological issues demand it. This tendency is seen particularly in Vermigli’s argument for a local heaven. To set the context for Vermigli’s work, I will sketch the Lutheran response to the Consensus Tigurinus’s publication in 1551, first by Joachim Westphal against Calvin and then turning to the thought of Johannes Brenz. Brenz moved beyond the standard Lutheran polemics of his peers and centered his critique of the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist on what he saw as a deficient christology, which failed properly to account for the hypostatic union. Building on the earlier thought of Luther, Brenz sets forth a bold affirmation of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature, and therefore body, from the moment of incarnation as a necessary consequence of the hypostatic union itself. Vermigli singles out Brenz as his interlocutor in the Dialogue. To understand Vermigli’s christology in this work, we will step back to analyze his intervention into a controversy among the Polish churches in the 1550s over the christological view of Francesco Stancaro, which illustrates the soteriological motivations behind his understanding of the hypostatic union. I  will then turn to the Dialogue itself and Vermigli’s argument for the extra Calvinisticum against Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity. I will show how Vermigli frames the issue around the nature of a body, the use of reason for theology, and divine omnipotence. We will also explore the Chalcedonian logic of Vermigli’s christology and the articulation of the hypostatic union and communicatio idiomatum stemming from it. In addition, Vermigli’s use of the concept that finitum non capax infiniti and the argument for Christ’s ascension into a local heaven will be explained within this Chalcedonian schema.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  143

3.2  The Context of the Second Eucharistic Controversy 3.2.1  The Fallout of the Consensus Tigurinus and the Second Eucharistic Controversy After the publication the Consensus Tigurinus in 1551, the smoldering coals of the eucharistic debate, which the death of Zwingli and the Wittenberg Concord banked, reignited into a conflagration over the Eucharist that spread farther and lasted longer than the conflict between Luther and Zwingli in the 1520s. This second eucharistic controversy engulfed much of the Protestant world and engaged many second-​and third-​generation reformers, including such figures as Calvin, Bullinger, Vermigli, Jan à Laski, and Theodore Beza on the Reformed side and Joachim Westphal, Johannes Brenz, Johann Timann, and Matthias Flacius Illyricus on the Lutheran.9 The effects of this renewed debate ranged from Switzerland to Denmark and to England, showing both the geographic spread of Protestantism and the international impact of theological dispute in the era of emerging confessionalization. The fires of controversy did not abate for nearly a half-​ century, nor did the voluminous written polemics. John Donnelly found at least 190 publications contributing to the debate from 1560 to 1600.10 In this phase of Lutheran and Reformed debate, confessional positions hardened as the Peace of Augsburg (1555) rejected the non-​Lutheran Protestants’ legitimacy in the Holy Roman Empire and Luther’s heirs vied for his legacy. As the conflict continued, the Lutheran debaters turned inward. Several of Luther’s students increasingly attacked Melanchthon, who refrained from comment on the ongoing debate, for failing to uphold the theology of Luther. This led to an intra-​Lutheran debate between the so-​called Philippists and Gnesio-​Lutherans.11 9 The full history of the second eucharistic controversy is yet to be written, as many works merely focus on the inciting incident of Westphal’s response to Calvin. Many texts neglect it entirely. For instance, see Lee Palmer Wandel, ed., A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Boston: Brill, 2014). For a beginning of a history of the second eucharistic controversy, see Wilhelm H. Neuser, “Der zweite Abendmahlsstreit,” in Handbuch der Dogmen-​und Theologiegeschichte, ed. Carl Andresen (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 272–​85. 10 John Patrick Donnelly S.J., “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” in Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, ed. John Patrick Donnelly S.J., The Peter Martyr Library 2 (Kirksville, MO:  Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995), xiv n11, citing Helmut Gollwitzer, Coena Domini: Die altlutherische Abendmahlslehre in ihrer Auseinandersetzung mit dem Calvinismus, dargestellt an der lutherischen Frühorthodoxie (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1988), 322–​28. 11 Robert Kolb, “Dynamics of Party Conflict in the Saxon Late Reformation: Gnesio-​Lutherans vs. Philippists,” Journal of Modern History 49, no. S3 (1977): D1289–​305.

144  The Flesh of the Word Joachim Westphal renewed the eucharistic polemics with his 1552 work, Farrago, which attempted to show the inconsistency of the Reformed position on the Supper in light of the Consensus. From 1552 to 1558, Westphal would level at least six salvos against the Reformed, with Calvin receiving the bulk of the treatment.12 Calvin’s first answer to Westphal was the product of prodding from Bullinger, à Laski, and Pierre Viret. But the work was not solely that of the Genevan reformer, in that the Zürich clergy offered annotations and corrections to Calvin’s draft that he incorporated into the final text.13 Calvin’s correspondents, such as Bullinger and Beza, advised caution. The latter warned, “If anyone is thinking of answering it, let it be done with great discernment, so that the embers do not burst forth into a raging fire. These calumnies are so stupid that they are not worth the trouble of a response.”14 Yet Calvin did respond. The flames were not far behind. Calvin responded to Westphal three times from 1555 to 1558.15 Calvin’s theological fellows also went to press, as did several Lutheran theologians. Westphal was reluctant to move the discussion into christology, focusing instead on the exegesis of the words of institution and the apparent inconsistency among the Reformed. Neither path, however, had proved fruitful over the many years since Marburg in either resolving the conflict or defeating Reformed ideas. Other Lutheran theologians pushed the debate into the realm of christology and supporting the doctrine of ubiquity from patristic sources. The first to do so was Johannes Timann of Bremen, a partisan of the emerging Gnesio-​Lutheran party. In 1555, he attacked the Bremen preacher Albert Hardenberg, a Philippist suspected of being a crypto-​Calvinist. Timann’s attack on Hardenberg’s view leveraged the christological underpinnings of the Supper and the ubiquity of Christ’s human body.16 As the conflict progressed, the Lutheran position consolidated around the doctrine of ubiquity led by the christological thought of Brenz and against the emerging Reformed consensus of spiritual presence and the

12 Joseph N. Tylenda, “Calvin-​Westphal Exchange:  The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises against Westphal,” Calvin Theological Journal 9, no. 2 (November 1974):  182–​209; Wim Janse, “The Controversy between Westphal and Calvin on Infant Baptism, 1555–​1556,” Perichoresis 6, no. 1 (2008):  3–​43; Irene Dingel, “Calvin in the Context of Lutheran Consolidation,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 12, nos. 2–​3 (August 2010): 155–​87. 13 Tylenda, “Calvin-​Westphal Exchange,” 192–​95. 14 Corpus Reformatorum 43:97, cited in Tylenda, “Calvin-​Westphal Exchange,” 185. 15 For a timeline of the works exchanged between Calvin and Westphal, see Janse, “The Controversy between Westphal and Calvin on Infant Baptism,” 5–​6. 16 Joar Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism, REFO500 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 124–​28.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  145 extra Calvinisticum, as the Stuttgart Synod of 1559 illustrates. The synod promulgated an official doctrine of the Supper for Württemberg, which included a firm advocacy of ubiquity based on the christology of Brenz, who helped to draft the document.17 The synod states: If opponents should argue against the presence of Christ by reference to the ascension of Christ, we declare that Christ is above all heavens in order to fill everything. Christ is not in a place, but is gone to majesty and glory. This pertains not only to his divine nature, but the man Christ too fills everything in an ineffable way. Through the glory of the Father, Christ is present to all things, and they are present to him. This is not possible to understand with reason, only faith can grasp it.18

This declaration encapsulates many issues that would come to the fore in the exchange between Brenz and Vermigli: the use of reason, the nature of the ascension, and the understanding of heaven. Brenz expounded these doctrines much further in his later work De personali unione.

3.2.2  Johannes Brenz and De personali unione (1561) As the Consensus Tigurinus set forth the extra Calvinisticum as a unifying doctrine between Zürich and Geneva and contributed significantly to the process of confessionalization within the Reformed sphere, the same process among the followers of Luther led to growing opposition against the Reformed. Brenz emerged as one of the key figures to carry forward Luther’s christology as it applied to the sacraments, arguing for a robust doctrine of the hypostatic union to secure the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity. The ubiquity of Christ’s human nature necessarily followed from the union itself in such a way that from the moment of the incarnation the human nature was omnipresent. According to Brenz, there is no point of transition from a local to a ubiquitous human nature, such as the ascension or glorification; rather a full incarnation demanded the full sharing of the divine majesty with Christ’s humanity. Brenz’s doctrine would be a main foil for the Reformed because it magnified the problematic tendencies, which they had identified in Luther’s

17 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 128–​29. 18 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 129.

146  The Flesh of the Word christology, especially the danger of comingling the natures. Reformed theologians sought to refute the Lutheran christology as a key linchpin to the doctrine of real, corporeal presence and set forth their own positive doctrine of Christ’s person. They sought to present a christology in line with the tradition of the early church, especially the Chalcedonian Decree, which they considered Brenz and the Lutherans to be violating. Vermigli directed his main christological text against Brenz in dialogue form and mirrored Brenz’s order of presenting the issues in De personali unione. Therefore, before turning to Vermigli’s positive doctrine, I will outline Brenz’s contribution to the eucharistic debate and overview his doctrine of ubiquity. This section, then, is a sketch of Brenz’s position, and a more detailed exposition of Vermigli’s presentation and engagement with these ideas will follow in the section on the Dialogue, since large portions of the Dialogue are direct quotations from Brenz’s work. Brenz was a leading member of the Lutheran Reformation from its earliest years. His career spanned over five decades, stretching from the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518 to his death amid the second eucharistic controversy in 1570.19 Beginning his study alongside both Bucer and Oecolampadius in Heidelberg, the young Brenz was swayed by Luther’s energetic and biblical defense of his theology, to which Brenz offered allegiance until the end. During his long career Brenz wrote prodigiously, producing 517 works.20 We have already seen the significance of his early work, the Syngramma, at the outbreak of the first eucharistic controversy. In addition, during his life Brenz was present at or an active participant in the most significant disputations between the Lutherans and their Reformed or Catholic opponents. Brenz attended the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), the Diet of Augsburg (1530), and the Second Regensburg Colloquy (1546).21 Because of Brenz’s influence and impressive activity and writing, James Estes’s characterization of him as, after Luther and Melanchthon, “the third man of the Lutheran reformation in Germany” seems apt.22

19 For a study of Brenz’s participation and significance in eucharistic controversies over the course of his long career, see John Wesley Constable, “Johann Brenz’s Role in the Sacramentarian Controversy of the Sixteenth Century,” PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, 1967. However, Constable’s dissertation fails to recount the debate with Vermigli in any detail. 20 James M. Estes, “Johannes Brenz and the German Reformation,” Lutheran Quarterly 16, no. 4 (2002): 373. 21 Estes, “Johannes Brenz and the German Reformation.” 22 Estes, “Johannes Brenz and the German Reformation,” 373.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  147 Like Luther at the Marburg Colloquy, Brenz holds to a fundamental opposition between reason and faith for questions of the mystery of the incarnation. In his study of Brenz’s christology, Brandy states that for Brenz, “With respect to christology, as a specifically theological subject, theology and philosophy are antithetical.”23 The only sure guide for knowledge of Christ in this regard is the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. The main scriptural testimony under consideration in the debate over the real, corporeal presence of Christ are the words of institution, “This is my body.” Any attempt to take these words in a less than literal manner, according to Brenz, is to abandon the “School of Christ” for the “School of Aristotle” or the “School of Human Wisdom.”24 According to Brenz, this is the fundamental error of the Reformed party, because they have subjected the mystery of God become flesh to the machinations of Aristotle and the limited horizon of the human mind.25 As Brandy summarizes Brenz’s position, “Anyone who, like the Swiss, embraces ‘philosophical and mathematical considerations’ has already lost the essence of Scripture: ‘It is as if they had no Scripture at all.’ ”26 In further support of this contention, Brenz appeals to divine omnipotence to justify his doctrine that the humanity of Christ itself transcends the boundary and limitation of all human conceptions of physics and space. According to Joar Haga, for Brenz “the reference to the unlimited power of God countered any argument that would confine the spatial presence of Christ to a local heaven.”27 By opposing reason and Scripture to one another and by setting theology in the realm of mystery and under the infinite potentiality of divine omnipotence, Brenz laid the foundation for a new doctrine of the person of Christ.

23 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 145–​47. Im Blick auf die Christologie als einen spezifisch theologischen Gegenstand stehen Theologie und Philosophie im Gegensatz (145). 24 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 146; Jörg Baur, “Ubiquität,” in Creator est creatura:  Luthers Christologie als Lehre von der Idiomenkommunikation, ed. Oswald Bayer and Benjamin Gleede, Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 138 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 245. 25 Vermigli’s attempt to refute this claim in the Dialogue does not satisfy Brenz, who in his rebuttal work, De divina maiestate Christi et de vera persentia corporis et sanguinis eius in Coena (September 1562), charges Vermigli “with basing his teaching about place and heaven on a narrow rationalism derived from Aristotle and contrary to the teaching of Scripture.” Donnelly, “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” xviii, citing Johannes Brenz, Die Christologisch Schriften, ed. Theodor Mahlmann (Tübigen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981), 1:360, 362, 364, 366, 392, 402, 412, 414. This charge will be taken up in the section on the Dialogue. 26 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 145. Wer sich  —​wie die Schweizer—​auf “philosopische und mathematichse Überlegungen” einläßt, hat die Sache der Schrift schon verloren: “es ist, als ob sie gar keine Schrift hätten.” 27 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 134.

148  The Flesh of the Word Brenz argues that by necessity the unity of Christ’s person entails that the human nature, and therefore the human body, partakes of all the essential attributes of divinity from the moment of incarnation itself. The unity of Christ’s person would be sundered if the human body itself did not partake of the divine attributes. He sees this as correcting for the inadequacies of the Chalcedonian Formula, which he interprets in a unitive manner, following after the early christological thought of Cyril of Alexandria.28 Haga shows that Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity flows from this unitive understanding of the person of Christ:  “Brenz had made explicit the necessary ubiquitous implications of a unionist insistence on the relation between Christ’s natures: if the humanity of Christ was indissolubly connected to the divine nature—​which by its very definition is everywhere—​, it followed that it was everywhere, too.”29 Since reason is not applicable here, the finite nature of Christ’s humanity need not be considered because the axiom of the finitum non capax infinitum is mere human tradition.30 Isaak Dorner summarizes Brenz’s positions with striking clarity: The human nature was not finite per se: “It is not essential to man to be bound by space and time; it is not essential to him that his participation in God should be limited; still less that he should participate merely in gifts of God; but human nature, which our opponents term merely ‘finita,’ is, not indeed per se, but still according to God’s free will, ‘infinite capax’: it is capable, through God, of having that which God is.”31

A radical notion of the communicatio idiomatum follows from this. The unique properties of the two natures, while continuing to adhere uniquely to their peculiar nature in some way, become operative on the other nature, not merely in a verbal sense or in such a way that the communication terminates on the person of Christ, but in such a manner that the actualization of the property in reality affects the other.32 This relation is realized not progressively over the course of Christ’s earthly life or at some moment of transition, such as the resurrection, ascension, or glorification, but from the moment of incarnation itself. A. B. Bruce summarizes well: 28 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 137–​38. 29 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 134. 30 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 246. 31 Isaak August Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, trans. D. W. Simon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890), 4:182. 32 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 140.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  149 [Brenz] invests the humanity of Christ with all divine qualities, or, to use his favourite phrase, comprehensive of everything, with DIVINE MAJESTY [sic], from the moment of Incarnation. He does not hesitate to say that the ascension and the session at the right hand of God took place not after the resurrection, but from the very beginning, from the moment when the hypostatical union of the two natures took place.33

Therefore, for Brenz there are not two stages of Christ’s incarnate life—​ humiliation and exaltation—​but a twofold life from the beginning that applies to both natures: one form of life exalted and transcendent of space and time yet hidden, and another visible and subject to the infirmities of human existence, spatial circumscription included.34 The human nature is never actually limited to the earthly sphere but only appears to be. Brenz does not shy away from the corollaries of this configuration of the hypostatic union. First, the nature of person itself is reconfigured. In opposition to an ahypostatic human nature being assumed by the person of the eternal Son, Brenz articulates Christ’s person as what Jörg Baur has called a “mutual fellowship” of the natures.35 As Brandy explains, for Brenz “the person of Christ has a coming-​into-​being behind it, it is first constituted from human and divine natures. In this respect it is not identical with the eternal divine Logos.”36 Second, Brenz does not hold that this communication is unidirectional from the divine majesty to the human nature but applies reciprocally. The most radical feature of Brenz’s christology, in that it diverges from the traditional christological consensus, is his claim that the divine nature participates in the suffering of the cross, thereby calling divine impassibility into question.37 Brenz states, “The Godhead in Christ assumed the suffering

33 Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ in Its Physical, Ethical and Official Aspects (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1895), 93. 34 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 248–​49. 35 “But if this one person is so posited, not as a third thing either before or under the natures but rather as their mutual fellowship, the traditional term ‘person’ for the trinitarian hypostasis which applies to Christ can no longer be restricted to the Logos (asarkos) in itself.” Wenn aber diese eine Person so gesetzt ist, nicht als Tertium vor oder über den Naturen, sondern als deren gegenseitige Gemeinschaft, kann der traditionelle Terminus “person” für die trinitarischen Hypostasen bei Christus nicht mehr auf den Logos an sich (ἄσαρκος) beschränkt bleiben. Baur, “Ubiquität,” 243. 36 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 158. Sie [die Person Christi] hat ein Werden hinter sich, sie wird von menschlicher und göttlicher Natur allererst konstituiert. Insofern ist sie nicht identisch mit den ewigen göttlichen Logos. For extensive discussion of the nature of the hypostatic union in Brenz, see 155–​69. 37 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 244; Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 194–​97.

150  The Flesh of the Word and death of the human nature, not to suffer and die in itself but to absorb his suffering and death and clothe that man with heavenly majesty.”38 Third and most pertinent to the extra and Vermigli’s polemics, Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity and the person of Christ requires a new understanding of the ascension and heaven itself. Brenz rejects the ascension of a circumscribed body to heaven that continues to exist circumscribedly, as Calvin and Bullinger had asserted in the Consensus. The human and divine natures are united in such a way that the human body is present wherever the divine nature is, therefore rendering a spatially limited existence for the humanity unnecessary. For Brenz, however, this does not compromise the body because the earthly definition of human bodies and physics has no purchase on the humanity of Christ.39 Brenz argues against any concept of heaven as a place into which Christ can ascend because his doctrine of ubiquity renders this impossible. He sees the position as articulated by Calvin and Bullinger, and later Vermigli, as beholden to Aristotelian concepts of the world.40 Rather, heaven must be understood in a nonlocal manner. As Haga summarizes Brenz’s position in response to Vermigli’s Dialogue, “The humanity of the exalted Christ is not only to be interpreted non-​physically, but exempted from any earthly location.”41 Brenz seems to conflate heaven with the right hand of the Father, which symbolizes the omnipotence of God and has no extension and is everywhere.42 These features of Brenz’s christology were controversial among the Lutherans, especially the Philippists.43 For the Reformed, however, the problems that were seen in germinal form in Luther had sprouted into a garden of error, which required clear and forthright rejection. It is to this end that Vermigli engaged Brenz in his Dialogue.

38 Johannes Brenz, De personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo, et ascensu Christi in coelum, ac sessione eius ad dextram Dei Patris (Tübingen: The Widow of Ulrich Morhard, 1561), fol. 9v, cited in Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 77. 39 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 135–​36, 141–​45. For an extended discussion of Brenz’s conception of heaven and the right hand of the Father as well as corollary issues, see Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 228–​47. 40 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 141–​42. 41 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 143. 42 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 232–​35. Es besteht eine Differenz für dies Menschen denen nur eine Zukunft im Himmel, nicht aber zur Rechten Gottes verheißen ist; im Blick auf Christus aber sind beide gleichbedeutend; für ihn und damit im Kontext der Christiologie stimmen beide überein (234). 43 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 227–​ 41, 254–​ 81; Thomas A. Von Hagel, “The Genus Maiestaticum-​ Christology of the ‘Catalog of Testimonies.’” PhD dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1997, 198–​268. The leading alternative doctrine of ubiquity was set forth by Martin Chemnitz against Brenz. Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 156; Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, trans. J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  151 While Brenz seeks to support these positions from the supreme authority of Scripture, he also appeals to subordinate authorities such as the church fathers and medieval scholastic theologians. This move by Brenz shifts the focus of the inter-​Protestant debate onto new ground. While Oecolampadius and Zwingli appeal to Augustine and Fulgentius against Luther’s view of Christ’s body at Marburg, the debate thus far had been primarily a matter of scriptural citation and theological reasoning. The debate between Brenz and Vermigli gave added emphasis to the church fathers, each seeking to secure the approval of the tradition for his side. Brenz invokes the fathers to avoid the charge of novelty, which was a salient concern for the whole Reformation movement in light of Catholic polemics.44 The majority of Brenz’s citations from the fathers in De personali unione seek to support his understanding of the hypostatic union, which resulted in the humanity of Christ existing everywhere that the person of Christ does. Brenz does not draw direct citations from the fathers to support ubiquity but rather relies on support drawn from the patristic insistence on the utter uniqueness of this union, which for Brenz placed it beyond any bounds of human reason.45 To this end he cites Cyril of Alexandria, the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed, and Leo the Great.46 He also cites and rejects various claims by Augustine used by the Reformed to rebuff the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature. Brenz brings the largest range of sources to bear on support for his notion of the communicatio idiomatum. In this regard, Jin Heung Kim points to quotations of Basil, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome from the fathers and Lombard, Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Compendium of Theological Truth from the scholastic period.47 Yet Brenz principally relies on Cyril to support this doctrine from ecclesial tradition.48 The main thrust of Brenz’s interpretation of the fathers is the uniqueness of the union of the two natures in Christ, which he interprets critically in support of his understanding of Scripture. Where the fathers seem to move in a

44 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 142. 45 Brenz offers only three citations in support of his doctrine of the ascension and the right hand of the Father. Jin Heung Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis: The Function of the Church Fathers and the Medievals in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Two Eucharistic Treatises:  Tractatio and Dialogus, Publications of the Institute for Reformation Research 5 (Apeldoorn:  Insituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), 272. 46 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 272–​73. 47 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 226n80. 48 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 275–​76.

152  The Flesh of the Word different direction from Brenz, he offers a reinterpretation.49 He does not see himself as an innovator but as sweeping away former innovations that have distorted the original truth of Scripture.50 In addition, he uses the medieval scholastics to support his understanding of the possibility of an illocal ubiquity, more fully explicating the position Luther proposed at Marburg.51 Yet Brenz’s use of the fathers and scholastics pales compared to his reliance on Luther, with the second half of the treatise dedicated to a florilegium of the Wittenberg reformer.52 As Kim concludes: All the references to the fathers and the Medievals in his treatise are eclipsed by his overwhelming dependence upon this leader of his church [Luther]. Not only in terms of its great quantity, but also in terms of its content, it is Luther who is the most important authority in De personali unione lending support to Brenz’s Lord’s Supper doctrine.53

Brenz does not pretend to originality but aims to set forth Luther’s teaching.54 Vermigli will focus much of his Dialogue on engaging Brenz’s use of these authorities to show that in fact the doctrine of ubiquity is a novelty and finds its only firm support in the mind of Luther.

3.3  Vermigli’s Life and Christology 3.3.1  Introduction to Vermigli’s Life and Significance Vermigli was a bridging figure between the theological tradition of the past and the path that the Reformed tradition would take after the passing of the second-​generation reformers. He connected the Reformed churches to the inheritance of medieval scholastic thought, Aristotelianism, humanism, and the church fathers, all within the framework of sola Scriptura—​a combination yet unseen in the other Reformed theologians. At the same time, 49 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 143. Die Richtung der Interpretation zielt debet regelmäßig auf die Eindeutigkeit der realen Gemeinschaft von göttlicher und menschlicher Natur in Christus. Wo diese durch Väterworte gefährdet erscheint, interveniert Brenz. 50 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 144. Brenz sieht sich nicht als Innovator, sondern räumt unsachgemäße Neuerungen gegenüber der Bibel, aus dem Weg. See also Baur, “Ubiquität,” 242. 51 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 262–​64. 52 Brenz, De personali unione, 23r–​41r. 53 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 284. 54 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 241.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  153 Vermigli’s method and openness to scholastic and Aristotelian tools and methods foreshadow the shift in theological method that would emerge in the early Reformed orthodox period as polemical necessity and confessional distinctives required a new level of precision and dialectic skill.55 Because of his profound influence on his contemporaries and the subsequent Reformed tradition, Frank James has called Vermigli “one of the leading lights from that constellation of theologians who gave formative shape to early Reformed theology.”56 To show Vermigli’s unique place and influence within the Reformed tradition of his day and his exposition of the extra Calvinisticum, I will begin with a biographical sketch before turning to his christology prior to the conflict with Brenz. These elements help to ground and explain Vermigli’s rejection of ubiquity and doctrine of the extra in The Dialogue. Born in Florence in the fall of 1499, Vermigli’s formative years were marked by the intellectual and religious currents of Italy. At a young age, he joined the Augustinian order and began his study in theology. He was trained in both scholastic and humanist thought at the University of Padua and elsewhere. He became involved with the spiritual circle of Juan de Valdés, which included Reginald Pole, future cardinal and bête noire of English Protestantism, who would cause Vermigli’s flight from England later in life. From 1537, after becoming abbot of San Pietro ad Aram in Naples, Vermigli studied Erasmus and the reformers, especially Bucer and Zwingli. After spending his final years as the prior of San Frediano monastery in Lucca, the Inquisition’s gaze impelled Vermigli to flee Italy, never again to return.57 He 55 This assessment is the product of long debate within the field of Vermigli studies, which overturned the negative view of Vermigli present in those of the Calvin versus the Calvinist hermeneutic of the previous century. For instance, Brian Armstrong places Vermigli among a list of theologians who have perverted the biblical theology of Calvin with his scholastic distortions. This position has been thoroughly reassessed by subsequent scholars. Brian G.  Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy:  Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 37–​38, passim. For the main works that have recast understanding of Vermigli’s theological method within the context of the sixteenth century, see John Patrick Donnelly S.J., “Calvinist Thomism,” Viator 7 (1976): 441–​55; Marvin Anderson, “Peter Martyr Vermigli:  Protestant Humanist,” in Peter Martyr and Italian Reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980), 65–​84; Joseph C. McLelland, “Peter Martyr Vermigli:  Scholastic or Humanist,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980), 141–​51; Frank A. James III, “Peter Martyr Vermigli: At the Crossroads of Late Medieval Scholasticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 62–​78; Luca Baschera, “Zwischen Philosophie und Theologie:  Aspekte der Aristoteles-​Auslegung Peter Martyr Vermiglis,” in Konfession, Migration und Elitenbildung: Studien zur Theologenausbildung des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis and Markus Wriedt (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 85–​97. 56 James, “Peter Martyr Vermigli,” 62. 57 Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967); Joseph C. McLelland, ed., Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier

154  The Flesh of the Word arrived in Strasbourg in 1542 and, with the help of Bucer, soon taught in the Höhe Schule, where he was free to pursue his thought as a Protestant for the first time.58 With the ascension of Edward VI to the English throne in 1547, Thomas Cranmer enlisted Vermigli, along with Bucer, to aid in the thoroughgoing reform of the English church. Vermigli took up the position of Regius Professor at Oxford and assisted with the formulation of the Forty-​Two Articles.59 While in Oxford, he engaged in public disputation with Catholic theologians from May 28 to June 1, 1549, over transubstantiation and the nature of the Eucharist, publicly setting forth a position on the eucharistic presence in line with Bullinger.60 This debate helped influence Cranmer and was received positively by a wide range of Reformed theologians, further solidifying Vermigli’s international reputation.61 After the return of English Catholicism under Mary Tudor and Vermigli’s erstwhile friend Reginald Pole, Vermigli fled once again and returned to his position at Strasbourg in 1553. The ecclesial atmosphere had changed since his departure, with an increased Lutheran presence after the Augsburg Interim of 1548. Johannes Marbach quickly criticized Vermigli for both his doctrine of predestination and his view of the Eucharist.62 Finding the conditions in Strasbourg inhospitable, Vermigli agreed to Bullinger’s repeated summons to take the position of Old Testament at Zürich in 1556, which he would hold until his death in 1562. These final years saw Vermigli Press, 1980); Joseph C. McLelland, “Italy: Religious and Intellectual Ferment,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009),  25–​33. 58 Klaus Sturm, Die Theologie Peter Martyr Vermiglis während seines ersten Aufenthalts in Strassburg 1542–​1547: Ein Reformkatholik unter den Vätern der reformierten Kirche, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, Bd. 31 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag, 1971); R. Gerald Hobbs, “Strasbourg: Vermigli and the Senior School,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 35–​69. 59 Gordon Huelin, “Peter Martyr and the English Reformation,” PhD dissertation, University of London, 1954; Philip M. J. McNair, “Peter Martyr in England,” in Peter Martyr and Italian Reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980), 85–​105; Charlotte Methuen, “Oxford: Reading Scripture in the University,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 71–​92. 60 Joseph C. McLelland, “Translator’s Introduction,” in The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist, 1549, ed. and trans. Joseph C. McLelland, The Peter Martyr Library 7 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 2000), xxv–​xxx. 61 McLelland, “Translator’s Introduction,” xxx–​xliv; Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi and Peter-​Joachim Opitz (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 173–​201. 62 Hobbs, “Strasbourg,” 54–​ 59; John L. Farthing, “Praeceptor Carissimus:  Images of Peter Martyr in Girolamo Zanchi’s Correspondence,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda, ed. Frank A. James, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 115 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 9–​11.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  155 persistently writing commentaries, polemical texts, and correspondence as he sought to forward the cause of reform throughout the continent.63 His activities included advising, along with Calvin and Bullinger, on debates in Poland over Christ’s mediatorial nature challenged by Stancaro, taking a leading position against Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity, and representing the French Reformed church at the Colloquy of Poissy.64

3.3.2  Vermigli’s Early Christology Within the Dialogue, Vermigli’s most persistent and significant charge against Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity is that it destroys the integrity of the human nature of Christ, but the underlying theological rationale for the weight and severity of this accusation is not explicitly stated. Why is it essential for Vermigli to preserve the humanity of Christ in this way? What is at stake in defining the human nature? To answer these questions, we must turn to his writings on christology outside of the Dialogue. Because Vermigli never wrote a clear systematic account of his christology, Donnelly rightly advises that “students of Martyr have to patch together his scattered comments on christology, ever mindful of their original context, and accept the fact that there are lacunae in what he has written, even though a comprehensive vision and coherent theology lay behind his remarks.”65 In this section, I will attempt such a reconstruction regarding the main theological motivations for Vermigli’s christology by investigating his letters to the Polish churches.66 Vermigli’s thought in this controversy, expressed in three letters written immediately before the Dialogue, helps to bring into greater focus the underlying theological motivations behind his specific concerns, arguments

63 Marvin Anderson, “Vista Tigurina: Peter Martyr and European Reform (1556–​1562),” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 2 (1990):  181–​206; Emidio Campi, “Zurich:  Professor in the Schola Tigurina,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 95–​114; Baumann, Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich. 64 Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought.” Donald Nugent, Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy, Harvard Historical Studies, vol. 89 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974). 65 Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” 196. 66 For an understanding of Vermigli’s debate with Stancaro and the underlying theological and christological issue, this section draws upon the following works: Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought”; Jason Zuidema, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–​1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace, Reformed Historical Theology 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 71–​83; Klempa, “Classical Christology,” 328–​36.

156  The Flesh of the Word against ubiquity, and articulation of the extra Calvinisticum presented in the Dialogue. The infant Polish Reformed churches were racked with controversy in the 1550s–​60s. Lacking a strong theologian of their own, other than à Laski, the Polish churches often sought the counsel of the established churches in Switzerland. In response to requests for theological guidance, Vermigli wrote three letters to the Polish Reformed churches from 1556 to 1561. The key issue of debate was the teaching of Franceso Stancaro, an Italian reformer and Hebraist.67 Stancaro argued that Christ was mediator only according to his human nature, fearing that any ascription of mediation to the divine nature would lead to Arianism by placing the Son in a subordinate position to God the Father.68 Stephen Edmonson concisely summarizes Stancaro’s concerns: From Stancaro’s perspective, to hold that Christ is Mediator in his divinity is to hold that he is therein less than the Father, for to be a Mediator is to be one who is between two parties. To place Christ in his divinity between the Father and humanity sets him below the Father (and above humanity); and this, for Stancaro, is the Arian heresy.69

Early rumblings of controversy emerged in 1556, with Vermigli writing a letter in February of that year that, among other concerns, rejected Stancaro’s views.70 The debate in Poland came to a head at the Synod of Pinczów in August 1559.71 Like many disputations of the era, the proceedings were heated. As William Klempa notes, “During the debate, á Lasco threw a heavy Bible at Stancaro’s head, failing thereby as George H. Williams has humorously commented, to impress the Word of God on this pugnacious and 67 Wacław Urban, “Stancarus, Francis,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans Joachim Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 68 Klempa, “Classical Christology,” 328–​36; Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” 186–​96; Wacław Urban, “Die grössen Jahre der stancarianischer ‘Häresie,’” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 81 (1990):  309–​18; Frederic Corss Church, The Italian Reformers, 1534–​ 1564 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), 130–​33, 338–​39, 345–​46; Stephen Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 13–​39. 69 Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology, 17. 70 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Letter No 126 (1556) To the Polish Lords Professing the Gospel and to the Ministers of Their Churches, ed. and trans. John Patrick Donnelly S.J., The Peter Martyr Library (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999), 5:152. 71 See Vermigli’s Letter No 126, which briefly mentions Stancaro’s position. . For discussion of this first letter, see Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” 188–​89. For the details of the Synod of Pinczów and its fallout, see George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd ed. (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1995), 1028–​30, 1030–​31n131.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  157 loquacious Italian reformer.”72 The synod issued a positive affirmation of the function of Christ as mediator according to both natures, structured around the triplex munus. The condemnation at Pinczów in August did not bring the conflict to an end. Disputes over the nature of the Trinity and christology would rage in the Polish church for years.73 After à Laski’s death in January 1560, the Polish churches reached out to Zürich and Geneva for counsel on the Stancaro issue. Both sets of clergy responded with letters in 1560, written by Vermigli and Calvin, respectively. Stancaro and his supporters rejected these letters condemning his views from Geneva and Zürich as forgeries. Stancaro even wrote to Bullinger, Calvin, and Vermigli in December 1560 informing them that parties were spreading Arianism and Monophysitism in their name, referring to the letters of 1560.74 Vermigli wrote a final letter in March 1561 both to reject Stancaro’s teaching and to defend Zürich’s christological orthodoxy, which Stancaro had maligned. Vermigli’s second and third letters were published that month.75 The preface to the published collection of the letters from the Zürich church to the Polish churches sets its purpose forth:  “so that everywhere all may see what we think about adoring the Trinity and about the saving mystery of the incarnation as against all strange doctrine.”76 It is this “saving mystery of the incarnation” that motivates Vermigli’s christology and his rejection of Stancaro’s truncated view of Christ as mediator. For Vermigli, 72 Klempa, “Classical Christology,” 329, citing Williams, The Radical Reformation, 1029. 73 For reflection on the consequence of these debates within the Polish Church, see Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 267–​69. Benedict, however, errs by numbering Stancaro among the Anti-​Trinitarians, claiming that he “began to flirt with Arian views soon after drafting the first formal church order for newly independent congregations” (266). Stancaro himself was seeking to maintain the status of Christ as equal to the Father and thereby avoid Arianism; however, in so doing he separated the Christ’s natures into two acting subjects. Donnelly notes that while Stancaro was an opponent of Anti-​Trinitarians, his position was taken up by them to support their position. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Letter No 247(1560) To the Polish Churches, ed. and trans. John Patrick Donnelly S.J., The Peter Martyr Library (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999), 5:179n239. 74 Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” 192. 75 The Zürich response, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Epistolae duae ad ecclesias Polonicas Iesu Christi Evangelium amplexas (Zürich: Froschauer, 1561), cites Vermigli’s two letters and Calvin’s responses. For Calvin’s role in this debate, see Joseph N. Tylenda, “Christ the Mediator: Calvin versus Stancaro,” Calvin Theological Journal 8, no. 1 (April 1973): 5–​16; Joseph N. Tylenda, “Controversy on Christ the Mediator:  Calvin’s Second Reply to Stancaro,” Calvin Theological Journal 8, no. 2 (November 1973): 131–​57. 76 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Letter No 267 To Illustrious Polish Noblemen (1561), ed. and trans. John Patrick Donnelly S.J., The Peter Martyr Library (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999), 5:198n271. Ut omnes ubique videat, quid sentiamus de adorando Trinitatis et salutifero incarnationis mysterio, contra omnia peregrina dogmata (Epistolae duae, unnumbered first page).

158  The Flesh of the Word the role of Christ as mediator in both natures is the center of the message of Reformational preaching and teaching. As Klempa summarizes, “Vermigli’s watchword is:  ‘We want the whole Christ and the whole mediator.’ ”77 Vermigli’s final appeal to the Polish clergy, in his second letter, reveals what he deems to be at stake in the debate with Stancaro and the proper understanding of the unity of the two natures of Christ: “It remains for us to urge you, brothers, to be constant in preaching and defending the pure teaching of the Gospel and to have no fear of any person.”78 Throughout the letter Vermigli has elaborated on this pure teaching and called them to “keep teaching this way the churches entrusted to you and fend off from them Stancaro along with similar sectarians.”79 For Vermigli, as with Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin, the very nature of the gospel is under threat from not only the doctrines of the anti-​Trinitarians but also those who either confound the natures of Christ or pull them apart. According to Vermigli, in his attempt to forestall anti-​Trinitarianism, Stancaro divided Christ’s two natures and compromised the hypostatic union. Vermigli sets forth this point most clearly in his first letter to the Polish churches, in which he identifies the fundamental error of both the radical wing of the Reformation and the Lutheran teaching as a failure to understand the dynamic of the two natures of Christ: They boast that they also revere and embrace Christ as the true Son of God and our redeemer, but they soon either confuse his two natures or else deny he exists as a human creature; they say with equal boldness and ignorance that his body is spread and exists everywhere. They claim it is multiplied and contained in all Eucharistic breads and is included in them. Or they dream up in a mad way that his flesh was not taken from the material of the blessed Virgin Mary but was brought down from heaven or was conceived and formed from the substance of the Holy Spirit.80 77 Klempa, “Classical Christology,” 333. 78 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:183. Quod reliquum est, hortamur vos fratres, ut constantes sitis in praedicanda et defendenda syncera doctrina Evangelii, et ne metutatis vobis ab ullo homine (Epistolae duae, 10). 79 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:183. Pergite sic docere ecclesias vestrae fidei creditas, ac Stancarum cum sectariis similibus avertere ab eis (Epistolae duae,  9–​10). 80 Vermigli, Letter No 126, 5:143–​44. Christum quoque Dei verum filium, redemptoremque nostrum iactant se venerari et aplecti, sed mox aut duas eius naturas confundunt, aut iuxta humanam creaturam esse negant, corpus illius ubique diffundi, ac esse, non minus audacter quam imperite dicunt, per omnes Eucharisticos panes multiplicari atque contineri statuunt, et in illis includi, aut substantiam carnis eius non ex materia beatae Virginis Mariae desumptam, sed vel de coelo allatam, vele ex substantia sancti Spiritus conceptam et formatam insane confingunt. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), 1110.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  159 Vermigli thus equates the error of the radical reformers and the Lutherans. The doctrine of the heavenly flesh, which Bullinger had already strenuously assailed in An Orthodox Assertion, and the doctrine of ubiquity equally compromise the incarnation. According to Vermigli, both teachings fail to account for the scriptural witness and the faith, which comes from receiving the Word of God and not from human imagination. He compares such teachings to the Philistines’ worship of the idols of Dagon. Vermigli maintains that the same impulse toward idolatry motivates the making of physical idols and distorted images of Christ; they attempt to fashion according to human thought and not the word of God. The result is the same: “These are nothing but monsters.”81 Therefore, a failure properly to relate the divine and human natures in the one mediator not only compromises gospel preaching but also issues into false worship.82 Vermigli argued that the proper understanding of the mediator must include the full participation of each nature unified in one hypostasis. The act of mediation could not be ascribed to one nature alone, as Stancaro had argued, without separating the natures or nullifying the soteriological power of Christ’s work as mediator. Summarizing his position, Vermigli states: Christ is one person in whom the two natures subsist in a way that they are joined with each other so that they cannot in any way be pulled apart from each other. Therefore all the actions of Christ should be attributed to the hypostasis or person because the two natures do not subsist separately and by themselves; neither do they act separately, as if one nature does a certain work but the other nature something else.83

81 Vermigli, Letter No 126, 5:144. Nihil porro haec aliud sunt quam monstra (Loci Communes, 1110). 82 “The heretics and all those who deviate from sincere godliness in making up their own deity generally being with God the Creator of heaven and earth and with Christ the Son of God and our redeemer but afterwards they end up in monsters and prodigies of their own twisted imaginations. They worship neither the true God nor the true Christ but their own specters, images, and phantasies.” Vermigli, Letter No 126, 5:144. Ita haeretici et omnes qui a syncera pietate deviant, suum numen quod fabricant, a Deo creatore coeli et terrae plerumque auspicantur, et Christum a filio Dei et nostro redemptore, verum postea in portenta et prodigia suarum deformium cogitationum desinnunt, neque verum Deum, verumque Christum, sed sua ipsorum spectra, simulachra et phantasmata colunt (Loci Communes, 1110). 83 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:179. Christus Iesus est una persona, in qua duae naturae subsistunt, adeo inter sese coniunctae ut nullo modo a se invicem sint divellendae. Omnes itaque Christi actiones hypostatsi seu personae debent attribui:  quia duae naturae non seoesim et per subsistunt neque separatim agunt, quasi haec dicatur ali quod certum opus efficere, altera vero aliud (Epistolae duae,  2–​3).

160  The Flesh of the Word Since mediation is an act of Christ, it is attributable to the person and accomplished through the power of each nature in accordance with the properties of each. Stancaro’s attribution of the act of mediation to the human nature alone threatened to rend the natures asunder. This rending results in “the two natures act[ing] separately, as if they were divided from each other the way that Nestorius confused them.”84 The active subject of Christ is not one nature or the other but the hypostasis or person. No action is properly predicated of a nature but of the one person as the active subject. Vermigli distinguishes between the acts and the properties that give the potentiality for such acts: “Meanwhile the properties of the two natures which are in Christ should be kept distinct, whole, and unmixed so that they cannot in any way be confused.”85 With these two statements Vermigli reproduces the bounds set by the Chalcedonian Formula: Christ’s two natures are not separated, divided, confused, or mixed. The maintenance of the unity of Christ is at the level of the person or hypostasis, while its distinctiveness and integrity is at the level of nature. While certain acts of Christ have their potentiality according to the properties of one nature or the other, it is Christ as the God-​man who actualizes this potentiality. Vermigli presents different actions arising from qualities of each nature: the human, “having been born of the Virgin Mary, wounded, died, buried, and taken up into heaven”; the divine, “the Creator of heaven and earth, that he was before Abraham existed, even that he exists from eternity and is everywhere”—​yet all these actions are “to be understood of the person or hypostasis.”86 Vermigli pushes this discussion further to refute Stancaro’s contention that the human nature alone could function as mediator. Christ can execute some mediatorial actions apart from his human nature and in fact has done so. “For these actions, it was not necessary for our mediator to use the instrument of the humanity. Indeed, even before the Incarnation Christ did

84 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:200–​201. Duas naturas seorsim agere, quasi divisae sint a se invicem, quemadmodum Nestorius comminiscebant (Epistolae duae, 13). 85 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:179. Interim duarum naturarum, quae in Christo sunt, proprietates, distinctas, integras et impermixtas conservare oportet, ita ut nullo pacto confundantur (Epistolae duae, 3). 86 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:179–​80. Unde cum Christus natus Maria virgine, vulneratus, mortuus et sepultus in coelum sublatus dicitur, omnia hac ipsi personae, in qua sunt duae naturae, assignantur: verum non qua Deus, sed qua homo fuit. Istas enim mutationes et passiones natura divina minime admittit. Rursus cum dicitur, Christus est creator coeli et terrae. Antequam Abraham fieret ipse erat, imo ab aeterno est, et ubique est, intelligenda haec sunt de persona seu hypostasi, attamen qua deus est, non qua homo. Quoniam creatae naturae ac finitae illa non conveniunt (Epistolae duae, 3).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  161 these things among the ancient fathers.”87 This statement should not be construed to exclude the humanity in these acts; it is merely a statement that the pre-​incarnate Christ was already functioning as mediator, which severely undercuts Stancaro’s argument. Vermigli rests this claim not only on the activity of Christ in the period of the Old Testament but also in his present bodily absence: “And now while he is absent from us in his body and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, he performs these services on earth for us who are living on earth.”88 The ascension of Christ into heaven according to his human nature, which he will discuss further in the Dialogue, does not separate the church from its mediator. Christ’s mediatorial activity, which secures access to the Father and salvation, encompasses both his continued work at the right hand of the Father and his presence with the church. Christ’s mediatorial role can no more be attributed to the divine nature alone than to the human nature alone. “As regards all the benefits that were to be given either before the Incarnation or after the ascension, it is not as if his human nature did not play a role, because the Son of God in heaven confers these good things on us even now because he suffered and died and was obedient to God even to death on a cross.”89 Therefore, the mediation of Christ is efficacious because of his accomplished work, which holds even after the absence of the human body from the earthly sphere because of the ascension. Christ’s work among Old Testament saints is predicated not on the basis of his humanity but because of his preordained status as the logos incarnandus et immolandus:  “Before the incarnation the same Son of God illuminated human beings, taught them, and had dealings with them, but it was he who was going to suffer and be crucified at an opportune time. As long as the holy fathers faithfully believed in that sacrifice, they were made capable of 87 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:180. Quoniam ad haec non est necesse, ut mediator noster instrumento humanitatis utatur. Quin etiam ante incarnationem Christus haec faciebat inter veteres patres (Epistolae duae, 5). 88 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:180. Et nunc dum a nobis corpore absens est, et sedet in coelis ad dexteram patris, nobis qui versamur in terris talia praestat (Epistolae duae, 5). 89 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:180. I have modified Donnelly’s translation here, which reads, “Still, as regards all the benefits that were to be given either before the incarnation or after the ascension, his human nature did not play a role, because the Son of God in heaven confers these good things on us even now because he suffered and died and was obedient to God even to death on a cross.” Donnelly is missing the double negative that is present in the original Latin with “nec tamen . . . non.” Donnelly’s translation leads to an immediate contradiction within Vermigli’s argument, such that he claims “his human nature did not play a role” and then states that the suffering and death of Christ was the cause of God’s conferral of all Christ’s benefits to the church as well as in the time of the Old Testament. Nec tamen quo ad omnia beneficia vel ante incarnationem vel post ascensionem danda, non habita est ratio naturae humanae; quia et modo filius dei in coelis haec bona largitur nobis; quia passus est et mortuus et obediens deo usque ad motem crucis (Epistolae duae, 5).

162  The Flesh of the Word its saving benefits.”90 According to Vermigli, in this sense Christ is said to be “slain from the beginning of the world” (Rev. 13:8) “because the fruit of his death also flowed down onto the ancient fathers.”91 All of Christ’s mediatorial activity for the benefit of humanity is based on his incarnate sacrifice, which has inestimable worth because by the hypostatic union it truly is the sacrifice of the eternal God. The Old Testament saints look forward in faith to this sacrifice, and the church looks backward to the past sacrifice and upward to the ascended humanity. Therefore, Stancaro’s limitation of mediatorship to the human nature utterly fails to account for the nature of salvation by rendering the incarnation unnecessary and severing the unity of action in the person of Christ. In these writings to the Polish church, Vermigli also lays the groundwork for his understanding of the communication of properties and the hypostatic union, which he develops in the Dialogue against Brenz. Vermigli grounds the communicatio idiomatum on his doctrine of Christ as mediator, thereby establishing the truth of the verbal expression upon the ontological foundation of the hypostatic union:  “[That Christ is mediator regarding both natures] also is why we acknowledge the communication of idioms or properties of both natures in Christ . . . because since these two natures come together in one and the same hypostasis or person it easily happens that what is said of one nature is also attributed of the other nature.”92 Given the unity of action and person of Christ, the God-​man, it is proper to say “God died on the cross” or “the Son of Man created the world.” This does not allow a confusion of the natures such that the divine nature may suffer or the human, creaturely nature may preexist creation itself; rather these statements are properly reckoned of Christ qua person, which constitutes their veracity. “But the truth of these statements remains firm because since they are the acts of the person in whom the two natures are conjoined, their properties, which as regards their reality remain integral, preserved, and unmixed, are easily mixed together 90 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:180. Ante incarnationem vero idem filius dei, homines illuminabat, docebat, et una cum eis versabatur, qui tamen opportuno tempore passurus erat et crucifigendus. Cui sacrificio dum sancti patres fideliter credebant, salutarium beneficiorum capaces reddebantur (Epistolae duae, 5). 91 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:180–​81. Quod fructus eius mortis etiam ad veteres patres dimanarit (Epistolae duae, 5–​6). Vermigli is here following the reading from the Vulgate that attaches the phrase “from the foundations of the world” to the verb “slain” rather than “written.” Some modern translations have argued otherwise. See, for instance, the ESV: “everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” 92 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:181. Hinc etiam fit, ut communicationem idiomatum sive proprietatum utriusque naturae in Christo . . . quia cum in una eademque hypostasi seu persona illae duae naturae conveniant, facile fit, ut quod de una dicitur, de altera quoque praedicetur (Epistolae duae, 6).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  163 in our speech.”93 This understanding of the communicatio idiomatum further allows Vermigli to avoid the error of Nestorianism he sees in Stancaro and the potential of confusing the natures found in the radical reformers and Lutherans. In his third letter to the Polish churches, addressed to the Polish nobility, written after Stancaro claimed the condemnation of his teaching found in the second letter of Vermigli and first of Calvin were forgeries, Vermigli defends the Zürich christology from charges of heresy by Stancaro and others. In so doing he reiterates the enhypostatic christology, already presented by Zwingli in his final confessional works, to explain the unity of the person and reject any charge of Nestorianism: “We defend the mystery of the Incarnation with no less sincerity, positing two natures in Christ, ‘the human and the divine—​ conjoined inseparably together as tightly as possible so that in the hypostasis of the Son of God,’ that is of the eternal Word [Logos], the nature of man also is borne up and subsists undivided.”94 The hypostasis of Christ is not a product of the union but is the active subject that unites the human nature with the divine nature. The human nature cannot be considered on its own but only in the most intimate and closest possible union with the person of the eternal Son in which it subsists. “God, however, was himself the Word [Λόγος; Logos] whose hypostasis was upholding the human nature of Christ.”95 Vermigli argues that only the hypostatic union of the two natures in the single person of the mediator can secure the soteriological value necessary for the sacrifice for humanity’s sin. The divine Son could not suffer and die for the sins of humanity unless he truly became a human, and likewise the suffering of a mere human could not have the infinite value to atone for the sins of the human race. The suffering of the impassible God plays a significant role in both Vermigli’s christology and soteriology, which will bring him into conflict with Brenz. Vermigli states the relationship vividly: “God wanted the human nature to be borne in the divine person so that from it the suffering of Christ might draw upon the juice of its dignity and excellence, not as if from

93 Vermigli, Letter No 247, 5:181. Constat autem veritas harum sententiarum: quia cum eae actiones personae sint, in qua duae naturae coniunguntur, proprietates earum, quae manent integrae, salvae, ac impermixtae, quod ad rem attinet, in semone facile permutantur (Epistolae duae, 6). 94 Vermigli, Letter No 267, 5:200 [translation modified to properly account for the use of inquam]. Nec minori synceritate mysterium incarnationis defendimus, ponentes in Christo duas naturas, humanam inquam, et divinam, inseparabiliter quam arctissime coniunctas, ita ut in ὑποστασει filii dei, λογου inquam aeterni, hominis quoque natura indivulse gestetur, et substentetur (Epistolae duae, 13). 95 Vermigli, Letter No 267, 5:205. Deus autem ipse λογος erat, cuius hypostasis in Christo naturam humanam substentabat (Epistolae duae, 21).

164  The Flesh of the Word an outside font or root but from the basis or hypostasis in which the human nature that was suffering was inserted.”96 Vermigli’s involvement in the Stancaro controversy establishes the foundational theological motivation for his christology, the preservation of both natures in Christ’s one person as the mediator, which underlies his views in the Dialogue. Nothing less than the very gospel message of the Reformational preaching that Christ is the one and final mediator between God and man was at stake in Stancaro’s imbalanced christology. This same concern undergirds Vermigli’s rejection of Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity in the Dialogue and his formulation of the extra. Vermigli sees the extra as preserving the mediatorial nature of Christ and therefore his soteriological function by preserving the reality and veracity of Christ’s human nature, which ubiquity threatens to destroy, carrying forth the soteriological emphasis seen in Zwingli.

3.4 Vermigli’s Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ 3.4.1  Introduction to the Dialogue After his intervention in the Polish controversy, Vermigli turned his attention to the ongoing debate between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions over the Eucharist and the doctrine of Christ. In this debate he carried forward many concerns presented in the Polish correspondence regarding Christ as mediator and the relationship of the two natures. Vermigli entered the fray after the publication of Brenz’s De personali unione early in 1561. In the Dialogue, Vermigli builds on the arguments presented beforehand by Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin and expands upon both the argumentative basis and the theological articulation of the extra. He uses many of the same scriptural passages, the enhypostatic humanity, the nature of Christ’s human body, and reflection on the ascension to articulate and defend the extra. But he also extends the argumentative basis for the extra by incorporating the fathers to a greater extent, the medieval scholastics, and Aristotelian thought. Vermigli brings together all of these sources to argue that the extra follows necessarily from Chalcedonian christology and is necessary to maintain the 96 Vermigli, Letter No 267, 5:204. Voluit deus naturam humanam in divina persona gestari, quo inde passiones Christi succum dignitatis et excellentiae havrirent, non veluti ab externo fonte seu radice, verum ut a basi atque hypostasi, in qua natura humana, quae patiebatur, inserta esset (Epistolae duae, 20).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  165 reasonability of the Christian faith. He thereby secures the antiquity of the doctrine and provides additional support for the first and fourth propositions of the extra: (1) Jesus Christ, the God-​man, maintained an existence extra carnem during his earthly ministry; (4) the communicatio idiomatum within the hypostatic union terminates on the person of Christ, therefore excluding a sharing of properties between the divine and human natures themselves. Vermigli also further develops the second proposition—​after the ascension and session the human body of Christ exists, in some sense, locally in heaven—​by arguing for a local heaven based on Scripture and a scripturally modified Aristotelian cosmology. With the Dialogue, Vermigli firmly shifts the locus of debate between the Lutheran and Reformed theologians from the topic of eucharistic presence to christology proper. While Vermigli does discuss the implication of his understanding of the hypostatic union and Christ’s human nature for the Supper, this occupies one section of a much larger text.97 Rather, Vermigli attempts to get at what he considers the heart of the Lutheran position—​namely, the doctrine of ubiquity. In Vermigli’s assessment, the doctrine of ubiquity for Brenz, and for the Lutherans more broadly, stems from a desire to uphold the eucharistic teaching of Luther. As he writes to John Jewel in his prefatory letter, “This new ubiquity is nothing less than to persuade the unwary with some murky reasons and arguments that the Lord’s body and blood are, as they say, truly, really, bodily and substantially in the holy Supper in a heavenly, secret, and ineffable way.”98 Therefore, Vermigli’s goal in the work is to refute and overturn Brenz’s presentation of ubiquity with a variety of arguments and address the controversy at its root. “I have striven with every argument I could for this one purpose: to show that Christ’s humanity is not everywhere.”99 97 See Topic VI: The Presence of Christ’s Body in Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 148–​64. This paucity of treatment indicates that the controversy had moved beyond a focus on the Eucharist. Contra Donnelly’s claim regarding the Dialogue: “Although their controversy was really about the eucharist, Martyr seldom refers to the institution narratives in Matthew, Mark, Luke and I Corinthians or to the discourse on the bread of life in John’s sixth chapter.” Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” 179. Donnelly’s statement seems inaccurate. The controversy was not “really about the eucharist.” The Dialogue’s main burden is christology, and that is why the traditional texts regarding the Supper are avoided. It would be far better to say that the second eucharistic controversy was, in some sense, really about christology, although this would be an overstatement as well. The eucharistic controversy begat a separate but related controversy about the person of Christ that should not be simply subsumed under the eucharistic controversy, as has often been the case. 98 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 7; Peter Martyr Vermigli, Dialogus de utraque in Christo natura, 1st ed. (Zürich: Christophorus Froschouerus, 1561), *5v. Henceforth this text will be designated Dialogus. 99 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 5. Sed hoc unum quacunque, ratione potui sum conatus, ut et Christi humanitatem ostenderem non esse ubique (Dialogus, *4r). The translations

166  The Flesh of the Word Vermigli’s rebuttal came in the form of a dialogue between the two characters:  Pantachus (Everywhere) and Orothetes (Boundary Setter).100 The dialogue form both illustrates the humanistic training and inclinations of Vermigli and allows him to more clearly address Brenz’s arguments without naming him. In the introductory epistle to the Dialogue addressed to Jewel, Vermigli explains his reasoning for withholding Brenz’s name: “I did not want to state explicitly the name of the person I am writing against because I would prefer to have him improved and set straight than assaulted by name and put to shame, seeing that I  am the enemy of the error and not of the man.”101 While Brenz is left unnamed, the identity of Pantachus is not left in doubt. Most of Pantachus’s words are quoted directly from De personali unione, and Vermigli’s friend and biographer, Josiah Simler, reveals that Brenz’s work is the target of the Dialogue.102 In a letter dated August 23, 1561, commending the Dialogue to John Parkhurst, Vermigli makes the connection explicit: “Pantachus in the Dialogue represents the person of Brenz, and Orothetes of me.”103 Again to Jewel, Vermigli states he has attempted “to weave together the warp, woof, and thread of my Pantachus,” which allows Vermigli to present Brenz’s case in his own words and refute his claims.104 Thus in my discussion of the Dialogue, I will identify the position presented by Orothetes as Vermigli’s. I will present Pantachus’s positions as those of Brenz when Vermigli directly quotes from his work and offer citations in the footnotes for where this can be found in De personali unione. When Pantachus’s statements are not direct quotations from Brenz, they will be attributed to Pantachus, who functions as Vermigli’s paraphrase or reconstruction of Brenz’s position or more broadly of Lutheran arguments. Vermigli structures the Dialogue according to the order of topics in Brenz’s De personali unione. The modern English edition has been divided into nine that follow are from Donnelly, which have been checked against the original Latin and amended if necessary. 100 Donnelly, “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” xvii. 101 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Nature in Christ, 5.  Quin eius etiam nomen, in quem scribe, apponere nolui, quod eum potius emendatum et correctum velim, quam nominatim traduci vel infamari; quandoquidem non hominis, sed erroris sum inimicus (Dialogus, *4r). 102 Donnelly, “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” xvii. Josiah Simler, Oration on the Life and Death of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. and trans. John Patrick Donnelly S.J., The Peter Martyr Library 5 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999), 57. 103 Vermigli, Loci Communes, 1136. Pantachus in Dialogo Brentii personam sustinet, Orothetes vero meam; Zuidema, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–​1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace, 84n176. 104 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 10. Quod mei Pantachisim coactus pertexere stamina, subtegmina, et licia (Dialogus, *8r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  167 topics corresponding to this structure. The original Latin edition of the texts, however, does not illustrate such an organizing feature.105 Christopher Froschauer published the original Dialogue at Zürich in August 1561. The wide-​ranging significance of the work can be seen by its dispersion through multiple editions and translations. Subsequent editions were published in November of the same year, in 1563, and again in 1575. In addition, the work was translated into German in 1563 and a French translation was produced in 1565. The Dialogue was eventually included in the Loci Communes collected by Robert Masson from Vermigli’s work in 1581, which would be the primary vehicle of his influence in the following generations.106 Vermigli charges Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity with leading to several errors. First and most significant, if Christ’s human nature is understood to participate in the omnipresence of the divine nature in a real manner, then the human nature of Christ is destroyed by the removal of an essential quality of the human nature itself. Vermigli endeavors to show that the Chalcedonian and patristic understanding of the hypostatic union prohibits such a sharing of properties. As Vermigli’s writings against Stancaro indicate, what is at stake with the destruction of the human nature is the very function of Christ as mediator of human salvation. In addition, Vermigli vigorously maintains that Brenz’s doctrine is a novelty with no support from Scripture, the fathers, medievals, or even his fellow Lutheran Melanchthon. In one of his most overarching assessments of Brenz’s doctrine, Vermigli declares, “[You are] offering no solid argument from God’s word, but what you have discussed with me is only what you have received from Luther, with some other arguments thrown in, some of them probable, others sophistical, along with some statements from the fathers, but these are not all that many, and they clash with you, or they are quite irrelevant to our present controversy.”107 The Lutheran position has gone well beyond the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ, and Vermigli rejects it as a new doctrine that is “something different from and foreign to the Church.”108 It is on this foundation of the newness and strangeness of the doctrine that 105 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 121. See also Joseph C. McLelland, The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli a.d. 1500–​1562 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 206. 106 Donnelly, “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” xvi. 107 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 153. Ex verbo Dei nihil ferme proferendo, sed ex Luthero tantummodo accepisti, quae mecum es locutus, adiectis quibusdam rationibus partim probabilibus, partim sophisticis, una cum aliquibus testimoniis Patrum, non tamen usque adeo crebris, eisque vel vel [sic] tecum pugnantibus, vel a praesenti controversia multum alienis (Dialogus, 100v). 108 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 12. Diverso et alieno ab ecclesia (Dialogus, 1v).

168  The Flesh of the Word Vermigli justifies the new terms ubiquity and ubiquitist that are used against the Lutherans. A strange new doctrine warrants a strange new term.109 Finally, as a lesser critique, Vermigli charges Brenz with presenting a position that reduces the Christian faith to absurdity. He is not attempting, as Brenz claims, to bring the mystery of the incarnation into line with some predetermined rational criteria. Rather, he is attempting to avoid attacks on Protestant doctrine by Roman Catholic opponents.110 The mystery of the incarnation does not give one license for any and all statements about Christ’s person, but only those in accord with God’s word and character. “Granted too that to the wise of this world this union seems to result in many irrational [ἂλογα] consequences, still it is not right for devout men to use this pretext to devise absurd [ἂτοπα] arguments which are opposed to the divine Scriptures and true theology.”111 Theology for Vermigli is certainly above reason, but this does not allow for an understanding of theology as antirational. These charges against Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity are expounded and elaborated throughout the Dialogue and intertwined with Vermigli’s positive case for the extra.

3.4.2  Setting the Parameters of the Question:  Bodies, Reason, and God’s Power The Dialogue begins with a quaint framing scene. Orothetes meets Pantachus at a colonnade; he has a pensive look after acquiring a new book, De personali unione, although it is unnamed. Knowing Pantachus espouses the doctrine of ubiquity argued for in the work, Orothetes calls him to defend the thesis presented therein. According to Orothetes, this “paradoxical book” purports against Scripture, the fathers, and reason that Christ’s body is everywhere.112 Vermigli then presents several recurrent issues in the debate that set the parameters for the discussion revolving around the nature of a body, the use of reason, and divine omnipotence. He argues that one must understand the nature of a body if one is to assess the claim that “Christ’s body is everywhere.” This requires some use of reason and even philosophy, not as 109 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 12–​13; Dialogus, 2r. 110 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 8; Dialgus, *6v. 111 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 39. Unde licet ex ea coniuncione sapientibus huis seculi multa videantur derivari ἂλογα, non tamen fas est piis hominibus, inde ulla conficere ἂτοπα, quae divinis literis veraeque theologiae adversentur (Dialogus, 20v). 112 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 11; Dialogus, 1r.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  169 an authority above Scripture but to evaluate claims and avoid incoherently expressing the truth of Scripture. This need cannot be overcome by a simplistic appeal to divine power because the question is not what God could do but what he willed to do. The goal of this first section of the Dialogue is to belie the charge of rationalism and establish the use of reason as a supporting argument and useful instrument for the exposition of the extra. Pantachus begins the discussion by recalling one of the key points of dispute at Marburg, exclaiming, “[C]‌an’t you shake off your idea about geometric dimensions when Christ’s body is under discussion.”113 Vermigli argues that this is in fact what cannot be done, for if the body of Christ is a body, it will possess the qualities essential to a body lest it be destroyed: “We will not and cannot remove mass, size, bodily disposition, parts, features, and limbs, which are part of the human makeup, from the body of Christ. For the human body is totally abolished if one takes away from it the composition of members, and the relationship, appropriate size, and limitations of the parts.”114 The destruction of the body of Christ, and therefore the human nature, is Vermigli’s recurrent charge against ubiquity. To avoid the destruction of the human nature and therefore Christ’s function as mediator, the nature and limits of a human body must be established. This requires the evaluation of the Lutheran claim of a repletive/​illocal bodily presence. Pantachus claims that Orothetes is misrepresenting the argument for ubiquity by expressing it in a crude manner:  “[Y]‌ou say that we extend and spread out the body of Christ geometrically in all places like a leather pouch.”115 Orothetes responds that the Reformed do not misunderstand the Lutheran position that Christ’s body is not extended locally but rather is illocally present in all places. Rather, they reject the validity and meaningfulness of the distinction. For Vermigli, echoing a critique leveled by Oecolampadius at Marburg, a body cannot be present in an illocal manner at all. A body, by its nature, is present by extension—​to be corporeally present

113 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 12. Vos non posse cogitationes de dimensionibus Geometricis excutere, ubi de Copore Christi disputatur (Dialogus, 2r). 114 Vermigli, 1 Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 2. Nos molem, ac magnitudinem, staturae modum, partes, lineamenta, et membra quae homini congruant, nec velle, nec posse a corpore Christi removere. Nam corpus humanum, si ab eo auferatur compositio membrorum, conformatio lineamentorum, iusta mesura, et circumscriptio, funditus evertitur (Dialogus, 2r). 115 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 13. Eodem etiam pertinet quod nos dicitis corpus Christi tanquam alutam in omnia loca Geometrice extendere ac diffundere (Dialogus, 2v). This accusation is taken from Luther’s earliest expositions of the doctrine where he uses the analogy “Heaven and earth are his sack; as wheat fills the sack, so he fills all things.” WA19: 493:9–​10; LW 36:343.

170  The Flesh of the Word is to be locally present: “We keep saying that the true body of Christ cannot fill places to which it does not extend. How this could happen otherwise than by spreading out his magnitude, you alone have dreamed up in our generation.”116 Therefore, Vermigli understands the claim of illocal bodily presence but rejects that it can be properly applied to the body of Christ while it maintains itself qua body. The body of Christ is beyond the nonglorified human body, but not in a ubiquitous manner. For even “the scholastics assign four properties to the body of Christ and the blessed: impassibility, clarity, agility, and subtlety,” but Brenz has added ubiquity.117 Therefore, this is not a matter of “geometry” but of the nature of a body itself. The nature of a body can be understood therefore through reason and experience. In the Dialogue, Pantachus accuses the Reformed of reliance on Aristotle on two key points: that a body must be in a place and that no body exists outside of heaven. This echoes Brenz’s accusation that the Reformed are setting Aristotle above Scripture and therefore are placing reason above revelation. The charge that the Reformed rely on reason goes back to Luther and is often repeated by Brenz, who claims only scriptural authority for his position. For example, Brenz will claim in response to the Dialogue, “Martyr . . . follow[s]‌ ancient wisdom. . . . [He] follow[s] the learned philosophers, but we follow the unlearned apostles.”118 Vermigli retorts through Orothetes, “[I]n religious questions we are not in the least tied to men. We embrace the truth, whoever says it, as spoken by the Holy Spirit.”119 He cites the example of Paul on Mars Hill using the pagan poets; therefore, agreement with Aristotle is not based on his authority but because of the truth, which ultimately comes from God: “We don’t agree with the sayings of Aristotle because of the author but because we consider some of his axioms true.”120 Therefore, it is not enough to reject Aristotle because he is a pagan philosopher; one must demonstrate by Scripture that any given proposition is false. With regard to the position that a body can exist illocally, one must offer clear scriptural evidence to override the perceptible experience of a body, and 116 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 13. Pelle contendimus: verum corpus humanum constanter dicimus ea non posse implere loca, ad que non pertigerit. Id autem quomodo aliter fiat, quam eius magnitudinis extensione, vos noatra aetate soli commenti estis (Dialogus, 2v). 117 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 13; Dialogus, 2r. 118 Brenz, Die christologischen Schriften, 1:374, cited in Donnelly, “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” xviii. 119 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 14. Hominibus in causa religionis minime sumus iurati. Sed verum a quocunque dictum fuerit, ut a Spiritu Sancto prolatum amplectimur (Dialogus, 3r). 120 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 14. Dictis Aristotelis non subscribimus authoris causa, sed quod eius quaedam ἀξιωματα vera iudicemus (Dialogus, 3r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  171 it is this that Pantachus (Brenz) cannot do, according to Vermigli. For further support, Vermigli cites Augustine’s Letter to Dardanus, relying on him not as an authority but as a “Scripture scholar” who summarizes the biblical position: “Take away from bodies the space of their location and they will be nowhere.”121 Vermigli grants that the Reformed agree with Aristotle on the nature of a body generally because he is not in disagreement with Scripture and the fathers support this position. Regarding the relation of bodies to heaven, however, Vermigli demurs from Aristotle; we will see his reasoning later, in the section on the ascension. Therefore, it can be demonstrated that Aristotle is not the driving force behind Vermigli’s doctrine. In the Dialogue, Vermigli uses Aristotle only to support his argument in three cases:  in this opening discussion to establish the nature of a body along with other sources, and twice in the latter half to refute analogies set forth by Pantachus regarding the nature of sound and the relation of body and soul.122 The other main use of Aristotle will be within discussion of the nature of heaven, within which Vermigli is clear to distance himself from Aristotle’s formulation. Seeking to further the allegation of rationalism, Pantachus sets forth another of the main debated points at Marburg, the nature of God’s omnipotence by which he can make a body be omnipresent: “But we see nothing that can prevent this from being possible by God’s power. For who would dare to set down rules for his might and strength?”123 Vermigli responds with an argument already employed by Zwingli and Oecolampadius—​namely, that the question is not whether God can do an action but whether he in fact has done so. The scriptural account reveals not an omnipresent humanity but an acknowledgment of Christ’s absence via his humanity, which Vermigli supports through citations pertaining to such an absence: John 16:28, 12:8, 11:15; Luke 24:6, 24:51; Acts 1:10.124 Vermigli goes even further, however, by arguing that such appeals to omnipotence “are weak and fraught with danger, since they are used to confirm dubious dogma.”125 He supports this with a quotation from Tertullian, who argued in Against Praxeus, “Clearly nothing is difficult for God, but if we jump to use this principle in our presuppositions, we can 121 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 14, citing Augustine, “Letter to Dardanus,” PL 35. 839. Nam spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt (Dialogus, 3r). 122 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 14, 173–​74, 180, respectively; Dialogus, 3r–​v, 113r–​114r, 118r–​v. 123 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 14. Sed quin virtute dei hoc fieri possit nihil videmus obstare. Quis enim eius potestati atque fortitudini ausit praescribere? (Dialogus, 3v). 124 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 15; Dialogus, 4r. 125 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 15. Ut infirma et periculi plena sint, cum dogmata dubia sunt confirmanda (Dialogus, 4r).

172  The Flesh of the Word fancy anything about God, as if he did things that he did not do just because he can do all things.”126 Such an appeal to the omnipotence of God cannot be checked by other factors, and therefore theologians would be free to attribute almost anything to God where Scripture is silent or can be interpreted as such. Therefore, bare or naked appeals to omnipotence lead away from solid theology; the power of God must be understood not in the abstract but by what he has in fact revealed, “which is not understood by human intelligence except insofar as it has revealed itself in the sacred Scriptures.”127 So far Vermigli has largely been rehashing arguments familiar from Marburg; however, he develops these further by arguing that the divine nature and the law of noncontradiction bound God’s omnipotence. Following a familiar, traditional line from the via antiqua, Vermigli asserts that “some things are impossible because of their own defect or fault, granting nonetheless and keeping intact the divine omnipotence.”128 Supporting his position from Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and especially Augustine, Vermigli places two bounds on God’s omnipotence, which do not diminish but exalt him. First, if one is to say without qualification that God can do anything, one has opened up the possibility for God to sin or fundamentally change his nature such that the Father could become the Son or the uncreated become created. Such acts would not be to the praise of God’s power but would destroy who he is, for they would be “foreign to his nature.”129 Additionally, because God is truth, it is against his nature to will a contradiction, which would not be power but weakness. Discussing the impossibility of God’s altering the past, Vermigli makes this clear: “Thus these things cannot come about precisely because they destroy one another and (if I may use scholastic terminology) they imply a contradiction.”130 God cannot make a square circle, 2 + 2 = 6, something exist and not exist at the same time, or an omnipresent human body. As the fount of truth and stability of existence, God can contradict neither his nature nor the nature of created reality; this is not weakness

126 Tertullian, Against Praxeus, PL 2:189, cited in Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 15. Plane nihil Deo difficile, sed si tam abrupte in praesumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quid vis de Deo confingere poterimus, quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit (Dialogus, 4r). 127 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 14–​15. Quae ab hominum intelligentia non percipitur, nisi quoad se in sacris literis patefecit (Dialogus, 3v). 128 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 16. Quaedam esse affirmo, quae suo defectu seu vitio nullo modo fieri possunt, incolumi et salva nihilominus divina potestate (Dialogus, 4v). 129 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 17. Ab eius natura sit alienum (Dialogus, 5r). 130 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 16. Ista propterea fieri non possunt, quia seipsa destruunt, et (ut loquar cum scholis) contradictionem implicant (Dialogus, 4v).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  173 but true power.131 Even “with God’s power preserved intact, very many things can be found that cannot by any means come about, namely those which contradict a thing’s nature and definition.”132 For Vermigli, Brenz and the Lutherans fundamentally violate the nature of omnipotence with their claim for an omnipresent body of Christ. It is the nature of a body to be finite and bounded in space; it cannot be made infinite and unbounded and remain a body: “Since the human body by its nature and definition must be finite, circumscribed, and limited, it cannot come to occupy several places simultaneously or be everywhere. It would go out beyond its limits, bounds, and enclosures and would cease to be a human body.”133 Because God is consistent and the very touchstone of truth, the foundational principle of truth and consistency, the principle of noncontradiction is not abandoned by its Maker: “For statements made about the same object which simultaneously affirm and deny cancel each other out.”134 Therefore, Vermigli does hold to a function of reason for understanding Christ, but his standard is well within the modest claims of the traditional via antiqua.135 These three issues—​the nature of bodies, the use of Aristotle, and the omnipotence of God—​illustrate that one of the key elements at stake in this debate for Vermigli is the coherence of the Christian faith itself. Not that Vermigli places reason above Scripture, a charge that will be taken up in my discussion of his use of infinity. He is prepared to accept the doctrine of ubiquity if it can be shown from Scripture: “This [the ubiquity of Christ’s body], I say, you must demonstrate [from Scripture]. Since you haven’t done it so far, we are not going to give in to your absurd theological statements.”136 Yet 131 Brenz seems willing to go as far as to claim that God can will a contradiction, which the later Lutheran tradition will at times also maintain. Preus’s statement regarding later Lutheran orthodoxy seems applicable to Brenz as well: “What may seem to be an error or contradiction to us is not to God, and therefore is not so in fact.” Robert D. Preus, The Theology of Post-​Reformation Lutheranism (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1972), 2:106. 132 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 17–​18. Dei potestate salva et incolumi permulta reperiri quae nullo modo fieri possunt: ea scilicet, quae rei naturae ac definitioni repugnant (Dialogus, 5v). 133 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 18. Corpus humanum cum id oporteat ex natura et definitione sua finitum, circumscriptum, ac delineatum esse, fieri non potest ut plura loca simul occupet, vel ut sit ubique. Suos quippe terminos, fines et cancellos egrederetur, atque humanum corpus esse desineret (Dialogus, 5v–​6r). 134 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 18. Nam ea enunciata, quae de eadem re simul affirmant et negant, mutuo se interimunt (Dialogus, 6r). 135 Donnelly, “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought,” 202, 204; Luca Baschera, “Aristotle and Scholasticism,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 152–​53. 136 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 39. Haec vos, haec inquam, demonstrare necesse est: quod usque dum non feceritis, nos absurdis vestris theologicis non cedemus (Dialogus, 21r).

174  The Flesh of the Word because the Lutherans do not establish their position regarding the ubiquity of Christ’s body on the basis of the divine authority of Scripture, the Lutheran position negates reason, experience, and logic, and thus calls all knowledge of God and truth in theology into question. For “what truth can we hold onto if contradictories, in the terminology of the logicians, were simultaneously true?”137 This would remove from the reformers the ability either to challenge Roman Catholic theology or to curb the excesses of the Radical Reformation. Vermigli therefore seeks to establish his understanding of the person of Christ in line with Scripture while maintaining the reasonability of the Christian faith. Regarding the extra, this means that the body of Christ can be an object of reasonable analysis, since it is like all other human bodies. The Lutheran appeal to omnipotence cannot overcome this without opening up theology to irrationality and absurdity. These concerns for the subordinate yet operative place of reason for theology place Vermigli in line with Zwingli and Oecolampadius in their argument against Luther at Marburg and continue to show the inclination toward the via antiqua in the doctrine of the extra. This consideration overturns Brandy’s assertion that Vermigli’s concept of the extra is connected with nominalism.138

3.4.3  Chalcedon, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum in the Dialogue The main thrust behind Brenz’s argument for ubiquity was his understanding of the hypostatic union. Vermigli had to not only rebut Brenz’s position but also present an alternative account of the relationship of the two natures in the one person of Christ. Vermigli’s positive account uses the extra to unify the Chalcedonian christological formula, an understanding of the communicatio

137 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 38. Quid veri nobis tandem constabit, si contradictoria (ut dialectici loquuntur) simul vera fuerint? (Dialogus, 20r). 138 Auch dies ist ideengeschichtlichen wiederum eine Rezeption des Noninalismus. Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 80. In support of this Brandy cites Oberman’s The Harvest of Medieval Theology (German, 246f.; English, 264–​65). The connection of the extra with nominalism, however, is vanishingly weak. Oberman merely mentions a doctrine like the extra in Gregory Biel, while others have shown that the extra was a feature of Lombard and Thomas (McGinnis) as well as the fathers (McGinnis, Willis). Further, Vermigli’s argument for the extra cannot be spun in a nominalist direction. Contra the via moderna, Vermigli gives a place to reason in understanding the divine. He cites no nominalist thinkers in support of his position. Baumann likewise rejects Brandy’s claim of a nominalist influence on Vermigli’s christology. Baumann, Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich, 253, 256–​57.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  175 idiomatum, an understanding of the relationship of Christ’s presence and absence during the interadventum, and the concept of the finitum non capax infiniti. In so doing, Vermigli established both the existence of the divine nature beyond the earthly body, an enhypostatic christology, and an understanding of the communicatio idiomatum in which properties terminated on the hypostasis rather than being shared from one nature to another. 3.4.3.1  Chalcedonian Christology and the Hypostatic Union A recurrent theme in the debate over the extra Calvinisticum, almost from its inception to the present day, is the danger of Nestorianism, separating the natures of Christ to such an extent that there are two persons. To defend the Reformed understanding of Christ, Vermigli must address this accusation from Brenz and seek to show that the extra is consistent with the Chalcedonian Decree. Vermigli does so in the Dialogue by first laying out Brenz’s objection to the extra, the charge of Nestorianism, and how he squares his doctrine of ubiquity with the Chalcedonian Decree. I will briefly outline Brenz’s arguments on these points, as presented by Vermigli, building on my previous discussion of Brenz’s thought, and Vermigli’s seeking to overcome them with his doctrine of the hypostatic union. For Brenz, the hypostatic union necessitates that the humanity of Christ is fundamentally different from humanity simpliciter. Vermigli expresses this in the words of Pantachus: “The humanity of Christ is not a common and simple creature, but is joined to the divinity by the hypostatic union. Hence it rightly has the attribute of being everywhere, which cannot be granted to any other creature.”139 The pertinent corollary of the hypostatic union is that the human body of Christ is wherever the divine nature is. Anything less than this would separate the natures in Brenz’s estimation: “Since the divinity and humanity are joined undivided and inseparably in the one person of Christ, it follows that wherever the Godhead may be, the humanity of Christ is also there, since it is impossible that Christ remain one person unless his two natures are kept so united that one can never be without the other.”140 If a separation of spatial location is allowed between the human and divine nature, 139 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 21. Humanitatem Christi non esse vulgarem et simplicem creaturam, sed hypostatica unione coniunctam cum divinitate. Quare illi iure attribuitur ut sit ubique quod ulli alii creaturae non potest dari (Dialogus, 7v–​8r). 140 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 23. Cum deitas et humanitas indivulse ac inseparabiliter in una persona Christi coniungantur, esse consectarium, ut ubicunque fuerit deitas, ibi etiam sit humanitas Christi, cum fiei non possit, ut Christus una persona maneat, nisi eius duae naturae sic unitae serventur, ut altera nusquam sit absque altera (Dialogus, 9v).

176  The Flesh of the Word according to Brenz, the hypostasis is doubled, resulting in Nestorianism. Vermigli paraphrases Brenz’s objection: Since you assert the divine nature is in the air, the sea and on the earth, where you don’t want the humanity to be present, I would like to know from you, since the divine nature is extended beyond and outside the human nature (as you would have it), does it also have there its hypostasis? I don’t think you will deny that because it cannot exist outside its hypostasis. Then the result would be that we grant it one hypostasis where it does not have the human nature joined to it and one more where it is spread through other places outside the human nature. In this case you can’t avoid doubling the hypostases and the persons. This is [sic] the grounds for our accusing you of dividing the person.141

To understand Pantachus’s critique, we must return to Brenz’s understanding of hypostasis. As Baur has noted, Brenz conceptualized the hypostasis as the “mutual fellowship” of the natures, which must include the same ubi.142 Since the person is the “mutual fellowship,” which includes the same extension or amplitude, for lack of a better term, the divine nature beyond the human nature’s spatial limitation can only be another hypostasis since the “fellowship” that is the union is not present. Not only does Brenz offer a particular definition of the hypostasis, but he also makes a critical distinction in his understanding of “nature” to align his christology with Chalcedon, which Vermigli summarizes and rejects in the Dialogue. Brenz argues that “nature” has multiple meanings, only one of which is in play in Chalcedon’s negative assertion of “mixing” or “confusing.” Brenz makes the following distinction in De personali unione: “So that the task in hand can go forward the right way, you must first recognize that nature sometimes signifies the very substance of the thing but at other times its properties and accidents.”143 For Brenz, the meaning of “nature” is twofold: “the 141 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 25. Cum statuatis naturam divinam in aere, in mari, et in terris, ubi non vultis humanitatem praesentem esse, de vobis cognoscere velim, cum extra naturam humanam (ut vultis) latius extendatur, an ibi quoque suam hypostasim habeat? Id non existimo negabitis, quia citra hypostasim non subsisteret. Fiet itaque ut unam illi demus hypostasim, ubi naturam humanam secum habet coniunctam, et unam item, ubi extra eam per alia loca diffunditur: atque hoc pacto non evitabitis quin hypostases et personas congeminetis. Id porro est quod a nobis accusamini divisionis personae (Dialogus, 11r–​v). 142 Gegenseitige Gemeinschaft. Baur, “Ubiquität,” 243. 143 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 39, quoting from Brenz, De personali unione, fol. 6v. Quod ut sub manus recte procedat, primum tibi agnoscendum est, Naturam aliquando significare ipsam rei sustantiam, aliquando autem rei proprietates et accidentia (Dialogus, 21r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  177 very substance of a thing” and a thing’s “properties and accidents.” For the sake of brevity and clarity, I will label Brenz’s two meanings of “nature” as nature1 (“the very substance of a thing”) and nature2 (a thing’s “properties and accidents”). In the Chalcedonian Formula, according to Brenz, nature1 remains unchanged for both Christ’s divinity and humanity: Here the word nature is to be understood as referring to the substance of the thing itself. In the person of Christ, for instance, there is a divine substance, which is an uncreated spirit existing from all eternity. There is also a human substance, which is bodily and has not existed from eternity but is created. In the hypostatic union of Christ, then, the Godhead, which is an uncreated spirit from eternity, is never changed into the humanity, which is a bodily and created substance. Neither is the humanity ever changed into the Godhead, for each substance remains inviolate and unchanged in the person of Christ.144

This is not the case, however, with nature2 (a thing’s “properties and accidents”). Being that, according to the traditional doctrine, God is simple, the divine nature has no accidents; therefore, nature1 and nature2 coincide in God. On the other hand, human beings have a composite nature and accidental properties. Therefore, these accidental properties, part of nature2, can be absent in the human nature without destroying that nature1. Brenz attempts to argue that being-​in-​a-​place and spatial limitation is an accidental property of a body.145 Brenz argues this through a comparison with other properties generally considered proper to humanity yet which are absent from Christ’s body, at least after the resurrection. The human body of Christ after the resurrection is neither passible nor mortal. Therefore, it is possible for even such qualities to be removed without violating nature1. He asks, “Why can’t the substance of a body also remain unchanged, even if it is not somewhere in place locally, since being in a place doesn’t belong to the substance of a body but is only 144 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 39–​40, quoting from Brenz, De personali unione, fol. 6v. Nomen naturae intelligendum est de ipsa rei substantia. Ut in persona Christi est substantia divinia, quae est spiritus increatus, et ab aeterno:  est et substantia humana, quae est corporea, et non fuit ab aeterno, sed est creata. In hypostatica igitur unione Chrisi, nec deitas, quae est spiritus increatus ab aeterno, mutatur unquam in humanitatem, quae est substantia corporea, et creata: nec humanitas mutatur unquam in deitatem: sed unaquaeque substantia manet inviolata, et immutata in persona Christi (Dialogus, 21r). 145 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 40; Dialogus,  21r–​v.

178  The Flesh of the Word an accidental property of the subject?”146 He attempts to bolster this further through an appeal to Aristotle, who, according to his container view of space, argues that the universe, the largest body of all, is itself not in a place because it by definition has nothing outside of it to mark its boundary.147 Here Brenz is again reiterating an argument from Luther, which he would have heard at Marburg.148 If the universe is a body without place, why could not the human nature of Christ likewise be a body without place, reasons Brenz. Therefore, Christ’s human body does not change according to nature1 but according to nature2 and, therefore, can take on the divine property of ubiquity while upholding the Chalcedonian prohibition against confusion or mixture. In response to Brenz, Vermigli’s christology seeks to uphold the Chalcedonian Decree, which maintains both unmixed and unseparated natures in the single hypostasis. The Chalcedonian foundation of Vermigli’s position can be seen first by his framing of the argument around the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, which were condemned by the Council, and by repeated citation of the main orthodox participants in this debate, primarily Cyril of Alexandria and Leo the Great.149 For example, Vermigli makes his triangulation of Nestorius and Eutyches abundantly clear as he engages Brenz’s doctrine of the hypostatic union: Since we are loyal and orthodox believers, we certainly accept that union. We do not divide the natures, as Nestorius did. Neither on the other hand do we confuse them, as did Eutyches. Christ is one person, but he has two natures conjoined in the same hypostasis but both retain their properties intact and whole.150

146 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 40, quoting Brenz, De personali unione, fol. 7r [This is a correction of n107 in Donnelly’s translation, which gives De personali unione, fols. 6r and 9r for this speech.] Quo modo non posset etiam immutata manere substantia corporis, etiamsi alicubi non essest localiter in loco, cum in loco esse non sit corporis substantia, sed tantum proprietas subiecti accidentaria? (Dialogus, 21v–​22r). 147 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 41; Dialogus, 22r. For Aristotle’s view of the nature of a body, see Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 50–​71. 148 Hermann Sasse, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1959), 258. 149 For the quantitative breakdown of patristic citations in the Dialogue, see Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 331–​34. 150 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 23. Istam unionem, ut fideles et Orthodoxi, prorsus recipimus. Non dividimus naturas, ut Nestoirus: Nec rursus, quemadmodum Eutyches, illas confundimus. Una est persona Christus, qui tamen duas naturas in hypostasi eadem secum habet coniunctas: integris tamen ac salvis utriusque illarum proprietatibus (Dialogus, 9r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  179 It is this Chalcedonian christology, which passes between the Scylla of Nestorianism and the Charybdis of Eutychianism, which Vermigli seeks to preserve with the extra and, by implication, charge Brenz of violating with his doctrine of ubiquity.151 In his thorough study of Vermigli’s use of authority in the Dialogue, Kim argues that the citations of Eutyches and Nestorius point to the authoritative rejection of these positions by the council: “Peter Martyr’s use of heretics can be regarded as his appeal to the authority of the Ephesus and Chalcedon Councils, which condemned the teaching of these two. [He therefore] tries to secure the orthodoxy of his Reformed doctrine of the two natures in Christ.”152 In addition to the negative positions of these heretics, Vermigli cites Cyril of Alexandria twenty-​six times on these issues. Cyril is in fact the second most significant figure for Vermigli’s argument, after only Augustine, according to Kim’s quantitative analysis of citations of the fathers.153 Additionally, Leo the Great is the fifth most significant father by qualitative analysis.154 Second, Vermigli’s argument for the hypostatic union culminates with a fuller citation of the Chalcedonian Formula and rejection of Brenz’s interpretation, which I will discuss. 155 Vermigli identifies time and time again that the understanding of the hypostatic union is the definite difference between his own position and 151 While Brenz never explicitly charges Brenz with Eutychianism, the implication that he has confused the natures is plain throughout the Dialogue. The closest Vermigli comes is a punning on the name of Bonaventure, insinuating that Brenz is interpreting him in a Eutychian manner. “I assure you that Bonaventure agrees completely with our teaching. This is as it should be unless Bonaventure would want to change his Italian name for a Greek name and be a ‘lucky’ man.” As Donnelly indicates in a footnote, Vermigli is using wordplay here to connect “Bonaventure,” meaning “good fortune” in Italian, with the Greek Εὔτυχος, meaning “fortunate.” Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 102–​103, 103n.333. Bonaventuram omnino astipulari nostrae scententiae tibi confirmo. Et sane ita oportet, nisi velit ex Italico Bonaventura fieri Graecus Εὔτυχης (Dialogus, 64v). 152 Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 187. 153 For the methodology of Kim’s quantitative and qualitative analysis for the use of the fathers in the Dialogue as well as Tables 1 and 2, which present these data, see Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 171–​85, 331–​34. 154 I  have modified Kim’s ranking here to correct for his misidentification of Leo the Great as a medieval. Kim does not justify this identification in his methodology, and it seems entirely unfounded. This misidentification is particularly problematic for Kim’s analysis because he identifies Leo as “the most frequently cited Schoolman.” Kim, Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis, 186. The eight citations of Leo the Great, according to Kim’s criteria, always come within the context of other figures that he identifies as fathers. Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 53–​55, 59, 146, 149. In addition, a chronological justification cannot be sufficient, considering that Kim claims to be following Vermigli’s periodization of church history. According to Kim, Vermigli draws a sharp distinction at the Council of Chalcedon (451) between a purer patristic period and an age of decline. However, Leo’s main contribution to theology comes with his Tome, which was written prior to and was adopted at Chalcedon. In addition, Kim places Fulgentius of Ruspa (c. 468–​533) within the analysis of the fathers despite his ecclesiastical activity taking place after Leo and Chalcedon. 155 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 72–​74; Dialogus, 43r–​45r.

180  The Flesh of the Word Brenz’s.156 Vermigli offers a different conceptualization of the hypostasis than Brenz’s “mutual fellowship.” He holds that the hypostasis of Jesus Christ is the preexistent hypostatic existence of the eternal Son. The hypostasis is not brought into being by the incarnation but rather is the active subject in the assumption of the human nature. The hypostasis is the eternal Word of God. As Vermigli states, “But we teach that the union of the two natures achieved in Christ was very different, namely that the humanity adheres so inseparably to the divine hypostasis that it cannot be any longer divided from it by any means.”157 Note that the hypostasis of Christ is distinct from the divine nature because the divine nature subsists in three hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is not the divine nature simpliciter that becomes incarnate but the person of the eternal Son, who eternally subsists in the shared divine nature of the Triune God: “It nevertheless does not therefore follow that all that is God is conjoined in Christ by the same hypostasis with the human nature because both the Father and the Holy Spirit are God, neither of whose person took on flesh.” 158 The hypostasis that assumes the true human nature is the same person who has been eternally begotten by the Father: “Christ is one with the Father, because the divine person, which sustains the humanity, is consubstantial with the Father, that is, he is of the same substance.”159 Therefore, the human nature of Christ should be conceived of as enhypostatic, subsisting within the eternal divine person of the Word, which places Vermigli’s christology on the same trajectory as Zwingli’s mature thought. For Vermigli, this hypostatic union is the closest and greatest possible bond, for the human nature itself lacks any personal existence apart from the personal union: “Certainly the humanity of Christ can never exist without being joined to the divinity.”160 This is the unique relationship between the

156 Vermigli repeated places the same argument on Pantachus’s lips, often quoting directly from Brenz, that because of the hypostatic union the humanity must be wherever the divinity is. Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 21, 23, 42, 44, 49, 59, 89, 90, 95–​96, etc. 157 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 23–​24. Nos vero longe aliter duarum naturarum unionem factam in Christo docemus, nempe humanitatem hypostasi divinae tam indivulse adhaerere, ut ab ea nullo modo amplius queat dividi (Dialogus, 10r). 158 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 30. Non inde consequitur, totum id quod est Deus esse in Christo coniunctum eadem hypostasi cum humana natura: quoniam et pater et spiritus sanctus est Deus, quarum personarum neutra carnem suscepit (Dialogus, 14r). 159 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 74, translation slightly modified to correct an error, which reads “of the consubstantial with the Father.” Chirst unum est cum patre, quia persona divina quae humanitatem substentat, patri est ὁμοoυσιος, id est consubstantialis (Dialogus 45r). 160 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 24. Et sane humanitas Christi nusquam esse potest, quin divinitati sit copulata (Dialogus, 10r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  181 human nature of Christ and the divine nature: unlike every other human being, this human nature is uniquely owned, sustained, and supported by the Logos.161 This aligns with the later christology of Cyril of Alexandria, to whom Vermigli constantly refers in this section, Richard Price’s description of which lends helpful terminology to distinguish Vermigli and Brenz. As Price and Michael Gaddis state, for Cyril “the union consists in the pre-​ existent divine hypostasis of the Word uniting to himself a human nature: the one hypostasis for Cyril was not a product but the subject of the union.”162 The difference between the understanding of Vermigli and Brenz respecting the hypostasis can be expressed in the same terms. For Vermigli the hypostasis is the subject of the union, while for Brenz it is the product of it. Based on this understanding of the hypostatic union, Vermigli argues that a difference in spatial dimension between the two natures has no adverse effect on the bond of the union. Through several analogical arguments Vermigli shows that in natural unions of parts the difference in extension does not nullify the union. He clarifies that these analogies could be taken in a crude way, but that he is arguing in an a fortiori manner: “I don’t deny that it’s far inferior to the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation. But the argument I am making is what the logicians call a fortiori.”163 If a union of finite, material parts is not compromised by a differentiation in the spatial distribution of parts, how much less so with the union of the divine and human natures in the immense and spatially transcendent hypostasis of the eternal Word? As an example of such an analogy, Vermigli uses the image of a jewel in a ring, which David Willis observes is a significant analogy in later arguments over the extra.164 Vermigli states that Brenz’s insistence that equal spatial relations must hold for both natures lest the union be destroyed is like saying a jewel is detached from a ring because it does not exist on the inside of the band. Vermigli concedes that there are obvious limitations in this image: [But] still our comparison shows pretty well that when two things are joined with each other, it is not necessary for the preservation of their union that 161 “It suffices for the divinity, although immense and infinite, to support and sustain by its hypostasis the humanity wherever it is.” Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 24. Sufficit deitatem, quamvis immensam et infinitam, sua hypostasi fulcire ac substentare humanitatem, ubicunque illa fuerit (Dialogus, 10r). 162 Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, eds., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians 45 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 1:70. 163 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 26. Non inficior esse multo inferiora mysterio incarnationis Domini. Tamen argumentum (ut loquuntur dialectici) a minori concludo (Dialogus, 11v). 164 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  19–​20.

182  The Flesh of the Word one part extend as far as the other. Hence it’s obvious that the divinity of Christ, although it is everywhere, by no means casts away or cuts off from it the humanity, which is in heaven, so that the two be divided from each other. There’s no way that could happen since it has the humanity inhering and fixed in its hypostasis forever.165

For Vermigli, the hypostasis of the eternal Son united to the human nature is always and everywhere “there,” but the human nature united to the hypostasis may not be in a given “there”—​“there” being a designation of spatial relativity implying local and extended presence for a human body, but which the divine nature, as transcendent of all spatial and local existence, likewise transcends. Near the conclusion of his argument for the hypostatic union, Vermigli cites the fuller form of the Chalcedonian Definition taken from Vigilius’s Against Eutyches: We confess one and the same Christ the only begotten by acknowledging him in two natures not subject to commingling, or change, or division, or separation. The distinction of the natures is in no wise destroyed because of their union; rather the specific property of each nature is preserved as they meet to form one person and substance, not as a being divided and split into two persons but as the one and the same only begotten Son, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ.166

With this citation, Vermigli is taking aim at Brenz’s interpretation of the council with his division of nature1 and nature2. It is not merely the “substance of the thing” that remains unchanged or unmingled, as if the properties and accidents of the nature can be cordoned off from its substance. Rather there are properties essential for the substance of a thing to remain true or

165 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 31. Hoc tamen simili utcunque demonstratur, cum duo inter sese iuncta fuerint, non esse necesse ad illorum unionem conservandam, ut unum tam late quam alterum pateat. Unde colligitur, divinitatem Christi, quamvis est ubique, humanitatem quae in coelis est, nequaquam a se depellere, nec excutere, ita ut a se invicem dividantur. Id enim fieri nullo modo potest, cum illam in sua hypostasi haerentem et infixam semper habeat (Dialogus,15r–​v). 166 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 72, quoting Vigilius, Contra Eutychetem, PL 62:153. Unum eundemque Christum unigenitum confitemur in duabus naturis inconfuse, in convertibiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter cognoscendo. Nusquam duarum naturarum diversitate evacuata propter unionem, salva magis proprietate utriusque naturae in unam personam atque substantiam convenientibus, non ut in duas personas divisum aut segregatum, sed unum eundemque unigentium Filium, Deum Verbum, Dominum Iesum Christum (Dialogus, 43v).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  183 whole and those that are truly accidental. Therefore, Vermigli rejects the nature1/​nature2 distinction proposed by Brenz; rather, there are properties of a substance that make it that substance and those that can be changed without a fundamental change to the substance. Neither of these is comingled in the one hypostasis: “Not only are the substance and the things themselves to remain unmixed and unconfused, but also their properties and especially those properties which so adhere to them that they cannot be pulled apart.”167 The essential properties remain lest either nature cease to be what it is. The divine nature lacks accidental properties, so any change or mixture in this respect is null. In the human nature accidental properties are communicated to the person and can change. This communication, however, is not a diminution in this nature because it is of the nature of human beings to change according to accidental properties. Therefore, Vermigli argues that Brenz’s interpretation fails to account for the Chalcedonian christology, which rejects a change in the substance of the thing (nature1) and in the properties of the natures (nature2). As Vermigli summarizes, “You can now see that the unity of the two natures in one person is preserved even if not all the properties are communicated to both.”168 Thus rather than the extra Calvinisticum resulting in Nestorianism, Vermigli argues that it follows from an understanding of Chalcedonian christology. The divine nature is omnipresent; the human nature is spatially limited. The person of Christ, which unites the attributes of both natures without change or confusion, possesses both the qualities of being everywhere and local, according to the appropriate nature. 3.4.3.2 The Communicatio Idiomatum in Vermigli This brings us to Vermigli’s doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, which attempts to articulate the relation of predication to the two natures united in the one person of Christ. Vermigli posits a distinction between which properties can be communicated to the human nature of Christ based on the capacity of that nature to receive them: “I confess that immortality, light, glory and so forth, which human nature is capable of receiving, are communicated to it, but the other attributes such as eternity, immensity, and ubiquity, since

167 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 40. Non tantum sub stantias et res ipsas retinendas esse impermixtas et inconfusas, verum etiam illarum proprietates et praesertim eas quae sic ipsis cohaerent, ut ab eis divelli nequeant (Dialogus, 21r–​v). 168 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 73. Potes cognoscere unitatem duarum naturarum in una persona conservari, quamvis non omnes proprietates utrinque communicentur (Dialogus, 43v).

184  The Flesh of the Word human nature cannot receive them, cannot be communicated to it.”169 While the human nature can partake of those attributes gifted by the divine, which though elevating this nature do not destroy it, other properties peculiar to divinity itself cannot be communicated to the human nature without destroying it. Therefore, Vermigli distinguishes between those properties that are communicated really, that is, metaphysically, and those that are communicated verbally, that is, in our speech about Christ. This distinction corresponds to what later Reformed theologians will call the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Vermigli supports this distinction from Scripture by using examples such as Acts 20:28 and 1 Corinthians 2:8, which are classic examples for reflection on the communicatio.170 These texts speak of “God’s blood” and the “crucifixion of the Lord of glory.” How are such expressions to be understood when God is immaterial, unchanging, and impassible? According to Vermigli, these statements in Scripture are a true yet verbal predication of these properties to the divine nature because of the hypostatic union. The hypostasis of Christ possesses all the properties of each nature and is the proper subject of them, which allows such expressions: “There are some properties which are predicated of the subject or person and suit it but are not really communicated to both natures, as in the statement ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’ ”171 The human nature of Christ did not exist before Abraham, yet the hypostasis who is speaking these words in his flesh did. Therefore, the property of existent-​ before-​Abraham applies fully to the hypostasis, metaphysically to the divine nature, and verbally to the human nature, lest it be destroyed: “That was so specific to the divine nature that it cannot be adapted, as far as its substance, to the humanity.”172 In order to demonstrate that this is not a unique doctrine 169 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 50. Quia immortalitatem, lucem, gloriam, et caetera, quorum natura humana est capax, illi communicata esse fateor: sed alia, ut est aeternitas, immensitas, et ubiquitas, cum illa nequeat recipere, ipsi non potuerunt communicari (Dialogus, 28v). I have modified Donnelly’s translation here since there is an infelicity in his rendering. He translates illi communicata esse and ipsi . . . communicari as “communicated to him.” This seems to give the human nature personal existence, which would undermine or at least confuse Vermigli’s point. The Latin pronouns illi and ipsi have natura humana as their referent, all of which are feminine. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to render these pronouns “it” to refer to the human nature. 170 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 50. “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” Acts 28:20 (ESV). “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 1 Corinthians 2:8 (ESV). 171 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 51. Sunt ergo quaedam proprietates, quae de subiecto quidem seu persona praedicantur, et ei conveniunt, sed reipsa utrique naturae minime communicantur, sicut etiam est illud, Priusquam Abraham fieret, ego sum (Dialogus, 29r). 172 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 51. Id quoque sic proprium fuit naturae divinae, ut ad humanitatem non possit quo ad rem adaptari (Dialogus, 29r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  185 to himself or the Reformed, Vermigli provides support from various church fathers:  Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch, Leo the Great, Theodoret, Vigilius, Ambrose, and Augustine.173 Vermigli’s position is perhaps most concisely put in a quotation of Theodoret: “What is proper to the natures turns out to be common to the person. . . . But this is to be noticed: that a confusion of names does not result in a confusion of natures.”174 Vermigli turns his understanding of the hypostatic union definitively against Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity. Omnipresence and ubiquity are properties of the divine nature that cannot be properly predicated of the humanity without destroying it; therefore, while omnipresence is an attribute of the hypostasis, it can only verbally be attributed to humanity, rather than metaphysically as the Lutherans maintain. Vermigli compares this to the components of a human person, which is a hypostatic union of the body, soul, and mind that still maintains distinct functions of each part: “I beg you, tell us whether according to your ubiquity, if I understand with my mind and not my body and I hunger with my body and not my mind, do I therefore hunger or understand only verbally?”175 The proper understanding is that the hypostasis of Christ is both everywhere according to the divine nature and in a particular place according to the human nature at the same time without any weakening of this union: “So too let us believe that Christ is one person with two natures, through one of which he is in a certain place and through the other he is everywhere. Although the humanity is not everywhere, nor is the divinity bound to a certain place, nonetheless the unity of the person remains intact and is not divided.”176 Vermigli further develops the argument for the extra Calvinisticum from his Reformed predecessors in light of the polemics with Brenz. Like Zwingli he utilizes an enhypostatic christology, which grounds his understanding of the hypostatic union and allows him to maintain the unity of the person despite the continued existence of the Word beyond the flesh. He sees this

173 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 51–​60; Dialogus, 29v–​35r. 174 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 56, citing Theodoret, Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, PG 83:280. Communia personae evaserunt, quae sunt propria naturarum. . . . Illud tamen sciendum est, quod nominum confusio non fecit naturarum confusionem (Dialogus, 32v). 175 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 60. Respondeas obsecro te per tuam ubiquitatem, si animo intelligo non corpore, et esurio corpore non animo, an propterea tantum sermone vel esurio vel intelligo? (Dialogus, 35r). 176 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 71–​72. Ita Christum credamus unam esse personam duarum naturarum, per quarum alteram sit certo loco et per alteram ubique. Et licet humanitas non sit ubique, nec divinitas certo loco teneatur, manet attamen salva unitas personae, nec dividitur (Dialogus, 43r).

186  The Flesh of the Word understanding as grounded on conciliar christology, like Bullinger, yet he broadens the base of support through incorporation of the fathers, especially Cyril of Alexandria and Leo. By doing so he demonstrates the antiquity of the Reformed doctrine against the novelty of ubiquity. Likewise, Vermigli’s doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum terminates on the person, which allows for an understanding of Christ such that he can be everywhere according to his divinity and circumscribed according to his humanity simultaneously. 3.4.3.3  Vermigli and finitum non capax infiniti Having set forth Vermigli’s doctrine of the hypostatic union and the communicatio idiomatum, we are now prepared to turn to the question of the relationship of the extra Calvinisticum to the finitum non capax infiniti formula. As I laid out in the introduction, the non capax formula is often claimed as either the driving force behind the doctrine or a necessary component part of it—​by critics and proponents alike.177 Yet others have sought to disentangle the extra from this dictum, seeing it as a perversion of the doctrine’s religious intent, especially in Calvin.178 Largely following G.  C. Berkouwer, scholars in this latter group take great pains to reject the accusation that Calvin fell prey to the supposed philosophical speculation of the non capax.179 Several scholars have noted the use of terms very similar to the non capax in the work of Vermigli and have intimated that this is a significant feature in his theology as a whole and of specific import in the Dialogue.180 177 Werner Elert, “Über die Herkunft des Satzes ‘Finitum infiniti non capax,’ ” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 16 (1939):  500–​504; André Gounelle, “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ: Tillich entre l’extra Calvinisticum et l’intra lutheranum,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 61, no. 3 (1981): 250; Walter Sparn, “Jesus Christus V Vom Trideninum bis zur Aufklärung,” in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. Gerhard Müller (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), 3; Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 111; Darren O. Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word:  Karl Barth’s Critical Reception of the Extra Calvinisticum,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 1 (2013): 42–​43. 178 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 74–​75; Heiko A. Oberman, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” in The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 254; Pierre Gisel, Le Christ de Calvin (Paris: Desclée, 1990), 91; Christina Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum: Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?,” Theologische Zeitschrift 64, no. 4 (2008): 261–​62. 179 G. C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954), 282. Other scholars, however, have called into question Berkouwer’s claim that Calvin avoided this concept because the mere absence of verbal form cannot demonstrate a lack of a concept. See Carlos M. N. Eire, “‘True Piety Begets True Confession’: Calvin’s Attack on Idolatry,” in John Calvin and the Church, ed. Timothy George (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1990), 249–​50; Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2004), 21; Richard A.  Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 20–​21. 180 John Patrick Donnelly S.J., Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 64–​65; Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 82–​83; Andrew

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  187 One of Vermigli’s arguments against Brenz employs the phrase “what is finite and limited cannot hold the infinite.”181 Vermigli’s Latin here reads quia quod finitum ac terminatum est, infinita non capit, which comes very close to the non capax dictum with which Reformed christology is often linked.182 Is Vermigli the originator of the non capax concept in the Reformed tradition and likewise to shoulder the blame for its supposed errors? According to many critics, blame is indeed due. The non capax is not considered a neutral position, but propounding this idea itself is to come under censure for deep theological errors. According to the critics of the concept, the non capax necessarily entails, among other things, theological rationalism and Nestorianism. For this reason, according to Gisel, the theological heirs of Calvin “remain prisoners of philosophical prejudices, especially, that one which means that the finite cannot receive or understand the infinite: finitum non capax infiniti.”183 These philosophical errors lead to deeper christological errors such that the person of Christ is divided, leading in turn to Nestorianism.184 If these criticisms hold, then Vermigli’s christology and the extra Calvinisticum developed with it surely cannot stand. None of these charges, however, has purchase on Vermigli’s actual argument from the non capax. Vermigli’s use of the phrase “what is finite and limited cannot hold the infinite” comes in the discussion of the exegesis of Ephesians 1:20–​21. Echoing an assertion of Brenz, Pantachus uses this text to argue that Christ’s humanity is granted infinite power, goodness, and justice by the exaltation, and reasons that infinity and immensity regarding spatial reality are also included. As Pantachus states, “This is certainly to lift the son of man up to infinite power, wisdom, goodness, and justice. But if the son of man is made infinite and immense in his own way in these things, would not the Son of God also have borne him up to that infinity by which he fills in a heavenly way all things

M.  McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh:  A Historical and Theological Study of the Extra Calvinisticum, T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology 29 (London:  Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014),  86–​87. 181 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 37. 182 Vermigli, Dialogus, 19v. 183 Gisel, Le Christ de Calvin, 91. A similarly forceful indictment for rationalism can be found in Jack D. Kilcrease, The Self-​Donation of God: A Contemporary Lutheran Approach to Christ and His Benefits (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013), 183. 184 Elert, “Über die Herkunft des Satzes ‘Finitum infiniti non capax’ ”; Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz,  82–​83.

188  The Flesh of the Word both above and below?”185 This is according to Brenz’s understanding that “when the Word was made flesh, it poured all the majesty of its Godhead into the flesh.”186 In response to this argument, Vermigli employs the nature of infinite and finite realities. While agreeing that the Ephesians text describes Christ’s exaltation above all other creatures, Vermigli will not grant “that the son of man, that is, the human nature, was lifted up to infinite power, wisdom, goodness, and justice, for what is finite and limited cannot hold the infinite.”187 The human nature of Christ can receive the gifts of the divine majesty because of the hypostatic union, but only in such a way that a human creature can bear them without ceasing to be itself: “It is enough that the man who was assumed acquired the goods you mentioned beyond all creatures that can be thought of or named. . . . Because by the hypostatic union he has dwelling within him one who is truly infinite and communicates to the man he has assumed his gifts more than to other creatures.”188 The humanity of Christ is joined hypostatically to the infinite person and nature of the divine Son; however, infinity is not proper to any creature but to God alone. Vermigli states, “We confess one infinite being and one immense being. Nonetheless we still have to argue whether this property of immensity can be communicated to Christ’s human nature. We deny it, for fear of destroying that nature.”189 If the human body metaphysically and really becomes a participant in infinity with the communication of the full majesty of God then it is destroyed as a human body, which not only violates Chalcedon but also compromises Christ as mediator.

185 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 37. Hoc certe est filium hominis evehere in infinitam potentiam, sapientiam, bonitatem, et iustitiam. Quod si fillius hominis factus est in his rebus suo modo infinitus et immensus, quomodo filius Dei non evexisset etiam eum ad illam infinitatem, qua omnia tam supera quam infera coelesti modo impleret? (Dialogus, 19v). 186 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 37, quoting Brenz, De personali unione, fol. 5v. Verbum cum est factum caro, effudit in eam omnem suae deitatis Maiestatem (Dialogus, 19r). For the significance of this text for Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity, see Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 174–​75. 187 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 37. Filium hominis, id est, naturam humanam evectam esse ad infinitam potentiam, sapientiam, bonitatem et iustitiam, non facile dabo: quia quod finitum ac terminatum est, infinita non capit (Dialogus, 19v). 188 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 37–​38. Sufficit quippe hominem illum assumptum, bona, quae commemorasti, ultra omnes creaturas quae vel cogitari vel nominari possunt, esse consequutum . . . quod inhabitatorem hypostatica unione illum habeat, qui reversa est infinitus, et sua bona homini assumpto prae caeteris creaturis communicavit (Dialogus, 19v–​20r). 189 “We confess one infinite being and one immense being. Nonetheless we still have to argue whether this property of immensity can be communicated to Christ’s human nature. We deny it, for fear of destroying that nature.” Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 36. Unum infinitum et unum immensum confiteamur. Nihilominus tamen disputandum restat an ista proprietas immensitatis, naturae humanae Christi communicetur. Nos id negamus, ne sit eius eversio (Dialogus, 18v).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  189 Vermigli’s use of the non capax is an application of his understanding of the law of noncontradiction, discussed earlier as one of the foundations of his theological method that he grounds in the truthfulness and consistency of God. To be infinite is to be absolutely without boundary or limit. Infinitude is thus the negation of finitude, which is by definition bounded and limited by something else. For Vermigli, the only infinite being is God himself, who is transcendent over all and every limitation. A human nature is finite and therefore cannot have infinite properties without ceasing to be what it is. The exaltation lifts Christ’s humanity not above creatureliness but only above all other creatures. While the prohibition against applying infinite qualities to the finite human nature is absolute for Vermigli, his main concern in this passage is whether Christ’s human body can be infinite with respect to space, as Brenz claims. Vermigli finds no support in Scripture for such a position: “It pertains to the nature and majesty of God to be infinite—​ who shall grant this to a human body? Nobody, indeed, except somebody who wants to have his whole being scattered and turned completely into a divine spirit. This I know for certain: nowhere in Scripture do we read that the body of Christ is immense.”190 Since Scripture, according to Vermigli, does not support an infinite humanity, the theologian must explain finite nature according to standard human experience and reason. For, as Vermigli explains, “the principles of nature are not to be overturned unless the testimony of sacred revelation forces us to it.”191 What is at stake here for Vermigli is both the concrete human nature of Christ and the very principle of reason itself: Who indeed would say at one and the same time about the same thing that it is limited and not limited, finite and not finite? Or would you force us, because of your daydreams and strained interpretations, simultaneously to kill the human nature of the Son of God and to overturn the foundations of all understanding and of all knowledge?192 190 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 32; see also 30, 33. Ad naturam et Maiestatem Dei pertinet ut sit infinita: quod humano corpori quis dederit? Nullus profecto, nisi qui totum ipsum velit dissipatum, et in spiritum divinum prorsus conversum. Id certo scio, in scripturis nusquam legi corpus Christi esse immesum (Dialogus, 16r). 191 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 30. Principia vero naturae convellenda non sunt, nisi testimonio sacrorum oraculorum eo adigamur (Dialogus, 14r). 192 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 38. De re autem prorsus eadem quis vere dixerit simul eodemque tempore illam circumscriptam et non cicumscriptam esse, finitam et non finitam? An ob vestra figmenta, et extortas interpretationes, necesse habebimus simul et naturam humanam filii Dei perdere, atque omnis intelligentiae omnisque notitiae fundamenta evertere? (Dialogus, 20r).

190  The Flesh of the Word A thing that is finite cannot become infinite and remain finite; if this were so the minimal principle of reason, the principle of noncontradiction, is overcome. With Vermigli’s use of the non capax in mind, one can assess the charge that this idea entails a latent “rationalism,” which critics of Reformed christology level. Jack Kilcrease summarizes these criticisms of Reformed christology with regard to the non capax as follows: “The Reformed theologians, it would seem, have an a priori and exhaustive knowledge of what it is possible for human nature to do and not to do. In light of these concerns, one major polemical argument advanced by Lutheran theologians, is that Reformed Christology is rooted in a crass rationalism.”193 Vermigli is exempt from such a charge. He does not derive his understanding of the finitude of Christ’s humanity from a priori reasoning but argues from common human experience of finitude. Vermigli understands this as the antidote to speculation: “And as regards what comes from our everyday experience, we should go no further than the sacred witnesses lead us, because by speculating and (if I may say so) by drawing consequences we shall easily end up undertaking to confirm not the decrees of the orthodox faith but the inventions of human reason.”194 Nor does Vermigli claim “an exhaustive knowledge” of human capacity, but merely that it is finite and that a finite thing cannot simultaneously be infinite, which is a simple application of the law of noncontradiction. Without this minimal axiom of logic, according to Vermigli, theology has no guardrail against absurdity. Vermigli, for instance, pushes this implication at several points for Brenz’s doctrine of the full communication of the divine majesty to Christ’s human nature. If the law of noncontradiction is overthrown, why cannot the human nature of Christ be eternal, uncreated, and self-​existent or the divine nature hunger, thirst, suffer on the cross, or die?195 Further, Vermigli’s use of the non capax is safeguarded from falling into Nestorianism because of his argument for Christ’s enhypostatic human nature. Vermigli rejects the notion that Christ is other than a single person, who is the eternal Son; therefore, there is no space in his christology whatsoever 193 Kilcrease, The Self-​Donation of God, 183. 194 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 30. Quod etiam cum usu venit, non ulterius progrediendum est, quam nos deducans sacra testimonia:  quia rationciniis et (ut ita dixerim) consequentiis, eo facile veniremus, ut non decreta orthodoxae fidei, sed inventa humanae rationis confirmare aggrederemur (Dialogus, 14r–​v). 195 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 36, 60–​61, respectively; Dialogus, 19r, 35v. Brenz would seem not to balk at the implications of a passible divine nature. Baur, “Ubiquität,” 244; Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 194–​97. On this point, Brenz may have been closer to Luther than the subsequent tradition. Dennis Ngien, The Suffering of God According to Martin Luther’s “Theologia Crucis” (Vancouver: Regent College, 2005).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  191 for an opening up of two discrete subjects in the actions of the Son incarnate. It is for this reason that he repudiates the teaching of Nestorius throughout the Dialogue.196 Nor does his understanding here devolve into “crudely naïve spatial categories,” as Willis asserts of the Reformed thinkers other than Calvin.197 What is at stake is not a question of quality or spatial extension primarily, as if the divine is too big to fit in the human body, as if God is infinite matter. It is rather a deeper question of the metaphysical constitution of humanity itself; is a human nature essentially a material, finite thing or not? The difference between the infinite nature of the divine and the finite nature of humanity is a qualitative distinction between two kinds of being. The Chalcedonian logic, that the two natures in Christ are not confused or separated, must hold on this point if any. To be infinite is to be divine. If the human nature becomes infinite, it has been turned into “divine spirit” without dimensions, movement, locality, and so on. For Vermigli the infinite hypostasis of the eternal, divine Son has assumed fully into his person the finite human existence of a human nature without destroying it, which is uniquely, completely, and unquestionably his own. Thus, while the finite is not capable of becoming infinite, the infinite Son has become finite by assuming the human nature yet remaining beyond. In other words, the Word has become flesh, but the flesh has not become the Word. It is with this mystery that Vermigli is contented, rather than another mystery, presented by one Lutheran theologian as a “human God.”198 In sum, Vermigli does utilize the non capax in his exposition of the extra Calvinisticum, but it is one argument among many others from biblical exegesis, polemic engagement with Brenz, and appeals to the church fathers. Nor is it clear from the Dialogue itself that this idea of the relationship between the infinite and the finite has become something like a heuristic philosophical axiom that is meant to encompass a broad movement underlying Vermigli’s theology. Neither does Vermigli’s use of this concept fall prey to the many errors leveled against it by critics of the non capax concept. This is not to claim, however, that the critiques of the concept as applied to later Reformed thinkers are likewise invalid. Since such a claim could not be adduced from a single instance, further discussion of this concept in 196 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 11, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 58, 84. 197 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  74–​75. 198 Klaas Zwanepol, “Lutheran and Reformed on the Finite and the Infinite,” Lutheran Quarterly 25 (2011): 417; Klaas Zwanepol, “A Human God: Some Remarks on Luther’s Christology,” Concordia Journal 30, nos. 1–​2 (April 2004): 40–​53.

192  The Flesh of the Word Chandieu will be offered in the next chapter. Vermigli reflects on the infinite and the finite in the restricted domain of christology to reject Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity and maintain his understanding of the Chalcedonian logic of the hypostatic union. This requires that Christ’s person be simultaneously infinite and finite, according to the proper nature, and the corollary of the extra Calvinisticum. Anything less for Vermigli would nullify Christ’s role as the perfect mediator between God and man.

3.4.4  Christ’s Ascension to a Local Heaven Christ’s ascension and the nature of heaven have been important features in the debate surrounding the doctrine of the extra since Zwingli first rejected Luther’s doctrine of the Supper by arguing from the ascension. In the second generation, ambiguity emerged regarding the nature of heaven and the right hand of God, as seen in Calvin and the Consensus Tigurinus. In the Dialogue, Vermigli reflects on these two doctrines with greater specificity given Brenz’s polemical reformulations. With this argument Vermigli presents the second proposition of the extra—​after the ascension and session, the human body of Christ exists, in some sense, locally in heaven—​and clarifies the relationship of heaven and the right hand of the Father. Therefore, Vermigli builds on the understanding of the ascension as essential to the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum, maintains the relationship of divine omnipresence and human limitation that extends beyond the earthly life of Jesus, and provides additional support from theological and philosophical reasoning as well as the church fathers. After establishing Vermigli’s position on these points, I will briefly recount his understanding of Christ’s presence in the interadventum, the third proposition of the extra, as the spiritual comfort of Christians. In De personali unione, Brenz built on Luther’s previous thought on the ascension, as presented at the Marburg Colloquy, and combined it with his more radical understanding of ubiquity. Brenz argued that the body of Christ is in heaven from the moment of incarnation itself. And while Christ’s body might move to heaven in a local manner after the ascension, at the same time, in ascending to the right hand of the Father, which is everywhere, the body of Christ remains everywhere in an illocal manner.199 In response, Vermigli 199 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 113–​15, quoting Brenz, De personali unione, fols. 14r–​15r. For Brenz’s development on this point, see Baur, “Ubiquität,” 246–​49; Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  193 argues that the ascension of Christ is a true transition of his body from the earthly realm to the heavenly realm, which he did not previously occupy bodily. This heavenly realm is conceived of as a place beyond the visible heaven, which Vermigli argues for from the perspective of biblical accounts of the ascension, within a modified framework of Aristotelian cosmology. In the Dialogue, Vermigli shifts the focus of his discussion to the ascension by citing Brenz’s claim that, as a result of the hypostatic union, Christ was already in heaven according to his human nature from the moment of incarnation. While affirming that the event of the ascension took place as described in Acts, as a visible ascension to heaven, Brenz denied that this indicated that Christ had not been previously present in heaven according to the human nature. As Brenz states, “The question before us now is whether Christ ascended into heaven in such a way that he was never previously in heaven except according to his divinity. . . . This surely is not to be denied.”200 Vermigli in fact does deny this and asserts rather that Christ was not in heaven before the ascension: “Even though the person or the divine nature was always everywhere, he was nonetheless kept on earth by his humanity right to the end of his saving ministry, and the holy Scriptures teach nothing else.”201 Vermigli buttresses this claim with patristic interpretations of John 3:13 (Vulg.) and shows from Ambrose, Vigilius, Fulgentius, and Cyril of Alexandria that this text does not make a claim that Christ’s humanity existed in heaven before the incarnation or during his earthly ministry but rather is a statement according to the communicatio idiomatum.202 To understand Vermigli’s objection, we must investigate his conception of the purpose and results of the ascension. Christ’s ascension has effects in the past, present, and future pertinent to believers, salvation history, and Christ himself. Although Vermigli’s assessment of the causes of the ascension is brief, it is loaded with theological content and scriptural allusion. As an event in the past the ascension has opened up a way for believers into the presence of God (Heb. 10:19–​21) as well as allowing for the sending of the Holy Spirit and ushering in of a new epoch within the economy of salvation (Acts 2; John 7:39, 16:7). The ascension also prepared the apostles for 200 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 107, quoting Brenz, De personali unione, fol. 14r. Illud autem in praesentia quaeritur, num Christus in coelum ita ascenderit, ut nec antea nisi iuxta divinitatem fuerit in coelo. . . . Hoc certe negandum non est (Dialogus, 67v). 201 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 108. Nam etsi persona seu natura divina semper ubique fuit, humanitate nihilominus in terris continebatur, usque ad finem salutaris ministerii, neque scripturae sanctae aliter tradunt (Dialogus, 68r–​v). 202 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 108–​11; Dialogus, 68v–​70r.

194  The Flesh of the Word their ministry such that they no longer cling to “his physical companionship,” likely here referencing such texts as John 20:17 and 2 Corinthians 5:16. Perhaps the most significant past effect of the ascension was the glorification and exaltation of Christ. Jesus is now by the ascension “crowned joyously with the highest glory, honor, and majesty after his ignominious and shameful death,” invoking Philippians 2:9, Acts 5:31, and 1 Timothy 3:16. In addition, the ascension brings about a new present reality for Christians, as Christ has taken human nature into the very presence of the Father, and he intercedes for them (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25).203 The ascension also has a future effect, which is the foundation for Christian hope: the preparation of places in heaven and assurance of the believers’ “future ascension and glory.” Christians can trust and hope in their eschatological state because Christ has gone before them and is their anchor beyond the veil of this world.204 Therefore, for Vermigli Brenz’s relegation of the ascension event to a mere appearance not only threatens to distort the biblical account but also calls into question the twofold state of Christ as humiliated and exalted as well as threatening the firm foothold of the Christian’s future hope. As Baumann summarizes, “The salvation event therefore depends precisely on this corporeal ascension into heaven.”205 Vermigli presents a doctrine of the ascension in conformity with his doctrine of the hypostatic union. There is a real transition of Christ’s humanity into a new state by the ascension: Hence the divine hypostasis of Christ, which was infinite, could not ascend as regards its nature since it already occupied everything. But the humanity, which has its fixed dimensions, truly ascended into heaven. If it had been there already, it could not have been carried up there. If the angel could rightly say that the body of the dead Christ was not in the tomb, and Christ himself rightly said that he was not with Lazarus when he died, then why

203 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 107–​8. Ascensionis Christi causae, quas tu praeteriisti, paucis attingi possunt. In coelum quippe subvectus est, ut nobis mansiones ibi pararet, ad illam beatam patriam aditum patefaciendo, utque inde ad Apostolas mitteret spiritum sanctum, nec non ut apud patrem pro nobis intercederet, atque ut post ignominiosam et probrosam mortem, gloria summa, decore, ac Maiestate felicissime ornaretur, spemque faceret in se credentibus futurae illorum ascensionis et gloriae. Nec volebat Apostolos humanitati suae, vel potius conversationi eius aspectabili ulterius detinere affixos (Dialogus, 68r). 204 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,  107–​8. 205 Baumann, Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich, 276. Das Heilsgeschehen hängt mithin genau an dieser körperlichen Himmelfahrt.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  195 can’t we say, and very rightly, that as regards his humanity he had not been in heaven prior to the time when he ascended there.206

Vermigli combines his enhypostatic christology with a scriptural argument to oppose Brenz’s view of the ascension. It is the divine hypostasis that is infinite, and the human nature subsists fully within the infinite hypostasis while remaining in a “fixed dimension.” Therefore, it is according to the human nature that Christ ascends into heaven; if this is to be a real ascension, i.e., a movement of some sort, it cannot rightly be attributed to the infinite nature, which cannot properly be said to move from place to place. A factual ascension is necessary for certain statements of Jesus’s absence in Scripture to have any meaning. Christ was neither in the tomb on Easter Sunday nor with Lazarus at his death, etc. If it is appropriately said that Christ’s human nature was not present in these earthly places prior to the ascension, it is likewise appropriate to say the same regarding heaven. The only way to avoid such a claim is a docetic view of the ascension, merely a seeming absence of the human nature. Vermigli rejects this position, which he attributes to Brenz. Having established that the ascension is a real movement of Christ according to his human nature, Vermigli must address Brenz’s other criticism, which accuses the Reformed of a crude and philosophically constructed notion of heaven.207 This leads Vermigli to reflect on the nature of heaven itself as the “thither” of the ascension. Where does the body of Christ move to, and how is such a “where” understood? Vermigli’s answer takes its form within a scripturally modified Aristotelian cosmology. Christ’s body is contained in a sphere beyond the visible heaven in a local manner. Vermigli argues that the human body of Christ has been received into the highest heaven and exists there now along with the saints until the day of his second bodily coming. He bases this argument initially on biblical texts that speak of the absence of Christ in the present age—​“you do not always have me” (John 12:8) and “I am leaving the world” (16:28). As we have seen with Zwingli, Vermigli attributes the absence expressed in these texts to Christ’s 206 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 111. Unde Christi divina hypostasis, quae infinita erat, quo ad suam naturam ascendere non potuit, cum iam omnia occuparet. Humanitas autem quae suas habet dimensiones teminatas vere in coelum ascendit: Ubi si antea fuisset, eo non potuisset attolli. Atque si vere ab angelo dici potuit Christi defuncti corpus in sepulchro non fuisse, ac ipse Christus vere dixerit, se apud Lazarum non fuisse, cum diem suum obiit: Cur a nobis dici non potest, et quidem vere, illum quoad humanitatem in coelo antea non fuisse, quam eo ascenderit? (Dialogus, 70v). 207 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 114; Dialogus, 71r–​73r; Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 228–​38.

196  The Flesh of the Word humanity. He further supports his claim with Peter’s statement in Acts 3:21, speaking of Christ “whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things.”208 Christ is absent from the world and has been received into heaven. This can only be in accordance with the human nature since Christ is continually present according to his divinity and exists everywhere: “But all the faithful confess that Christ ascended above all the heavens. We conclude from this, and I hope very properly, that the happy realms of the blessed exist beyond the furthest sphere where the bodies of the saints are to be placed next to Christ at their proper time.”209 Therefore, this place of the blessed to which the body ascends must be capable of receiving a bodily nature without destroying it. In the Dialogue, Vermigli operates initially with a basic Aristotelian container concept of a body—​a body is defined by the limiting nature of what surrounds it.210 Reflecting on this outer heaven, however, he is willing to abandon this necessity while leaving it as a possibility. In speaking of the bodily existence of the saint in heaven, Vermigli states, “They may pass their time without being surrounded by an external body provided they retain their distances, relationships, arrangements, members, and limits, because we are not so peevish or worried about a surrounding body that we would say that it is absolutely required for the preservation of the bodies of the blessed.”211 Thus Vermigli is willing to entertain a concept of a body that does not require another bounding body but possesses intrinsic integrity. Brenz simultaneously accuses Vermigli of an overreliance on Aristotle and violating Aristotle’s concepts of heaven, to which I will turn in a moment.212 But as the previous quotation demonstrates, Vermigli will reject elements of Aristotle’s understanding of bodies if it comes into conflict with what is necessitated by scriptural and theological concerns. 208 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 112; Dialogus, 70v–​71r. 209 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 113. Fideles attamen omnes confitentur, Christum super omnes coelos ascendisse. Unde nos colligimus, et recte quidem (ut spero) supra orbem supremum regiones beatorum felicissimas extare, ubi corpora sanctorum iuxta Christum suo tempore sint collocanda (Dialogus, 71v). 210 “That is what place is: the first unchangeable limit of that which surrounds.” Aristotle’s Physics, 212a20–​21, citied in Casey, The Fate of Place, 55. “Nothing prevents these bodies from being surrounded by the purest air or, instead of that, by some other body so that they are not lacking their own place.” Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 113. Quae nihil vetat, purissimo aliquo aere vel quopiam alio corpore illius vice sic ambienda, ut loco suo non careant (Dialogus, 71v). 211 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 113. Aut sine ambitu externi corporis ibi degant, modo suas distantias, propinquitates, lineamenta, membra, et terminos retineant, quia morosi non usqueadeo sumus, vel anxii de corpore ambiente, ut ipsum necessario exigi dicamus ad corporum beatorum conservationem (Dialogus, 71v). 212 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 113, citing Brenz, De Personali unione, fol. 14r.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  197 Vermigli places in Pantachus’s mouth a large section of Brenz’s argument against this notion of a local heaven. This argument hinges on the Aristotelian notion that “no body exists nor can exist outside of heaven” and mockery of what Brenz sees as absurd consequences of the Reformed position.213 As Brandy argues, Brenz’s main argumentative strategy on this point is mockery and irony.214 For instance, Brenz asks, if the body of Christ is in heaven, must it be at the North or South Pole, or is it daily circumnavigating the earth with the stars?215 He is here conceiving the Reformed position as if heaven is coterminous with the Aristotelian conceptualization of a fixed celestial sphere that rotates around the Earth. Such a notion, according to Brenz, leads to absurdities. In response to this characterization, Brenz asserts that because Christ has ascended to the right hand of the Father, which is everywhere, then ubiquity is the natural and necessary conclusion: The fact that the right hand of God, at which Christ is seated, fills heaven and earth symbolizes not only that the kingdom of Christ and his power reaches everywhere but also that his humanity too, by which he sits at the right hand of God, is immediately present to all things, but in a heavenly and not in a human way, and keeps all things in its sight and is present governing all.216

Vermigli seeks to overcome these objections with a distinction between the visible heaven and outer heaven, a rejection of Aristotle’s claim that a body cannot exist outside the visible heaven, and a proper rendering of the nature of the right hand of God. Vermigli addresses the objection that a body cannot exist outside of heaven by employing a distinction between the visible heaven, which is the fixed starry firmament, and heaven itself or the outer heaven, which is theologically defined. He states:

213 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 113–​15, citing Brenz, De Personali unione, fols. 14r–​15r. 214 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 228–​32. 215 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 114, citing Brenz, De Personali unione, fols. 14r–​15r. 216 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 114–​15, citing Brenz, De Personali unione, fol. 15r. Quod enim dextera Dei, ad quam Christus consedit, impleat coelum et terram, non tantum significat regnum Christi et virtutem eius undique patere, sed etiam humanitatem eius, qua ad dexteram Dei consedit, omnibus rebus coram, idque coelesti, non humano modo adesse, et omnia in conspectu suo habere, et praesentem gubernare (Dialogus, 73r).

198  The Flesh of the Word In dealing with the visible heaven, I do not think that the body of Christ dwells there since it is said that he ascended above all the heavens. But if by heaven we include also those spaces and regions of the living which are beyond the heavens but unknown to the philosophers, I firmly believe that the body of Christ does abide there together with the angels, the blessed spirits and the bodies of the saints after the resurrection.217

Working within a Ptolemaic cosmology, the “visible heaven” is that fixed starry firmament that can be observed from Earth; however, existing beyond the sight of humanity is a “heaven” wherein the souls of the blessed, the angels, and the ascended body of Christ reside in the “inapproachable light” of the divine presence (1 Tim. 6:16).218 Vermigli grounds this teaching in the exposition of Scripture, citing texts that speak of Christ ascending “above all the heavens” (Eph. 4:10; Heb. 7:26) and Paul’s statement about the third heaven (2 Cor. 2:12). Therefore, according to Vermigli, one should reject Aristotle’s restriction on bodies existing only within the sphere of the visible heaven: “For philosophers are not to be listened to; rather listen to the Scripture revealed by God’s Word.”219 In further support of his interpretation that heaven proper exists beyond the fixed firmament, Vermigli enlists the Damascene, Bede, Lombard, and the Glossa ordinaria.220 Sensing these medieval testimonies will not suffice, he gives citations supporting a realm of divine light in which the angels dwell from Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine.221 Therefore, Brenz’s attempts to render Vermigli’s doctrine absurd with the consequence of seeing Christ’s body within the realm of the visible heaven are mistaken, as is the charge of overreliance on Aristotle. Brandy confirms this in his assessment, arguing that Brenz’s polemic to paint Vermigli (and Bullinger) with a simplistic brush of anthropomorphizing heaven and the right hand of God the Father is unfounded. Brenz mocks the Reformed as if they imply that the body of Christ is flitting about the firmament daily, or an actual physical throne is attached to the visible fixed sphere. Brandy concludes, “Bullinger and Vermigli 217 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 115. At si per coelum illa etiam spacia complectamur, et regiones viventium quae sunt ultra coelos, verum philosophis incognitas, ibi corpus Christi degere, nec non angelos, beatos item spiritus, et corpora sanctorum post resurrectionem omnino sentio (Dialogus, 73v). 218 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 115–​16; Dialogus, 73r–​74v. 219 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 117. Non enim Philosophi sunt audiendi, sed scriptura verbo Dei patefacta (Dialogus, 75r). 220 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 119–​20; Dialogus, 76v–​77v. 221 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 121–​23; Dialogus, 77v–​79v.

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  199 are opposed to such accusations, and rightly so: they certainly do not hold the crass-​anthropomorphic monstrosities implied by Brenz.”222 Vermigli is not operating with a crude physical concept of heaven but is attempting to correct the cosmology of Aristotelian physics to account for the demands of the incarnation and the ascension, by distinguishing the visible heaven, which is the object of physics, from the outer heaven. Baumann’s assessment seems accurate: for Vermigli “the spatial concept of heaven is an ontic concept which guarantees the reality and permanence of Christ’s salvation to the faithful.”223 For Vermigli, the incarnation as the event and ongoing surety of Christ’s work must be maintained through his continued, uncompromised embodiment, which leads Vermigli to a view of an outer heaven wherein glorified corporeal entities can and will reside.224 Thus the extra secures not only Christ as mediator in the past but also his continued soteriological function in the present and in the eschatological future. Vermigli further supports these claims with his exegesis of Ephesians 4:9–​10.225 He attempts to turn this text, which is the most significant text for Brenz’s argument for ubiquity, against him and toward a local heaven.226 Vermigli draws attention to the antithesis within the text between the “lower regions” and the “heavens.” If the first term is to be taken in a literal fashion, as the act of incarnation into the earthly sphere, a proper understanding of the “just proportion” of the verses’ teaching will mean that the heavens should likewise be taken as a literal place. He chides Brenz for rejecting allegorical interpretation while resting his ubiquity doctrine on such a metaphorical reading.227 Vermigli must also account for the meaning of the phrase “that he might fill all things.” Previously in the work he offered an interpretation in line with Bullinger’s Mansiones that interpreted “all things” as all sorts of realms—​ namely, earth, hell, and heaven.228 At this juncture of the argument, he 222 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 229–​30. 223 Baumann, Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich, 279. Die räumliche Vorstellung des Himmels ist ein ontisches Konzept, das die Wirklichkeit und Permanenz von Christ Heilshandeln für die Gläubigen garantiert. 224 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 124; Dialogus, 79v–​80r. 225 “In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.” Ephesians 4:10 (ESV). 226 Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz, 233. 227 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 125–​26; Dialogus, 81r. 228 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 93; Dialogus, 58v. It is on this passage that Baumann bases his understanding of Vermigli’s interpretation of Ephesians 4:10. “The Pauline πληρωσις (impletio) is understood as a local fulfilling of places of the world, not merely as a

200  The Flesh of the Word defends another interpretation from Bullinger also present in Zwingli: that πληρωσις in this verse is the fulfillment of prophecy. Brenz objects that the proper reference of “all things” is the immediately preceding “lower parts” and the “heavens.” Vermigli summarizes Brenz in the words of Pantachus as follows: Therefore it’s impossible for the phrase filling all things to refer in this passage to prophetic predictions; rather it refers to what is nearest to it, namely, the lowest and highest parts of the world, so that the passage means that Christ received the majesty of God his Father and domination over all things, whether below or above, and is immediately present to them to govern and preserve them not just in his Godhead but also in his humanity.229

Vermigli challenges this on two fronts. First, the interpretation of the fulfillment of prophecy has an ancient pedigree being “accepted by both ancient and modern men,” although he gives no citations supporting this contention. Second, the fulfillment of prophecy is supported by the previous citation of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8—​“When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.” The act of the ascension and the resulting gifts distributed through the sending of the Holy Spirit discussed in verses 9–​10 is, therefore, the fulfillment of this Old Testament Scripture. With these arguments, Vermigli expands on the exegetical basis of the extra as dictated by the increasing polemical necessity of the debate. His objection, however, to Brenz’s interpretation of Ephesians 4:10 seems to lie more on the theological level than the exegetical, particularly against the full transfer of divine majesty that Brenz infers from this verse. Having set forth Vermigli’s understanding of heaven as local and his support for it scripturally, traditionally, and philosophically, we must turn to one additional concept, which is essential to Brenz’s case and has to this point prophetic-​salvation-​historical completion.” Die paulinische πληρωσις (impletio) wird als lokale Erfüllung Orte der Welt verstanden, nicht lediglich als prophetisch-​heilsgeschichtliche Vollendung. Baumann, Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich, 275. However, this is only one of the interpretations of the impletio in the Dialogue, and Vermigli may not be consistent on this point. 229 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 127. Fieri ergo non potest, ut verbum implendi omnia, hoc loco referas ad vaticinia Propherica, sed as ea quae proxima sunt, infimas videlicet ac supremas mundi partes, ut significetur Christum accepisse Maiestatem Dei patris sui, et dominationem omnium tam infimarum, quam supremarum rerum, et eas coram praesentem non deitate tantum, sed et humanitate gubernare et conservare (Dialogus, 82r).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  201 been only ambiguously addressed by the Reformed: the right hand of God. In his articulation of ubiquity, Brenz has conflated the ascension to heaven and the right hand of the Father. Because Christ’s body is at the right hand of God, which is everywhere, then the body too is everywhere by the transference of divine majesty.230 Vermigli retorts that this understanding is fallacious. Granting that the right hand of the Father is not a place but “an elegant turn of phrase” that expresses the exaltation of Christ, it does not follow from this that whatever the right hand is, so is the body of Christ. Vermigli identifies this as a per accidens fallacy whereby all the properties of a subject are attributed to an accident of that subject.231 In this instance, the subject is the right hand of God, which as a symbol for God’s majesty, power, etc. is infinite and ubiquitous. Christ’s existence as a human being, which partakes of this majesty, cannot be said to have all of its properties. Otherwise, one could just as firmly claim Christ’s body is eternal, uncreated, and self-​existent. Vermigli supports this line of argument with several analogies to show that things that are “attached” need not be coextensive. A king can be shorter than his throne or a thief than his cross.232 Vermigli understands the heavenly seating or session of Christ following his ascension into heaven as a dignifying and elevation of the humanity of Christ, but within the bounds and capacity of that human nature. “God’s right hand, or as you prefer, his omnipotence and majesty, may be everywhere, but the humanity of Christ which is joined to it remains contained within its own limit.”233 In this sense, Vermigli maintains that the right hand of God is not a place, and yet the body of Christ, which is “adorned above all creatures with excellence, honor, and dignity” at the Father’s right hand, is in a place. Through his refutation of the Lutheran arguments surrounding the ascension and the right hand of the Father, Vermigli succeeds in defending the extra and adjudicates the ambiguity regarding the nature of heaven seen in the Consensus Tigurinus and Calvin. Yes, heaven must be a place to which 230 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 114–​15, citing Brenz, De Personali unione, fols. 14r–​15r. 231 “There are fallacies due to accident whenever something is deemed to belong in the same way both to the thing and to the accident. For since many accidents belong to the same [thing], it is not necessary that all the same [attributes] belong to all the predicates and to that of which they are predicated.” Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations 5,166b28–​32, cited in Scott G. Schreiber, Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations, SUNY Series in Ancient Greek Philosophy (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2003), 114. 232 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 118; Dialogus, 75v. 233 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 118. Sit dextera Dei, hoc est (ut vis) eius omnipotentia et maiestas ubique, permaneat autem Christi humanitas, quae illi coniungitur suis terminis finita (Dialogus, 75v–​76r).

202  The Flesh of the Word Christ ascends and continues to exist bodily. This conclusion flows from Vermigli’s reflection on the hypostatic union and the nature of a body and is supported through scriptural argument, the church fathers, and some medieval theologians. Because of Christ’s two natures united in one hypostasis, he is both present by his divinity and absent via his humanity reigning at the right hand of the Father until he returns and takes believers to himself. Vermigli affirms this concern for eschatological hope even on his own deathbed, where the question of heaven and Brenz are firmly before him. Simler records, “[W]‌hen Bullinger tried to console him on his deathbed by remarking that ‘our citizenship is in heaven,’ Vermigli shot back, ‘I know it is, but not in Brenz’s heaven, which is nowhere.’ ”234 Vermigli turns to the subject of spiritual comfort at the end of the Dialogue, citing Pantachus’s objection that the Reformed have walled Christ off in heaven and deprived earthly believers of his presence.235 Vermigli responds that the Reformed do nothing of the sort and need not destroy Christ’s humanity to secure his presence. By the hypostatic union and the power of God, Christ is still present to his people according to his divinity and the sending of the Holy Spirit.236 According to his humanity and body in heaven, he continually makes intercession for his people and continues to give them “spiritual nourishment” by his body through the Lord’s Supper by the power of the Spirit.237 The union of believers with Christ is not strained in the least by the distance of heaven and earth, for “although Christ’s humanity is located beyond the visible heavens, it can still be joined to us by a life-​ giving union while we are still living on earth.”238 Therefore, for Vermigli the extra, far from challenging the union with Christ or the spiritual comfort of Christians, secures it by describing how Christ is both absent from and active with his people, by his divinity, power, and the gift of the Spirit.

3.5 Conclusion In this chapter I have shown that Vermigli deserves credit for offering the most robust and theological defense of the extra Calvinisticum among the 234 Simler, Oration on the Life and Death of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermigli, 91. 235 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 185. 236 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 186–​87. 237 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 187, 189. 238 Vermigli, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, 192. Licet Christi humanitas sita sit ultra visiblies coelos, nobis tamen vivifica unione coniungi potest, qui adhuc in terris agimus (Dialogus, 126v).

Peter Martyr Vermigli and the extra Calvinisticum  203 second-​generation Reformed theologians. While there is no need for a change in nomenclature, the appellation of extra Vermiglianum strikes a true chord, as Vermigli more than any other figure of the 1550s–​60s defended, elaborated, and developed the extra. As we have seen with the Stancaro debate and the response to Brenz, Vermigli was an integral part of the spread and defense of the Reformed tradition in the period of early confessionalization. According to Marvin Anderson, the impression of Vermigli that emerges from his correspondence with Calvin and Bullinger is “of a theologian upon whom these reformers depended in establishing a Reformed Church in sixteenth-​century Europe.”239 Vermigli was not a marginal figure but a member of a triumvirate, with Calvin and Bullinger, overseeing the expansion of Reformed theology across the European continent, from England to Poland and even Hungary, while also maneuvering for its acceptance and defense in the Holy Roman Empire. One of his key tasks was the defense of the Reformed understanding of Christ laid by Zwingli, Calvin, and Bullinger. Even more so than in the time of Zwingli, after the Consensus and the ensuing second eucharistic controversy, the extra Calvinisticum can be seen in its fullness only if understood in a dialectical relationship with the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature. The simplest statement of the extra—​that the human nature of Christ does not confine the divine nature nor expand to its metaphysical dimensions, but has ascended to heaven—​ expressed in early Zwingli and Calvin’s Institutes as well as in the patristic and medieval sources, seems to stand on its own without further explication.240 Reformed theologians developed a more positive and sophisticated doctrine only when confronted with its denial through the affirmation of the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature. Therefore, in some sense, the extra Calvinisticum develops in pace with the doctrine of ubiquity in a theological arms race. Vermigli’s exposition of the extra demonstrates this dialectic by leveraging arguments from Scripture, the fathers, and philosophical reasoning to address Brenz’s development of Luther’s brief statements on the omnipresence of Christ’s body. Vermigli’s success in his task can be seen through Calvin’s laudatory comment on the Dialogue. As Donnelly states, “Calvin greatly valued Martyr’s Eucharistic writing and later wrote that refutation of the Lutheran teaching 239 Marvin Anderson, “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542–​1562): His Letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin,” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 42. 240 For a survey of this basic form of the extra in the fathers and medieval theologians, see Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 34–​60; McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh,  15–​72.

204  The Flesh of the Word on the local presence of Christ’s body ‘received its finishing touches from Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done.’ ”241 Vermigli was able to build on the previous christological foundation for the extra laid by Zwingli and transmitted by Calvin and Bullinger by incorporating a larger argumentative base from Scripture and patristic testimony while resolving ambiguities in the previous formulations. From this, one must reject any idea that the extra arose from the theological genius of Calvin apart from his fellows, as has been implied by Paul Helm, Daniel Y. K. Lee, and Willis.242 Rather, as I have shown in this and the preceding chapters, the extra flowed from the initial insights of Zwingli against Luther and was steadily developed by the second generation of reformers through their engagement with Lutheran polemics. In the following chapter, I will investigate how the doctrine was received in the generation following Vermigli, Calvin, and Bullinger, as the Reformed tradition continued to solidify its theology against Lutheran opponents and increasingly turned to a scholastic method of theology, for which Vermigli can be seen as a forerunner.

241 Donnelly, “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ,” xii–​xiii, citing Calvin, Opera quae supersunt omnia, CR 9:490. 242 Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas; Daniel Y.  K. Lee, The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought (Bern: Peter Lang, 2011); Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology.

4 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu and the extra Calvinisticum into Early Reformed Orthodoxy 4.1 Introduction In the period of early orthodoxy, Reformed theologians continued to marshal the extra Calvinisticum against the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity by building on the concept in the reformers and using new conceptual tools to strengthen their position. This development is explicable only in the context of two corresponding themes: the confessional consolidation of Lutheranism and the shift of the Reformed tradition to a self-​consciously scholastic theological method. Nonetheless, the literature on the extra largely neglects the perpetuation of the doctrine in the Reformed orthodox period. To illuminate the extra’s reception in early Reformed orthodoxy, I explicate in this chapter the doctrine within the work of the little-​studied theologian Antoine de la Roche Chandieu (1534–​1591), one of the most significant figures in mid-​ sixteenth-​century French Protestantism. Chandieu’s work De veritate humanae naturae Iesu Christi (1585) offers a singular window into the development of the extra from the reformers to the early orthodox as he stands astride both the polemical and methodological currents of the era. Chandieu has been recognized as one of the fathers of Reformed scholasticism, and he uses this method to offer a scholastic and theological disputation against ubiquity in support of the true human nature of Christ. He used the rigor of scholastic methodology to deepen the Reformed theological basis in the previous thinkers by incorporating syllogistic reasoning and scholastic distinctions to further the established arguments from Scripture, theological reasoning, and the fathers in order to preserve Chalcedonian christology and Christ’s soteriological function as the mediator. The Flesh of the Word. K.J. Drake, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.003.0005

206  The Flesh of the Word In the past generation, scholars have recast our understanding of the transition from the reformers to the institutional Reformed church. The reigning model in the mid-​twentieth century was typified by the “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” paradigm, which was propelled by earlier nineteenth-​century concepts of a central dogma analysis and later accommodation of Calvin to Neo-​Orthodox theological priorities.1 This historiography asserted a sharp and definitive discontinuity between the period of Calvin and the reformers and that of the subsequent Protestant orthodox, who created a rigid dogmatic system derived from the central doctrine of the elective decree. Recent scholarship has overturned this narrative as both simplistic and beholden to modern rather than early modern concerns and methods.2 As Richard Muller has written, “That older narrative has been characterized by broad theological generalizations resting largely on nineteenth-​and twentieth-​ century dogmatic concerns and by a series of philosophical assumptions grounded on post-​Kantian understandings of early modern intellectual history.”3

1 Alexander Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehre der evangelisch-​reformierten Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, 2 vols. (Zürich: Orell, Füssli und Comp, 1844); Alexander Schweizer, Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche, 2 vols. (Zürich: Orell, Füssli und Comp, 1854); Heinrich Heppe, “Der Charakter der deutsch-​reformirten Kirche und das Verhältniss derselben zum Luthertum und zum Calvinismus,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 3 (1850): 669–​706; Heinrich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​reformirten Kirche (Elberfeld: R. L. Friedrichs, 1861); Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France (Madison:  University of Wisconsin Press, 1969); Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972); R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). For an overview of these historiographic tendencies, see Richard A Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3–​17. For a defense of this paradigm, see Charles Partee, The Theology of John Calvin (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008),  13–​27. 2 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin; Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker, eds., Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academics, 2003); Richard A.  Muller, After Calvin:  Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Carl R. Trueman and R.  Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism:  Essays in Reassessment (Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock, 2005); Maarten Wisse et al., eds., Scholasticism Reformed Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, Studies in Theology and Religion, vol. 14 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010); Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011); Willem J. van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011); Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). 3 Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 17.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  207 The new paradigm argues that a multifaceted continuity, discontinuity, and development exist between the reformers and the Reformed orthodox, who exhibit a far greater diversity than previously acknowledged. The Reformed tradition in the early orthodox period sought to preserve, elaborate, and defend the theology espoused by the reformers in light of changing political, institutional, and polemic contexts, which was both an international and a local endeavor. Willem van Asselt has identified two aspects of this period: “The theological activity of the period of early orthodoxy stretching from approximately 1560 to 1620 can best be characterized as confessionalization and codification.”4 The Reformed theologians of the late sixteenth century sought to defend and expound the theological insights of the Reformation from both internal and external threats, while also creating means of handing down these insights through education. The doctrine of the extra exemplifies these two forces as its confessionalization, begun in the Consensus Tigurinus, is taken up by the later tradition, most notably in the Heidelberg Catechism. Further, theologians such as Chandieu produced theological defenses of the doctrine that exceeded the previous generation in length, rigor, and precision through the application of scholastic methodology. The extra Calvinisticum’s reception and development in the era of early orthodoxy has largely been overlooked by scholarship on the period or assessed negatively in line with the older “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” paradigm. For instance, Muller in Christ and the Decree notes the significance of the extra within early orthodoxy as it relates to election and christology.5 He also indicates the significance of the doctrine for the formulation of Reformed epistemology and the knowledge of Christ’s human mind by the hypostatic union, the theologia unionis, in Franciscus Junius (1543–​1602).6 Further, Stefan Lindholm dedicates a brief section to the extra in his exposition of the scholastic christology of Jerome Zanchi (1516–​1590); however, no

4 van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 107. 5 Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 19–​20, 37–​38, 134–​35. This treatment is preoccupied with the debate over how the elective decree relates to Christ, which owes much more to Barth’s reformulation of the doctrine of election than to the concerns and purpose of the extra within the early modern thinkers, as Muller himself notes in the preface to the second edition. 6 For the relationship of the christological debate between the Lutheran and the Reformed with the theologia unionis, the knoweldge of Christ according to his human mind, see Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:248–​55.

208  The Flesh of the Word substantial connection is made between Zanchi and the broader Reformed tradition beyond standard citations of Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism.7 Literature dedicated to the extra Calvinisticum itself presents a largely negative assessment of the Reformed scholastics with the exception of McGinnis’s treatment of Ursinus. This literature proposes a thesis of discontinuity between the thought of Calvin and the later exponents of the extra such that its original theological intent is overcome. Willis and Gisel charge that concerns over the finitum non capax infiniti have moved the doctrine away from its biblical foundations. For instance, Gisel states, “[The heirs of Calvin] appear suspect by maintaining a secret of the reality and the truth of God behind or beyond revelation. They would thus, finally, remain prisoners of philosophical prejudices, especially, that one which means that the finite cannot receive or understand the infinite: finitum non capax infiniti.”8 According to the critics of the extra, in the period of early orthodoxy the Reformed are led astray not only by philosophical commitments but also by their own analogies. Willis, followed by Christina Aus der Au, for instance claims that the Reformed of this period were misled particularly by their analogy of Antwerp and the ocean, which distorted their christology:9 “These images were originally intended to illustrate the relation between Christ’s bodily presence in heaven (Antwerp) and his ubiquity according to the power of his divinity (the ocean). But they, unfortunately, came to describe, and were accepted by the Reformed theologians themselves as describing, the relation between the two natures of the One Person.”10 Another element that looms in the background of the discussion of the Reformed orthodox appropriation of the extra is Barth’s labeling of the doctrine in the Heidelberg Catechism as a “theological disaster” and his critique of the asarkos/​ensarkos distinction, which results in a separation of the knowledge through the incarnate Christ from a general knowledge of God not mediated through the flesh and opening the possibility of natural theology. Many modern discussions of the extra echo this concern over natural theology.11 7 Stefan Lindholm, Jerome Zanchi (1516–​90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology, Reformed Historical Theology 37 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 125–​28. 8 Pierre Gisel, Le Christ de Calvin (Paris: Desclée, 1990), 91. 9 E. David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 15–​ 16; Christina Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum: Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?,” Theologische Zeitschrift 64, no. 4 (2008): 361. 10 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 23. 11 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 101–​5; Christian Link, “Die Entscheidung der Christologie Calvins und ihre theologische Bedeutung:  Das sogenannte Extra-​Calvinisticum,” Evangelische Theologie 47, no. 2 (1987): 97–​119; Bruce McCormack, “Grace and Being: The Role of God’s Gracious

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  209 To correct these scholarly misapprehensions, I will present the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum as it appears in Chandieu’s scholastic treatise on the true human nature of Christ against ubiquity and show both how his doctrine is in continuity with the previous treatments of the doctrine and how he utilizes the scholastic method to support it. This will allow me to address the critiques made of the doctrine in the period of early Reformed orthodoxy and demonstrate the fundamental continuity between the doctrine of the extra in Chandieu and the previous generations of Reformed theologians. In early Reformed orthodoxy, the epistemic basis of the extra does not shift from theological and biblical reasoning to the philosophic ground of the non capax; the use of analogies does not drive the discussion; the doctrine is not presented in any way as a support for natural theology. It is beyond the scope of the present chapter to survey the entire period; therefore, Chandieu will stand as a representative. This is appropriate for the question, given that he is one of the originators of the scholastic method and that he offers one of the longest, if not the longest, treatments of the doctrine in the early scholastic period. Chandieu’s presentation of the extra corresponds to his Reformed predecessors in several ways. The basic form of the doctrine presented in the four propositions of the extra are all clearly present. The epistemic basis for Chandieu’s doctrine and his rejection of ubiquity is the Scriptures, which he delineates as the principia cognoscendi of theology, i.e., the only indubitable foundation upon which theological truth can be based. By these scriptural principia, Chandieu establishes the concrete spatiality of Christ’s body from the moment of virginal conception through the eschaton, with particular focus on the ascension. Chandieu frames his rejection of ubiquity as a preservation of Chalcedonian christology and the extra as a natural and necessary outworking of it. Further, what is at stake for Chandieu in this debate is nothing less than the office of Christ as mediator, which had been the propelling concern since Zwingli. Although there are many continuities in the content of the doctrine between Chandieu and the previous expositions in the Reformed tradition, he contributes to the form of the argument through a more exact methodology and rigorous application of logic. While Chandieu’s method argues only

Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. J. B. Webster (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2000), 92–​110; Aus der Au, “Das Extra Calvinisticum,” 367–​69.

210  The Flesh of the Word from the Scriptures as the principia of theology, logic and reasoning have an ancillary function, such that one can move from the infallible truths of the Word of God written by careful and nuanced reason. Chandieu accomplishes this through the use of Aristotelian analysis by applying syllogistic argumentation. He uses this method particularly to refute and expose the errors that he sees in the doctrine of ubiquity. This method was necessitated both by the failure of previous attempts of more rhetorical theology to bring a resolution to this debate and the adoption of the Formula of Concord as well as the emergence of Martin Chemnitz’s more sophisticated version of ubiquity. Chandieu’s use of the non capax formula ought to be understood within this context. He reflected on the distinction between the finite and the infinite not as an abstract philosophical concept that determined his christology but rather as one argument among many that he derives from the nature of divine and creational reality to preserve the Chalcedonian logic of the incarnation. In light of this goal, Chandieu develops the Reformed understanding of the communicatio idiomatum in response to Chemnitz’s “real” communicatio through the use of scholastic distinctions, which seeks to properly articulate christological predication.

4.2  The Development of the Debate from Vermigli to Chandieu After the death of Vermigli in 1562 the controversy over Christ’s body lived on. Both Bullinger and Vermigli’s biographer, Josiah Simler, wrote in support of Vermigli’s rejection of Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity.12 The movement of the Palatinate into the sphere of the Reformed tradition added fuel to the fire both politically and theologically, as Elector Frederick III led his territory from Melanchthonian Lutheranism to Reformed doctrine, in apparent violation of the Peace of Augsburg.13 This further reformation led to the definitive confessional expression of the extra Calvinisticum in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). The Heidelberg Catechism has long served as the locus classicus for the doctrine, along with the two citations from Calvin’s 12 Mark Taplin, “Josias Simler and the Fathers: The ‘Scripta Veterum Latina’ (1571),” Zwingliana 38 (2011):  67–​152. For Bullinger’s works that contribute to the controversy from 1561 to 1564, see 73n20. 13 Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 211–​16.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  211 Institutes in ­chapter 2. In questions 46–​49, reflecting on the creedal phrase “he ascended into heaven,” the catechism articulates an enduring expression of Reformed christology: 47. But is not Christ with us even unto the end of the world, as He has promised?   Christ is true man and true God. According to His human nature He is now not on earth, but according to His Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He is at no time absent from us.   48. But are not, in this way, the two natures in Christ separated from one another, if the manhood is not wherever the Godhead is?   Not at all, for since the Godhead is incomprehensible and everywhere present, it must follow that it is indeed beyond the bounds of the manhood which it has assumed, but is yet nonetheless in the same also, and remains personally united to it.14

Here Barth identifies the “theological disaster” (theologischen Betriebsunfall) of the extra Calvinisticum because it opens the door to natural theology, since in his mind it offers the possibility of knowledge of Christ apart from the incarnation, a logos asarkos.15 The concern for natural theology, however, is not present in these questions. Additionally, the universal presence of Christ’s divinity is explicitly presented as everywhere united hypostatically to the humanity even if the humanity is not everywhere. Theologians of the day were concerned with the understanding of christology, its implications for the Supper, and the political and territorial implications of confessional alliance.

14 “The Heidelberg Catechism,” 780.47. An ergo Chrisus non est nobiscum usque as finem mundi, quenmadmodum promisit? Christus est verus Deus et verus homo:  itaque secundum naturam humanam, iam non est in terrs: At secundum divinitatem suam, maiestatem, gratiam et Spiritum, nullo unquam tempore a nobis abest. 48. An vero isto pacto duae naturae in Christo non divelluntur, si non sit natura humana ubicunque est divina? Minime: Nam cum divinitas comprehendi non queat, et omni loco praesens sit: necessario consequitur, esse eam quidem extra naturam humanam quam assumsit, sed nihilominus tamen, esse in eadem, eique personaliter unitam permanere. Catechesis Religionis Christianae, Quae Traditur in Ecclesiis et Scholis Palatinatus (Heydelbergae:  Michael Schirat, 1563), 18. 15 Karl Barth, Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. Shirley G. Guthrie Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 77.

212  The Flesh of the Word Zacharias Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism further supported the doctrine and defended it against Lutheran attack.16 The Palatinate’s defection from Lutheranism brought it into conflict with its neighbor Württemberg, the stronghold of Johannes Brenz. At the Colloquy of Maulbronn in April 1564, the Heidelberg theologians sought to defend the Palatinate doctrine’s conformity with the Augsburg Variata. Ursinus and the Heidelberg theologians squared off against Jakob Andreae, supported by Brenz, over the issues of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and the nature of christology, especially the doctrine of ubiquity.17 Charles Gunnoe’s assessment of the colloquy’s results seem apt:  “The colloquy resulted in the further entrenchment of the two antagonistic camps. The debate broke little new ground but defined the impasse that existed between the Gnesio-​ Lutherans and the Reformed in the Holy Roman Empire and, in focusing on the question of ubiquity, set the stage for the coming decades of confessional conflict.”18 This is the meeting where the analogy of Antwerp and the ocean, touted by Willis as a deformative influence on the extra, first surfaced. McGinnis, however, has demonstrated with a more thorough investigation of the primary texts of the colloquy that the analogy was merely a retort to an analogy presented by Andreae seeking to expose the fallacious reasoning underlying his understanding of God’s right hand.19 This analogy lacks any greater significance within Reformed discourse in early orthodoxy. In the 1560s–​70s, the controversy over ubiquity was not limited to interconfessional polemics. Various parties claiming the heritage of Luther debated the doctrine as propagated by Brenz and his allies. The Augsburg Confession, which formed the bedrock of Lutheran identity, was silent on the omnipresence of Christ’s humanity, leading some Lutheran theologians to reject the doctrine. Only the Formula of Concord would end this intra-​ Lutheran struggle in 1577 by codifying ubiquity as a necessary doctrine for Lutheran orthodoxy. The evangelical movement originating from Wittenberg and the impetus of Luther developed what Irene Dingel has labeled a “culture of conflict.” When this movement solidified into a confessional tradition 16 Andrew M. McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh: A Historical and Theological Study of the Extra Calvinisticum, T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology 29 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014); Fred H. Klooster, Our Only Comfort: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2001). 17 Robert Kolb, “Maulbronn, Colloquy of,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans Joachim Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Charles Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 139–​46; . 18 Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate, 143–​44. 19 McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh,  88–​90.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  213 from Luther’s death until the Formula of Concord, divergent parties emerged, grouping around the thought of the two great luminaries of Wittenberg, Luther and his student Melanchthon. Dingel explains, “One group of their disciples were on the way to constructing a confessional position they designated as ‘Lutheran,’ while another—​in reaction to the first—​grew ever closer to Calvinism. A confessional variation between them which could be designated ‘Melanchthonian’ or ‘Philippist’ could not maintain its identity in the tensions of the age.”20 As the opposing parties developed, doctrinal controversy emerged around the nature of the Lord’s Supper and christology. Some Philippists in the 1560s–​70s gravitated toward a more minimalist position on these issues and rejected ubiquity, which Gnesio-​Lutherans saw as compromising Luther’s inheritance. The fault line over the Supper became apparent at the end of the 1560s as a “new generation of theologians in Wittenberg itself developed a spiritualizing interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and followed Melanchthon’s impulses in abandoning Luther’s Christological argument for that presence.”21 These Philippists presented the communicatio idiomatum as “a rhetorical or dialectic of expression” corresponding to the unconfused and inseparable union of natures in Christ’s person “rather than a ‘real’ or metaphysical description of Christ’s natures.”22 These Wittenberg theologians rejected Brenz’s understanding of the communicatio, hypostatic union, and ubiquity, which they accused of Eutychianism.23 This brought their christology, which came to be known as the Wittenberger christology, into greater conformity with the Reformed and caused controversy with fellow Lutherans. The Württemberger christology of Brenz and his allies, such as Andreae, strenuously opposed the Wittenbergers’ reconfiguration of Luther’s eucharistic and christological doctrine, seeing them as nothing other than Crypto-​Calvinists.24 20 Irene Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord (1548–​1580),” in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture 1550–​1675, ed. Robert Kolb (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 16. 21 Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord,” 57; Johannes Hund, Das Wort ward Fleisch:  Eine systematisch-​ theologische Untersuchung zur Debatte um die Wittenberger Christologie und Abendmahlslehre in den Jahren 1567 bis 1574 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 66–​96. 22 Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord,” 57. 23 Robert Kolb, “Altering the Agenda, Shifting the Strategy: The Grundfest of 1571 as Philippist Program for Lutheran Concord,” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 3 (1999): 720. 24 For the course of this debate, which I will not outline in detail here, see Hund, Das Wort ward Fleisch; Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord,” 58–​61; Robert Kolb, “Dynamics of Party Conflict in the Saxon Late Reformation: Gnesio-​Lutherans vs. Philippists,” Journal of Modern History 49, no. S3 (1977): D1289–​305; Kolb, “Altering the Agenda, Shifting the Strategy”; Jörg Baur, “Ubiquität,” in Creator est creatura: Luthers Christologie als Lehre

214  The Flesh of the Word In light of these diametrically opposed positions, the Württembergers’ necessary ubiquity and the Wittenbergers’ rejection of ubiquity, Martin Chemnitz offered a third position that sought to affirm ubiquity while softening elements of Brenz’s doctrine, especially his reconception of the hypostatic union and the sharing of the full divine majesty with the human nature. Chemnitz does so by subordinating the omnipresence of Christ’s body to the will of the Logos. Therefore, beginning in the 1570s, one can rightly distinguish, following A. B. Bruce, between a Brentian and a Chemnitzian version of ubiquity.25 Despite the differences in nuance, both of these trends derive from the same premise, but with degrees of how consistently and far the point is pushed: “the principle that the personal union of the two natures necessarily involved the communication to the human nature of divine attributes.”26 The Formula of Concord would conclude the dispute in favor of the Gnesio-​Lutheran party and close the door for the continuation of the Wittenberger christology and enshrine ubiquity as part of the Lutheran confession, whether of a Brentian or a Chemnitzian variety. The confessionalization of ubiquity within the Formula of Concord eventually calmed the intra-​Lutheran struggle and further cemented the divide over christology between the Lutheran and the Reformed traditions. The Reformed response to the Formula was universally negative because it rejected the validity of the Augsburg Variata, under which the Reformed in the empire could legitimately exist, and it created further obstacles to interconfessional cooperation in the face of the rising forces of the Catholic Counter-​Reformation.27 One response of particular note for this chapter is von der Idiomenkommunikation, ed. Oswald Bayer and Benjamin Gleede, Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 138 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 223–​27. 25 Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ in Its Physical, Ethical and Official Aspects (New  York:  A. C.  Armstrong, 1895), 85. Although this terminology is not used by contemporary studies of mid-​sixteenth-​century Lutheran christology, the distinction between these two theologians is recognized in the standard treatments, which present Brenz and Chemnitz as offering particular articulations of ubiquity. Baur, “Ubiquität,” 227–​54; Joar Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism, REFO500 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 130–​78. 26 Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, 85. 27 For the response to the Formula across the Reformed world, see W. Robert Godfrey, “Dutch Reformed Response,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord:  Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, ed. Lewis Spitz and Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia, PA:  Fortress Press, 1977), 166–​77; William Brown Patterson, “Anglican Reaction,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, ed. Lewis Spitz and Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 150–​65; Jill Raitt, “The French Reformed Response,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, ed. Lewis Spitz and Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 178–​90.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  215 the Harmony of Confessions published in Geneva in 1581, which Chandieu had a hand in editing.28 This collection of confessions was one of the first instances of “Ubiquitarianism” being numbered alongside the classical christological heresies.29 As this history and the previous chapter show, the doctrines of ubiquity and the extra carnem have a dialectic relationship as they are formed in polemics against one another. Therefore, to better understand the polemic context of Chandieu’s doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum, I will expound Chemnitz’s voluntary ubiquity and the confessional form of the doctrine in the Formula of Concord.

4.2.1  Martin Chemnitz: Voluntary Ubiquity and the Genus Maiestaticum Chemnitz was one of the most significant Lutheran theologians between the death of Luther and the Formula of Concord, of which he was one of the main authors.30 His work De Duabus Naturis in Christo (1570, 2nd ed. 1578) brought clarity to the intra-​Lutheran controversy and laid the groundwork for the Formula of Concord.31 J.  A. O.  Preus could hardly be more laudatory in describing Chemnitz: “This man, as the theological genius of his age, operating from his base in northern Germany, is the chief author of the Formula of Concord, the father of orthodox Lutheranism, and the father of what we today, 400 years later, call normative Lutheran theology.”32 Chemnitz forged a path between the competing christological formulations of the school of Brenz and the Wittenberger christology. He sought to preserve the doctrine of ubiquity without the potential Eutychianism of Brenz.33 Chemnitz’s position came to be represented within the Formula of Concord and was received by those Lutherans who subscribed to the document as a normative bound on christology, alongside Brenz and against 28 Robert D. Linder, “The French Calvinist Response to the Formula of Concord,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19, no. 1 (Winter 1982): 18–​37. 29 Jean François Salvart, ed., Harmonia Confessionum fidei orthodoxarum et reformatarum Ecclesiarum (Geneva: Petrum Santandreanum, 1581), 98. 30 For discussion of Chemnitz’s christology, see Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 156–​ 70; Thomas A. Von Hagel, “The Genus Maiestaticum-​Christology of the ‘Catalog of Testimonies,’ ” PhD dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1997, 253–​62; Baur, “Ubiquität,” 227–​41; J. A. O. Preus, The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1994). 31 Martin Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, trans. J.  A. O.  Preus (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971). 32 Preus, The Second Martin, 15. 33 Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord,” 55–​61.

216  The Flesh of the Word the encroaching Calvinists. The Formula of Concord would confessionalize the positions of both Brenz and Chemnitz within the Lutheran tradition.34 Therefore, I  will set forth the main similarities and differences between Brenz’s and Chemnitz’s view of ubiquity to establish the developing polemical context into which the extra was articulated and defended in this period. While Chemnitz’s view on christology and ubiquity differs from Brenz’s in significant ways, their positions share essential features in opposition to the Reformed doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum. Like Brenz, Chemnitz held to the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature predicated on something like an Alexandrian christology that stressed the unity of the natures. He eschews, however, Brenz’s reworking of the hypostatic union in which the person of Christ is the product of the union. Joar Haga argues that this allows him to avoid some pitfalls of Brenz’s view: The divine presence in the man Jesus Christ is the starting point of Christology for Chemnitz. It means that the hypostatic union is logically prior to the communication of properties, it is a place where the exchange can take place. Thereby, Chemnitz can prevent the suspicion hanging over many theologians in the wake of Luther, namely changing or confusing one of the natures with the other.35

For Chemnitz, the hypostatic union, being “logically prior to the communication of properties,” is not brought about by the communication of attributes, as it is for Brenz. Haga is correct that this goes some way in overcoming the Eutychianism critique leveled against Brenz. Nonetheless, from the Reformed perspective, Chemnitz’s continued predication of ubiquity to Christ’s human body in a metaphysical manner still constitutes a change or confusion in the natures, as Chandieu will argue. Like Brenz and Luther before him, Chemnitz’s christology seeks to establish and support the Lutheran doctrine of the real, corporeal presence in the Eucharist.36 This christology further hinges on a rejection of reason in 34 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 171–​77. 35 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 159. See also 165; Von Hagel, “The Genus Maiestaticum-​Christology of the ‘Catalog of Testimonies,’ ” 262. 36 Like Luther, Chemnitz sees the whole controversy coming down to the literal meaning of “This is my body”: “Now in this whole controversy the question is this: whether the simple, proper, and native sense of the words of the testament of the Son of God are to be held, believed, retained, and followed, or whether we are to depart from the simple, and proper meaning of the words of Christ’s testament, reject their native sense, and devise another interpretation from the bookshop of figures of speech.” Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 434. On Chemnitz’s view of the Supper, see Bjarne W. Teigen,

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  217 elucidating christology and the ever-​present appeal to divine omnipotence. Chemnitz unites these themes: But by no means does it follow from this [that Christ’s human nature retains its essential attributes including finitude] that the divine power of the Son of God, whose testamentary words in their simple and straightforward meaning teach and promise the presence of His body in the Supper, cannot effect it in another way than by the natural manner, or according to the natural properties of the body, or by the perceptible manner of this life. For He can be present wherever He wills with His essence unimpaired and with His essential properties intact, in a supernatural, divine, or heavenly way that is incomprehensible to us.37

For Chemnitz, the hypostatic union and the ways of Christ’s presence are beyond human reason, and therefore the words of Christ must be adhered to as true though incomprehensible. For these reasons, Chemnitz rejects anything like an extra, despite his acknowledgment of the spatial limitation of the human nature according to its essential properties. According to Jörg Baur, because of Chemnitz’s understanding of the hypostatic union, “an overflowing ‘outside’ (extra) of the Logos can not even be ‘thought.’ ”38 Although Chemnitz acknowledges a local aspect to the ascension, he appeals to the glorified nature of Christ’s body and the differentiation between visible and invisible presence to preserve ubiquity:39 “But this mode of visible existence and this circumscribed and local form of the presence of His body, according to the conditions and methods of the life of this world, according to our flesh while we are yet in this world, this He laid aside through His ascension.”40 Therefore, Chemnitz is in fundamental agreement with Brenz’s rejection of the extra and exposition of the doctrine of ubiquity; however, Chemnitz presents several features that ameliorate Brenz’s doctrine.

The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz (Des Moines, IA: Trinity Lutheran Press, 1986); Von Hagel, “The Genus Maiestaticum-​Christology of the ‘Catalog of Testimonies,’ ” 241–​46. 37 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 436. 38 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 227. Ein Überschießendes “ausserhalb” (extra) der Logos kann deshalb nicht eimal “gedacht werden.” 39 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 236–​37. 40 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 427.

218  The Flesh of the Word Chemnitz was much clearer than Brenz in his attempt to maintain the distinctive qualities of each nature within the hypostatic union in line with the Conciliar christology of the ancient church.41 For Chemnitz, the ubiquity of Christ’s body is not a necessary consequence of the hypostatic union, as with Brenz, but rather a function of the will of Christ.42 Christ’s human nature could be wherever and however the person of Christ willed. This doctrine, thanks to Beza, came to be called “multivolipresence.”43 The chief concern for Chemnitz is to maintain the real corporeal presence of Christ in the Supper and the church. He seeks to avoid the implications that flow from Brenz’s general ubiquity, such that Christ’s body is equally present in the host as it is in the trees, rocks, stones, and even sewage. Chemnitz refused to entertain such superfluous questions regarding Christ’s general presence outside of his salvific activities toward the church. This refusal demonstrates a tendency in Chemnitz to eschew the metaphysical implication of his doctrine, as Haga has noted.44 Chemnitz’s most significant contribution to the later development of Lutheran orthodoxy was his division of the traditional communicatio idiomatum into three types (genera):  the genus idiomaticum, the genus apotelesmaticum, and the genus maiestaticum.45 The genus idiomaticum sets forth how the properties of one nature can be attributed to the person: “This is the first degree or first category of the communication of attributes, namely, when that which is proper to one nature is predicated of the person concretely.”46 Examples given of this genus are “God died” and “the Son of man descended from heaven,” which are concrete statements, while rejecting abstract statements such as “humanity is divinity.”47 The genus apotelesmaticum is the reverse: “In this genus the things which are attributed to the person are 41 See, for example, Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 435–​36. 42 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 170. 43 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 162. 44 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 165–​67. 45 The influence of Chemnitz’s categorization can be seen in the following examples of treatments of the genera at the height of Lutheran orthodoxy, in the standard, twentieth-​century textbook of Lutheran theology, and in contemporary constructive, Lutheran theology. Respectively, Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces:  On the Person and Office of Christ, ed. Benjamin T.  G. Mayes, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2009), 180–​297; Franz Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, trans. John Theodore Mueller, 4 vols. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1951), 2:129–​271; Jack D. Kilcrease, The Self-​Donation of God: A Contemporary Lutheran Approach to Christ and His Benefits (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013), 149–​97. 46 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 163. 47 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 163. For the full discussion of the genus idiomaticum, see 171–​213. Also Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 160; Isaak August Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, trans. D. W. Simon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890), 4:199.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  219 appropriate to it, not only according to one nature but according to both.”48 This is the unified predication that can be applied properly to neither nature on its own, but only to the unified person.49 In this category fall the acts peculiar to Christ’s office as the mediator and Messiah, which require attributes of both natures to be actualized: “The testimonies of Scripture clearly show that the union of Christ’s two natures took place in order that the work of redemption, propitiation, and salvation might be accomplished in, with, and through both of His natures.”50 Thus according to the second genus, we can predicate savior and mediator of Christ’s person and not properly to either nature singularly. These first two genera are in line with the understanding of both the medieval period and the Reformed theologians; however, the genus maiestaticum is the site of conflict and controversy. The genus maiestaticum is the most influential and innovative of Chemnitz’s description of the communicatio idiomatum and the effects of the hypostatic union.51 Chemnitz gives this basic definition of the genus: “For it is a sure and undeniable fact that His human nature, as a result of the hypostatic union, has received and still possesses, in addition to its own natural properties or essential attributes, also innumerable gifts which are above and beyond nature (παραφυσικα και ὐπερφυσικα).”52 Beyond this basic definition, however, that which is communicated according to the genus maiestaticum must be considered in two aspects. First are the finite gifts (finita dona), which have been communicated even to the saints by the power of God.53 These gifts, given both to Christ’s assumed nature and to the saints by God, have been communicated in a qualitatively identical manner, though to a quantitatively different degree.54 Attributes such as wisdom, faith, and virtue, which Chemnitz designates as divine or heavenly on account of their source rather than their nature, are given to the human nature of Christ “in total fullness, in superabundant supply, in the highest and most absolute perfection which can be bestowed upon a created substance in itself, beyond every name, number, and measure.”55 Despite their divine origin, 48 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 164. 49 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 161; Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 4:199. 50 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 218. 51 Preus, The Second Martin, 268–​76; Baur, “Ubiquität,” 232–​41; Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 162–​63; Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 4:200–​202. 52 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 164. 53 Baur, “Ubiquität,” 233–​35. 54 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 247–​48. 55 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 248.

220  The Flesh of the Word these gifts are “in themselves created and finite.”56 This form of the genus maiestaticum can be understood as the supreme sanctification of the human nature of Christ through the hypostatic union and would not be controversial to the Reformed. It is the second aspect of the genus maiestaticum, which Chemnitz calls the “highest kind of communion,” that marks the unique aspect of Lutheran christology.57 In addition to the finita dona, the human nature of Christ receives by the hypostatic union “attributes belonging to the divine nature of the Logos Himself ” that are “not created gifts, but are the attributes which belong to deity itself.”58 These attributes include all the divine perfections, although not all divine attributes are manifested fully. Chemnitz reiterates that this is not a communication essentially, per se, but according to the hypostatic union, κατ’ αλλο.59 By this distinction Chemnitz attempts to avoid a contradiction in christological predication—​namely, that the human nature is finite and infinite simpliciter. Chemnitz argues that Christ’s humanity is finite per se and infinite κατ’ αλλο. He illustrates this repeatedly with the analogy of fire and iron, derived from the patristic sources. For Chemnitz, this image demonstrates the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the two natures where properties are shared and yet the natures are not comingled in the hypostatic union.60 As Chemnitz says, “I bow to [the simile of iron and fire] as a reliable and simple description.”61 Because of this second aspect of the genus maiestaticum Christ’s human nature is not only quantitatively but also qualitatively distinct from that of the saints and the rest of humanity: “Christ according to His human nature and insofar as this nature is personally united with the Logos, differs from the other saints not only by reason of His gifts, which by comparison excel the others in number and degree, but also by reason of the union He differs totally from the saints.”62 The most pertinent difference between Christ’s humanity and the saints’ humanity for the present study is its relation to divine omnipresence. Because of the sharing of the divine attributes with the human nature Christ’s 56 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 248. 57 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 257. 58 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 256. 59 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 271–​72, 280. 60 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 289–​91, passim. For Chemnitz’s rejection of commingling of the natures, see 267–​86. Chemnitz draws the concept of perichoresis from the Damascene. For evaluation of this concept, see Richard Cross, “Perichoresis, Deification, and Christological Predication in John of Damascus,” Mediaeval Studies 62 (2000): 69–​124. 61 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 291. 62 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 263.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  221 human body can be everywhere or in multiple places in accordance with the will of the Logos, and therefore “differs totally” from the rest of humanity in this sense. Thus, within the hypostatic union a “real” communication of attributes takes place between the divine and human natures of Christ. Chemnitz uses the term “real” in an attempt to distinguish it from both a mere verbal sharing and an essential sharing of attributes with Christ’s humanity: “The terms ‘verbal’ and ‘real’ are mutually exclusive. . . . [B]‌y the term ‘real communion’ we wish to understand no communication of the natures or the essences, but rather we are using the term ‘real’ so that we can make it perfectly clear that the communication is not verbal or essential or natural but true (vera).”63 What exactly Chemnitz understands to be differences between the terms “really,” “truly,” “essentially,” or “naturally” with regard to the communication of attributes is unclear.64 According to Chemnitz, one can rightly say that Christ’s body is really and truly omnipresent, while not being essentially omnipresent. Thus there is a real and true sharing of attributes between Christ’s human and divine natures, but not according to essence or nature. Yet Chemnitz can also claim that “we commonly and correctly say . . . that the Logos through the personal union has communicated His essence to the assumed nature.”65 He attempts to avoid the possible Eutychian implication of this position through the per se/​κατ’ αλλο distinction. By this distinction, Christ’s humanity is omnipresent not per se—​that is, essentially or according to itself—​but κατ’ αλλο according to the hypostatic union. This distinction will be more fully developed later, while addressing Chandieu’s discussion of it in De veritate. Chemnitz emerges as the most rigorous and influential proponent of Lutheran christology after Brenz. The basic structure of the doctrine takes a more classical christological approach and implicitly corrects and amends Brenz’s understanding of the hypostatic union. Especially important is the subordination of ubiquity to the will of Christ rather than as a necessary entailment of the incarnation. With the invocation of the genera, Chemnitz gives Lutheranism a lasting distinction for the perpetuation of ubiquity, which will become enshrined in the Lutheran tradition by its adoption in the Formula of Concord.



63 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 310.

64 See, for instance, Chemnitz’s discussion of the term reale in The Two Natures in Christ, 309–​11. 65 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 309.

222  The Flesh of the Word

4.2.2  The Formula of Concord The history of the composition of the Formula of Concord and the political and ecclesial concerns surrounding its composition are complex and beyond the scope of the present study.66 The focus here will be on the doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ’s human nature as a milestone in the Lutheran polemics against the Reformed christology. The chief section of the Formula of Concord that speaks of ubiquity is ­chapter 8, on the person of Christ.67 Following the general pattern of the Formula, Christ’s person is treated in four sections: a preamble, the state of the controversy, affirmative theses, and negative theses. The preamble identifies the controversy surrounding this doctrine as arising from the nature of the Lord’s Supper and labels disputants as “the theologians of the Augsburg Confession” and the “Calvinists” along with those theologians “led astray” or otherwise labeled “sacramentarians.”68 By this identification the Formula of Concord excludes from the outset the Philippist strand of Lutheranism. The status controversiae pointedly identifies the dispute from the Lutheran perspective: “The chief question was whether on the basis of the personal union the divine and human nature—​and likewise the characteristics of each—​are intimately linked with each other within the person of Christ, in reality [realiter] (that is, in fact and in truth), and to what extent they are intimately linked.”69 According to the Formula, the Calvinists answer this question firmly in the negative with only a nominal relationship between the human and divine natures such that “God has nothing to do with humanity, and humanity has nothing to do with the divinity or with its majesty and characteristics in reality (that is, in fact and in truth).”70 The twelve affirmations of the Formula of Concord present a general Lutheran christology, which establishes the terms of debate for subsequent Reformed and Lutheran dialogue.

66 For a thorough and detailed exposition of the historical background to the Formula, see Robert Kolb, “Historical Background of the Formula of Concord,” in A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, ed. Wilbert Rosin and Robert D. Preus (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1978), 12–​87. 67 “The Formula of Concord,” in The Book of Concord The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, trans. Robert Kolb (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 486–​523. 68 “The Formula of Concord,” 508–​9. By this point in the debate the term “Calvinist” had overtaken that of “Zwinglian” as the main pejorative label for the Reformed position by Lutheran theologians. For explication of this shift, see Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 11. 69 “The Formula of Concord,” 509. 70 “The Formula of Concord,” 509.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  223 The opening thesis sets forth a classical definition of the person of Christ such that “the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united.”71 This relationship is such that neither are there two Christs nor do the natures “blend into one essence” but each “retains [its] own characteristics, which never become the characteristics of the other nature.”72 The divine nature has the characteristics of being almighty, infinite, eternal, present everywhere, and all-​knowing, while the human is finite, is circumscribed, suffers, dies, moves from place to place, and possesses the common infirmities of humanity. These characteristics “never become the characteristics” of the other nature. Nevertheless, these characteristics can be shared through the hypostatic union: “This union is not a connection or association of the sort that neither nature shares things with the other personally [personaliter] (that is because of the personal union), as if two boards were glued together, with neither giving the other or receiving anything from the other.”73 So while the human nature does not come to possess the characteristics of the divine nature as its own, they are nonetheless so shared because of the personal union that the human nature can be and act according to divine properties. This sharing is explained through the invocation of the similes of glowing iron and the union of body and soul, which had been standard from Luther through Chemnitz. The human nature from the moment of incarnation partakes of the divine majesty, if not necessarily of its use, during the period of humiliation: “The Son of Man in reality, that is in fact and in truth, was exalted to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God according to his human nature, because he was assumed into God, when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit of his mother and was personally united with the Son of the Almighty.”74 Here the Brentian influence that Christ’s humanity partakes of the divine majesty since the moment of incarnation is evident. Later in the Formula, however, the divine majesty is said to be “dispensed with” until the resurrection and ascension: “[H]‌e always possessed this majesty, and yet dispensed with it in the state of his humiliation.” This emphasis seems to correspond with Chemnitz. The Formula, therefore, leaves underdetermined how the use and exhibition of the divine majesty relate during Christ’s humiliation. The Formula can be read either to affirm that Christ had full use of the divine majesty but

71 “The Formula of Concord,” 509. 72 “The Formula of Concord,” 510. 73 “The Formula of Concord,” 510. 74 “The Formula of Concord,” 511.

224  The Flesh of the Word exercised it rarely or that the use itself was off-​limits.75 The status of the divine majesty is more explicit for the state of glorification. After the resurrection “he was again invested with the full use, revelation, and demonstration of his divine majesty.” Thus he “knows everything, is able to do everything, [and] is present for all his creatures.”76 Therefore, in the state of glorification, Christ according to the human nature by the power of the union is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The final affirmation returns to the chief motivation of the dispute, the eucharistic presence. Because of this sharing of divine majesty, Christ can make his body present in the Lord’s Supper “according to the manner or characteristic of God’s right hand. . . . This presence . . . is a true and essential presence.”77 This section ends with a dual rejection of Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Nestorianism, however, is given a particular Lutheran twist, being identified as “deny[ing] the communicatio idiomatum, that is the true communion of the characteristics of the two natures in Christ.”78 Here the Lutheran conception of a “real” communicatio, predicated on the second aspect of the genus maiesticum, is incorporated into the definition of the ancient heresy. By so doing, the Formula definitionally established all non-​Lutheran understanding of the communicatio, including the medieval Catholic and Reformed articulations, as Nestorian. Following the positive affirmations, the Formula sets forth negative theses that reject the classical heresies, the Calvinist doctrine of the extra, and head off the Calvinist accusation of Eutychianism. The first four antitheses reject Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Arianism, and docetism, respectively. Antitheses 5–​7 reject what the Lutheran theologians understand to be the Calvinists’ position as set forth in the preamble. They reject that the relationship of the natures is a mere matter of words; that such statements as “God is a human being” and “a human being is God” are only modus loquendi, or that it is only a communicatio verbalis to say the “Son of God died” or the “Son of Man has become almighty.”79 Antitheses 8 and 9 seek to guard more fully against charges of comingling the natures by denying that the human 75 These two options can be seen in the exposition of this theme in Gawrisch, although he downplays potential tensions, owing to a desire to show the agreement of Brenz and Chemnitz on this point. Wilbert R. Gawrisch, “On Christology, Brenz and the Question of Ubiquity,” in No Other Gospel: Essays in Commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of the Formula of Concord 1580–​1980, ed. Arnold J. Koelpin (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 1980), 249–​52. 76 “The Formula of Concord,” 511. 77 “The Formula of Concord,” 511. 78 “The Formula of Concord,” 512. 79 “The Formula of Concord,” 512.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  225 nature becomes “an infinite essence,” “is present everywhere in the same way the divine nature is present,” or “has been made the same as the divine nature in its substance and essence.”80 Yet these rejections are qualified in a specific manner. The sharing of characteristics proper is rejected only if it “has been separated from God and poured out in the human nature.”81 This likewise renders the definition of Eutychianism in a Lutheran manner, which allows for the ubiquity of the human body of Christ by the power of the hypostatic union rather than essentially or substantially. The tenth negative thesis rejects that Christ’s body is “spatially extended” (localiter) to all places in heaven and on earth; however, this is balanced by the following antithesis, which condemns all those who would say “that it is impossible for Christ, because of the characteristics of the human nature, to be more than one place at the same time—​much less to be bodily present in all places.”82 This carries on Luther’s claim, following the nominalist tradition’s understanding of God’s presence, that Christ is present everywhere corporeally but in an illocal manner. These two negations combined also allow for either a Chemnitzian or Brentian reading, by which ubiquity could be limited by the will of Christ, yet need not be. As Haga succinctly states, “The Formula of Concord confirms a real communication between the divine and human nature in Christ, but the interpretation of how that communication takes place oscillates between the two conceptions of Brenz and Chemnitz.”83 The final antitheses by and large reject all attempts to limit the human nature of Christ in any way by consequently affirming that the human nature of Christ according to the hypostatic union is omnipotent and omniscient.84 The Formula’s closing comments on christology show what is at stake in these points for the drafters of the Formula. Nothing less than the integrity of the gospel and the potential of salvation itself is threatened by these christological heresies, including the rejection of ubiquity: “Such teaching not only perverts the word of Christ’s testament . . . [but also] denies the eternal divinity of Christ. In this way Christ is completely lost, along with 80 “The Formula of Concord,” 512–​13. 81 “The Formula of Concord,” 513. 82 “The Formula of Concord,” 513. 83 Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 177. For discussion of the dynamic relation of Brentian and Chemnitizan themes in the Formula’s christology, see 171–​77; Baur, “Ubiquität,” 261–​ 62; Bjarne W. Teigen, “The Person of Christ,” in A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, ed. Wilbert Rosin and Robert D. Preus (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1978), 232–​52. 84 “The Formula of Concord,” 513–​14.

226  The Flesh of the Word our salvation.”85 While many aspects of the debate have developed from the initial dispute between Zwingli and Luther, still fifty years thence the fundamental issue remained the nature and integrity of salvation in Christ. Having set forth the reception and development of ubiquity in Lutheran orthodoxy, the following sections turn to the Reformed response and articulation of the extra in the work of Chandieu.

4.3  Antoine de la Roche Chandieu: Life and Scholastic Method Chandieu’s life and work exemplify the struggles and transitions of the Reformed church in the period of early orthodoxy. This period was marked by both “confessionalization and codification” of Reformed theology as well as the emergence of the Reformed tradition as an international movement along with the strife that this engendered. Given the lack of scholarly awareness of Chandieu, I will sketch his biography before turning to his proposal for a Reformed scholastic method, which sought to meet the challenges of the third generation of the Reformation.

4.3.1 Chandieu’s Life Our knowledge of Chandieu’s life comes from two main sources: De Vita Anton Sadeelis et Scritpis, Epistola in Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilissimi Viri Opera Theologica by Jacques Lect, written two years after Chandieu’s death, and Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu: D’après son journal autographe inédit, 1534–​1591 by Auguste Bernus.86 Bernus based his work on Chandieu’s journal, which he discovered in the personal collection of a family in Berne; however, this journal has since been lost. The few contemporary works on Chandieu have focused either on his French works, life, and literary achievements or on his Latin works and theological method.87 85 “The Formula of Concord,” 514. 86 Jacques Lect, De Vita Anton Sadeelis et Scritpis, Epistola in Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilissimi Viri Opera Theologica (Geneva, 1599); Auguste Bernus, Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu: D’après son journal autographe inédit, 1534–​1591 (Paris: Imprimeries Reunies, 1889). 87 Sara Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest: The Vernacular Writings of Antoine de Chandieu, (c. 1534–​1591), St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009); Donald Sinnema, “Chandieu’s Scholastic Reformed Theology,” in Later Calvinism International Perspectives, ed. W.  Fred Graham, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 22 (Kirksville, MO:  Sixteenth Century

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  227 Chandieu was born in 1534 into an established noble line. His father died when Antoine was four years old, leaving his education and religious formation to his mother. Chandieu was educated in Paris and later pursued law at Toulouse. In the early to mid-​1550s he traveled to Geneva, where he was the student of both Calvin and Beza. Sadly, little is known about his first visit to Geneva.88 Lect tells us only that “he easily gained the goodwill of Calvin and Beza.”89 After returning to Paris in 1555, Chandieu attended “secret Protestant assemblies” and was quickly singled out as a prospective ministry candidate. Eventually the church raised him up as the second pastor of the infant Paris Reformed congregation to assist Jean Le Maçon.90 This position brought with it danger as well as opportunity. Chandieu’s ministry and life were almost cut short when Parisian authorities arrested him in March 1558 along with two fellow Protestants for possession of a copy of Calvin’s Institutes. One of Chandieu’s companions was able to bribe his way out, while Chandieu attained release only through the intervention of Antoine de Bourbon, the king of Navarre, who claimed Chandieu as his chamberlain. Chandieu’s other companion, Jean Morel, would be interrogated and ultimately executed. Chandieu would memorialize his friend along with other Reformed martyrs in his Histoire des persecutions written 1563.91 For his own safety Chandieu was sent from Paris to organize Reformed congregations in the provinces. Through his growing connections with Reformed ministers throughout France, he was instrumental in the convocation of the First National Synod on May 25, 1559, where the French Confession and Book of Discipline were first adopted.92 Chandieu had a hand in the composition of both these works; however the details are lost to us.93 Shortly thereafter he was mixed up with the Amboise Conspiracy in 1560. This failed coup d’état sought to place the regency of the young king François

Journal Publishers, 1994); Theodore G. Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu: The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). 88 Bernus, Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu, 6. 89 Calvini benevolentiam facile quaesiit, facile Bezae. Lect, De Vita Anton Sadeelis, 1v. 90 Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest,  18–​19. 91 Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 1–​3; Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 179–​84. 92 For details on the French Book of Discipline and the First National Synod, see Glenn S. Sunshine, Reforming French Protestantism: The Development of Huguenot Ecclesiastical Institutions, 1557–​1572, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 66 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003), 40–​45. 93 Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 66–​68; Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 62–​63, esp. 62n141.

228  The Flesh of the Word II in Protestant hands and both tarnished Chandieu’s reputation and moved the various French factions closer to war.94 During the period of the first three French religious wars leading up to St. Bartholomew’s Day 1572, Chandieu was an active churchman, pastor, and writer. His chief contributions to the French Reformed church in this period came through two works: Histoire des persecutions et martyrs de l’eglise de Paris (1563) and La Confirmation de la discipline (1566).95 The first work is a martyrology that sought to commemorate the fallen, many of whom Chandieu knew personally, and also to encourage the faithful to remain steadfast in the face of persecution.96 The second work defended the synodical nature of French polity as intended in the original Discipline of 1559 against the attack of Jean Morély.97 The slaughter of French Protestants initiated by the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre on August 24, 1572, which would see thousands die, caused Chandieu with many of his coreligionists to flee to Geneva. Chandieu would become the representative of the French refugees to the Genevan Company of Pastors.98 These events initiate the final stage of Chandieu’s life marked by frequent travel and relocation as he sought to support the French Reformed cause as well as participated in the formation and propagation of international Calvinism. From 1572 until his death in 1591, Chandieu would travel between Geneva, Lausanne, and France for the cause of the French church both ecclesiastically and politically.99 For instance, he would serve as the chaplain of the army of Henry of Navarre, the son of Chandieu’s erstwhile patron and who would become Henry IV of France, from 1585 to

94 Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 87–​108. For discussion of this event and its relationship to the emerging Reformed movement, see N. M. Sutherland, “Calvinism and the Conspiracy of Amboise,” History 47, no. 160 (1962):  111–​38; Robert MacCune Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 1564–​1572 (Madison:  University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), 68–​78. 95 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu [pseudo. Zamariel], Historie des Persecutions, et Martyrs de l’Egelise de Paris, depuis l’An 1557 (Lyon: Claude Senneton, 1563); Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, La confirmation de la discipline ecclesiastique, observée ès Eglises reformées du royaume de France (Geneva: Henri II Estienne, 1566). 96 Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 161–​85. 97 Jean Morély, Traicté de la discipline & police chrestienne (Lyon: Ian de Tournes, 1562). 98 Olivier Fatio and Olivier Labarthe, eds., Registres de la Compagnie des pasteurs de Genève (Tome III 1565–​1574) (Genève: Droz, 1969), 88–​89. On September 15, 1572, Chandieu went before the Company of Pastors to thank God for the provision and protection that he had provided through the Genevan church for the French refugees: “Mounsieur de Chandiu, au nom de ses freres, a remercié Dieu de la grace qu’il leur avoit faicte de les retirer du glaive des mechans er de ce qu’il les avoit amenez en ceste Eglise où ilz estoyent si humainement receus. Nous a remercié aussi de l’offre que nous leur faisions, er qu’au reste ilz desirroyent que cest argent demeurast entre les mains de l’un de nostre Compagnie auquel ilz se peussent adresser au besoin des leurs” (88). 99 For an overview of these movements, see Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest,  39–​48.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  229 1588.100 In addition, Chandieu would serve as Henry’s emissary to consolidate relationships with other Protestant powers. On Henry’s behalf Chandieu would write to James VI of Scotland and undertake diplomatic missions to Heidelberg, Cassel, and Frankfurt.101 During this period, Chandieu wrote works of international concern and attention. His project was likely spurred on by his academic duties as professor of theology at the Lausanne Academy, to which he was appointed in June 1577.102 The first work of international note was his Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxii, published in 1578 and subsequently translated into English and French.103 He also collaborated with Jean Salnard, Lambert Daneau, and Beza to produce the Harmonia confessionum fidei, a collection of Protestant confessions in response to the Formula of Concord, published in 1581.104 In this period, Chandieu produced his most significant theological works, which saw him move into interconfessional polemics in earnest. These works can be grouped into three projects. First, he engaged in an exchange from 1577 to 1584 with the Jesuit Turrianus over the legitimacy of Protestant ordination.105 Second, in 1585 he wrote Response a la profession de foy, published the following year. In this work, Chandieu responded to the Confession of the monks of Bordeaux and addressed sixty-​three topics of theology defending the Reformed position against Catholicism.106 And finally, he produced a series of “scholastic and theological” disputations, among which De veritate humane naturae Iesu falls. These texts addressed various points of the era’s

100 Chandieu placed great hope in Henry for the renewal and recognition of the French Reformed church. He was spared the destruction of those dreams by his death before Henry returned to the Catholic church in 1593 to secure the French crown against growing opposition. Henry IV would, however, promulgate the Edict of Nantes in 1598 granting religious toleration to the French Protestants. 101 Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 45; Bernus, Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu, 112–​13. 102 Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 168; Louis Junod, L’Académie de Lausanne au XVIe siècle: Leges scholae Lausannensis 1547, ed. Louis Junod and Henru Meylan (Lausanne: Ronge, 1947), 24. 103 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxiii (Lausanne: François le Preux, 1578). For citations of English and French editions, see Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 250, esp n13, n15. For discussion of this work, see 247–​56. 104 Raitt, “The French Reformed Response”; Linder, “The French Calvinist Response to the Formula of Concord.” 105 See Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 157–​66. • Sophismata F. Turriani 1577 • Ad repetita F. Turriani 1580 • Responsionis F. Turriani 1581 106 This work would be expanded upon and republished twice in Geneva and twice more in France. Barker, Protestantism, Poetry and Protest, 256–​78, esp. 256n30.

230  The Flesh of the Word doctrinal disputes, such as the place of Scripture in theology, purgatory, and the Lord’s Supper.107 Chandieu spent the final years of his life in Geneva, where he returned after his stint in Henry of Navarre’s service in May 1588. He began to serve with the Company of Pastors for the care of the church in Geneva until his death.108 Beza expresses the following sentiment upon Chandieu’s death on February, 23 1591: “One could create a stream with all the tears that have been shed in Geneva and elsewhere by those who understand the consequences of such a gaping wound. . . . As for me personally, I have lost a friend for whom I would sacrifice my [life]—​even many lives—​if I could. But because this is the will of God, may his name be praised.”109 Chandieu’s life encapsulates the changes and challenges faced by the Reformed community in the period of early orthodoxy, as it sought to confessionalize and codify the teaching of the reformers while facing struggles and challenges internally and on the international stage. He aided the development of early orthodoxy through his contributions to 107 For an overview of these works, see Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 177–​204. • De verbo Dei scripto 1580 • De unico Christi sacerdotio 1581 • De vera peccatorum 1582 • De veritate humanae naturae Iesu 1585 • De spirituali manducatione 1589 • De sacramentali manducatione 1589 108 Some sources indicate that during this period Chandieu served as professor of Hebrew at the Genevan Academy:  Eugène Haag and Émile Haag, La France protestante, 2nd ed. (Paris:  Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1877), 1:494; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1984), 1:494; Pablo-​Isaac Halevi (Kirtchuk), “The Hebrew Language,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen, and David Jan Sorkin (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2002), 503. This claim, however, is unsubstantiated in the Registeres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs, who appointed the professors for the Academy. See, for instance, Karin Maag’s listing of the professors at the Genevan Academy to the mid-​seventeenth century: Karin Maag, Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–​1620, St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Aldershot, UK:  Scolar Press, 1995), 196–​98. Borgeaud notes that this claim is only a speculation of Bernus, although he opines that the Academy could have used Chandieu’s talents at the time. Charles Borgeaud, Histoire de l’Université de Genève (Genève: Georg & Company, 1900), 241–​42. The only connection in the critical edition of the Registeres between Chandieu and the professorship of Hebrew comes in a note on May 30, 1587. On this date the Company of Pastors offered the position of professor of Hebrew to Pierre Chevalier and also discussed whether Gaspard Laurentz would possibly be of use to the Academy. (Laurentz would later fill the professorship of Greek from 1597 to 1633; Maag, Seminary or University?, 197.) Chandieu is mentioned only in passing in the editor’s notes, stating that Laurentz was the tutor of Chandieu’s sons, “le précepteur des fils d’Antoine Chandieu.” Olivier Labarthe and Micheline Tripet, eds., Registres de la Compagne des Pasteurs de Genève (Tome V 1583–​1588) (Genève: Librairie Droz, 1976), 5:155. 109 Beza to the Viscount of Turenne, March 9/​19, 1591, Bulletin de la société da l’histoire du Protestantisme français (1853): 279, cited in Scott M. Manetsch, Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–​1609 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 58.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  231 confessional literature and church order as well as through his political activity within and beyond France. One of his most significant contributions, however, was his advocacy for and execution of a self-​consciously scholastic, Reformed theology.

4.3.2  Chandieu’s Scholastic Method Chandieu’s chief role in the rise of Reformed orthodoxy was his promotion of a scholastic method for theology. His achievement in this area has gained him the epitaph “One of the Fathers of Reformed Scholasticism,” alongside figures such as Francis Junius and Sibrandus Lubbertus.110 The first scholar to recognize Chandieu’s significance in this regard was Donald Sinnema in his 1994 essay “Antoine De Chandieu’s Call for a Scholastic Reformed Theology.”111 Sinnema established this through a study of the preface to Chandieu’s De Verbo Dei Scripto (1580).112 Muller in his definitive work on Reformed theological method in the period of orthodoxy states, “The early orthodox interest in method, specifically in the issue of an obviously ‘scholastic’ approach to theology, finds its clearest statement in the preface to Antoine Chandieu’s De verbo Dei scripto (1580).”113 A more in-​ depth study on this work and the development of this method in Chandieu’s earlier writing comes in Theodore Van Raalte’s Antoine de Chandieu:  The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate.114 Scholarship on Reformed scholasticism more broadly has increasingly come to recognize Chandieu’s contribution to the development of this method.115 I will briefly outline the rationale for and nature of his theological method before turning to his use 110 Sinnema, “Chandieu’s Scholastic Reformed Theology.” 111 Sinnema, Antoine de Chandieu’s Call for a Scholastic Reformed Theology (1580),” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century, 1994), 163–​64. 112 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], Locus De Verbo Dei Scirpto Adversus Humanas Traditiones, Theologice et Scholastice tractatus: Ubi agitur de vera methodo Theologice simul et Scholastice disputandi, 1st ed. (Morges: Jean le Preux, 1580). John Coxe, whose edition has been consulted in the following section, translated this work into English in 1583. Antoine de la Roche Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], A Treatise Touching the Word of God Written, against the Traditions of Men Handled Both Schoolelike, and Divinelike, Where Also Is Set Downe a True Method to Dispute Divinely and Schoolelike, trans. John Coxe (London: John Harison, 1583). 113 Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:112. 114 Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu. 115 van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 82–​ 83; Herman Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 232–​37; Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:112, 433–​34.

232  The Flesh of the Word of it to support the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum. Of particular significance are Chandieu’s distinction between scholastic and rhetorical theology, Scripture as the principium of theology, and the use of philosophy and logic within the theological task. Van Raalte has shown that Chandieu uses certain aspects of medieval scholastic method in his early works, but he expounds his full understanding of this method in the epistle and preface to his first designated “scholastic and theological disputation” on the nature of Scripture and human tradition.116 He produced a second edition of this preface in later editions of his Opera.117 In light of the polemics of the era and especially as they devolved into personal attacks, progress between the traditions was difficult to see. Chandieu sought to move theology onto a certain foundation to make persuasion possible. Chandieu distinguished between rhetorical theology, which he defines as “a full and more rich composition, which teaches the simple and stirs the slow to embrace the doctrine of truth,” and scholastic theology, which is more exact and clear, putting away those aspects that stir the affections, and divested of rhetoric, but rather straightforwardly setting down “naked arguments.”118 This latter method Chandieu calls scholastic or analytic. Sinnema summarizes the nature of this term: “Chandieu’s usage makes it evident that he used the term [scholastic or analytic] in reference to the field of ‘Analytics,’ i.e., the Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics of Aristotelian logic, and thus in reference to reasoning by syllogism and logical demonstration.”119 To illustrate these two distinctive methods Chandieu presents two images, one in the epistle and the other in the preface. The first image is of an open hand and a fist: “For as one and the same hand can be opened and then, by closing one’s fingers, contracted into a fist, so also one and the same subject can be treated exhaustively by means of eloquence, and, when

116 For Van Raalte’s exposition of the development of Chandieu’s scholastic thinking in his early theological works, see his Antoine de Chandieu, chs. 4 and 5. 117 For this history of the editions of the Preface, see Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 182–​85. 118 Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilis Simi Viri Opera Theologica. ed. Jacobus Lectius. 5th ed. (Geneva:  Peter and Jacob Chouët , 1620), 11, hereafter Chandieu, Opera. Unam, plenam et uberiori stylo compositam, quae et rudes doceat, et tardos excitet ad veritatis doctrinam amplectendam: Alteram autem, accuratam quidem sed contractam, et quae sepositis iis quae ad commovendos animos adhibentur, detractaque orationis veste, res ipsas simpliciter et enucleate nobis explicet, atque argumenta nuda proponat:  ita ut ipsa rerum veritas oculis propemodum conspici et digitis attrectari proponat. 119 Sinnema, “Chandieu’s Scholastic Reformed Theology,” 170.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  233 it is contracted into short syllogisms, discussed more subtly and closely.”120 Each of these has its own purpose and form and should be used in the right context. The image of the fist certainly implies a use for polemic purposes.121 Chandieu draws his second image to describe the relation of rhetorical and scholastic theology from a comparison between human life and the academic study of the body: For just as the sight of a human body is more pleasant when it is covered with flesh, filled with blood, and with its own color, yet it is so that when it is dissected one can much better distinguish the health of the individual parts as well as of the constitution of the whole body. If, consequently, one seriously and closely considers, analyses and as it were dissects the more drawn-​out and more elegant expositions, one will doubtlessly be able to establish whether they are sound in all ways and that nothing is missing. Just as with illnesses, it will be possible as it were to point with one’s finger to the origins and causes of whatever errors there may be.122

The illustration shows an additional use and advantage of the scholastic over the rhetorical for Chandieu: the diagnoses of error. The rhetorical method is certainly more pleasing, as he says, but this pleasing visage can conceal internal disease and can persist undetected even by the author. Chandieu’s equivalent to the dissection is the use of syllogistic logic from the infallible premises of Scripture. For Chandieu such a method is especially suited to the training of theological students who will be tasked with the promulgation of the truth and its defense.123

120 Translation from van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 82. Nam (ut quendam ex veteribus dicere solitum accepimus) quemadmodum eadem manus et aperiri potest, et rursus compressis digitis in pugnum contrahi: ita res eadem et continua oratione copiose et Syllogisticis angustiis coarctata subtilius ac pressius tractari potest (Chandieu, Opera, 2). 121 For literature that discusses the use of this analogue in medieval and Renaissance thought, see Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 96n52. 122 Translation from van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 83. Translation modified from “dismembered” to “dissected.” Quemadmodum enim iucundior quidem est aspectus humani corporis, dum et carne vestitum, et sanguine suffusum, et colore ipso venustum est: siquando tamen ad anatomen deveniendum est, tum partium singularum intefritas et totius corporis constitutio longe melius dignoscitur: ita si quis serio et accurate velit diffusioes illas et venustiores tractationes expendere, earumque ἀναλυσιν et tanquam anatomen conficere, proculdubio facile animaduertet, sinne omnibus numeris absolutae, an vero aliquid adhuc desideretur, et, ut morborum, ita errorum, si qui sint, fontes et causas, quasi digito, commonstrabit (Chandieu, Opera, 11–​12). 123 Chandieu, Opera, 9.  Ego in eorum adolescentum gratiam, qui sunt Theologiae candiati non dubitabo aliquid ea de re leviter adumbrare.

234  The Flesh of the Word The beginning of Chandieu’s method, in accordance with concepts of Aristotelian science, is the identification of the principia.124 A  principium is the immutable, necessary truth, which grounds the ordered study of an object. The Reformed orthodox theologians would come to define two principia for the study of theology: God and the Word of God. God himself is the principium essendi: the metaphysical or essential foundation for the truth of theology. The Scriptures are the principia cognoscendi: the cognitive or epistemological foundation of the truth of theology.125 Chandieu defines a principium as follows: “It seems to me that a theological principle is an indemonstrable and self credible axiom concerning sacred matters, from which, having been posited, an evident and necessary conclusion concerning matters pertaining to religion follow.”126 According to Chandieu, the only infallible principium for theology is the written word of God. Scripture as the word of God written rests on the infallible wisdom and truth of God himself. Therefore, only here can the indubitable principia be found. To show this Chandieu states: Of such a kind is this axiom, “All holy Scripture is God-​breathed,” which no Christian doubts. Therefore, whenever sacred matters are treated and someone shall demonstrate that the prophets and apostles wrote in this way, he on whom that primary light shines will give assent that what they wrote is most true and certain, because this particular Scripture is God-​breathed and therefore true because God is truthful, and that the above-​mentioned axiom is true because God said it and one may not go beyond this.127

Chandieu thus anticipates the later Reformed understanding that the principium cognoscendi, Scripture, is secured by the principia essendi, God.

124 Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 187–​91; David Ross, Aristotle, 6th ed. (London: Routledge, 1995),  53–​54. 125 Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 245–​46. 126 Sinnema’s translation. Sinnema, “Chandieu’s Scholastic Reformed Theology,” 177. Principium autem Theologicum mihi videtur esse Axioma de rebus sacris ἀναποδεικτον et ἀυτοπιστον, quo posito, conclusio de iis quae ad Religionem pertinent, evidens et necessaria consequatur (Chandieu, Opera, 9). 127 Sinnema’s translation. Sinnema, “Chandieu’s Scholastic Reformed Theology,” 177. Cuiusmodi est hoc Axiom: SCRITPURA SACRA TOTA EST ΘΕΟΠΝΕΨΣΤΟΣ: de quo nulli Christiani dubitant. Quoties igitur de rebus sacris agetur, et aliquis demonstraverit: Ita scriprum esse a Prophetis et Apostolis, assentietur is, cui lux ista primaria affulgebit: Verissimum et cerissimum id esse, quia Scriptura illa est θεοπνευστος: ac proinde vera quia Deus est verax: et illud esse verum, quia Deus id dixit: neque licebit ultra progredi (Chandieu, Opera,  9–​10).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  235 Because these principia are basic and grounded in the very nature of God’s truthfulness they cannot and ought not be argued for. As Muller explains: For Chandieu, the use of scholastic form is legitimized by the identification of the correct principia: Scripture, not reason, must supply all of the principia or axiomata used in theology. In addition, since these axioms arise out of revelation they cannot be demonstrated nor do they rest on human knowing (scientia humana). Theological principia rest upon the wisdom of God.128

Since Scripture is the only principium on which theological certainty can be based, any positive argument for a doctrine must begin with a delineation and exposition of these principia. From Chandieu’s understanding of the principia of theology, we see continuity with medieval theology regarding the formal delineation of epistemic and ontological foundations for theological truth, which is largely absent in the first and second generation of the Reformation. Chandieu, however, modifies the medieval definition in a distinctively Protestant manner by limiting the principia cognoscendi to the word of God written, in line with the Protestant concept of sola Scriptura.129 The principia, as axioms derived from Scripture, supply the premises for valid and certain argumentation.130 Chandieu, therefore, argues that neither human reason nor church authority can function as principia of theology because this would set principia above the word of God.131 By this limitation of principia to Scripture, Chandieu distances himself from the medieval scholastics, although he gives them due regard when appropriate. He identifies the chief error of the medieval schoolmen as the failure to distinguish proper principia. According to Chandieu, the medieval scholastics use philosophy, and especially Aristotle, as a source of principia for theology and confuse the subordinate authority of the fathers with the Scriptures.132

128 Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:433. 129 For a discussion of the relationship between the Reformed orthodox and medieval theologians on this point, see Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:437–​40. 130 Chandieu also notes proper rules for interpreting Scripture, based upon an understanding of the analogy of faith, and he advises his reading to see his fuller exposition of these rules in his 1581 work, Responsionis F. Turriani. For these rules, see Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu,198–​200. 131 Chandieu, Opera, 10. 132 Chandieu, Opera, 7.

236  The Flesh of the Word Chandieu argues that while human reason and the tools of logic are not principia of theology, they have an ancillary function, when used properly, for arriving at theological truth. In his preface to De Verbo, Chandieu refutes those who would reject the usefulness of logic entirely, perhaps here referring to some of Luther’s more intemperate utterances about reason. Chandieu presents the antireason position as a combined argument from Colossians 2:8, where Paul warns against philosophy, and an analogy from Gregory of Nazianzus comparing the logicians to the Moabites and the Ammonites.133 Chandieu finds this argument wanting. He argues that it is not proper dialectical and analytical thinking that is being rejected by Paul but its misuse in sophistical arguments: “The good use of logic chiefly tends unto this end, to disperse abroad the fallacies and subtle crafts of sophistry, to expel errors, to reprise lies, and to set before our eyes most manifestly the light of truth.”134 The error of the schoolmen, from whom Chandieu distances himself in the following pages, was not the use of logic but its misuse falling into sophistry, vain questions, and a confusion of principia. Chandieu challenges those who would reject logic that if they truly oppose sophistry, where else will they turn? “For how can it be possible, that he who professes himself an enemy to false sophistication, should not love the science of right disputing, which is logic?”135 Rather than being the enemies of God’s people, the Moabites and the Ammonites, logic and reasoning can be compared to Tyre and Sidon, who send workers to assist the building of the temple or, following Augustine’s famous image, the treasure of the Egyptians.136 Therefore, for Chandieu, logic is an indispensable tool for the theologian; however, it is not a source of principia from which truth can be based. Logic or analysis is rather the instrument by which theological claims may be evaluated by the truth of the word of God written.137 133 Chandieu, Opera, 5–​6; Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], A Treatise Touching the Word of God Written, 4. For this comment from Nazianzus, see the translation of Oration 42: The Farwell Address in Brian Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus (London: Routledge, 2006), 149. In this Oration, Nazianzus warns the church of allowing in the Moabites and Ammonites who with “dialectical and mischievous arguments” undermine the truth of the divine nature and Scripture. 134 Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], A Treatise Touching the Word of God Written, 5.  Iam quum imprimis eo spectet τροπις παιδειας sive ἐπιστημης ut Sophistarum praestigias fallaciasque discutiat, errores redarguat, mendacia expellat atque veritatis lucem animorum oculis intuendam proponat (Chandieu, Opera, 6). 135 Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], A Treatise Touching the Word of God Written, 5. Qui enim fieri potest, ut qui se Sophisticis fallaciis inimicum esse profitetur, non idem amet scientiam recte disserendi (Chandieu, Opera, 6). 136 Chandieu, Opera, 6, 9. 137 Van Raalte offers an extensive treatment of Chandieu’s specific use of logical syllogisms in relation to his contemporaries and especially the use of the hypothetical syllogism. Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 269–​94.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  237 Chandieu sets forth this method in De Verbo Dei Scripto as the foundation for his own “scholastic and theological” project. He begins this with a disputation on the nature of Scripture against human traditions, but even in 1580 he envisioned a series of disputations that build on one another. He regarded his discussion of the Word of God as the foundation for all the disputations that followed: And now I  set down first a disputation touching the word of God written, which as it is chief, so ought it to be the very foundation of all disputations. The other disputations as of the true human nature of Christ, of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, of the true and lawful making of Ministers . . . also free will, Purgatory, and such like, may be grounded on this disputation.138

The choice of topics here is clear; these are the chief points of dispute between the Reformed tradition and their opponents, both Roman Catholic and Lutheran. Chandieu seems to hope, rather naively, one must admit, that by the careful delineation of principia and the right use of logic the competing traditions that are emerging will arrive at greater harmony. Chandieu’s distinction between the open hand of eloquence and the closed fist of scholastic disputation informs the purpose of his use of this method for refuting the doctrine of ubiquity and thereby promoting the doctrine of the extra. As we have seen, the controversy over these issues had plagued Protestant relations from the outset, and many rhetorical attempts had been made to bring the Lutheran and the Reformed camps into agreement on the nature of Christ’s body and related issues. For instance, Vermigli’s Dialogue, with its combination of rhetorical and scholastic methods, failed to bridge the gap. The divide between the traditions was only widening, especially after the Formula of Concord excised the Wittenberger faction from the mainstream of Lutheranism, making the prospect of a rapprochement even more unlikely. Chandieu’s self-​conscious appropriation of the fist of scholastic disputation and the incisiveness of syllogistic logic sought to move beyond probabilistic arguments and persuasion by eloquence. Through 138 Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], A Treatise Touching the Word of God Written, Av(v)–​Avi(r). Sed de hac re fusius egimus in Praefatione. Caeterum, propono disputatione, de verbo Dei scirpto, quae ut primaria est, ita debet esse Theologicarum omnium disputationum fundamentum. Reliquae vero disputationes, ut, De vera Christi humana natura, De praesentia corporis Christi in Coena, De ligitima pastorum vocatione et ordinatione . . . De libero arbitrio, De purgatorio et consimiles, huic substratae disputationi, adiici poterunt (Chandieu, Opera, 3).

238  The Flesh of the Word his scholastic breakdown he sought to expose the error of ubiquity, which had been ensconced in Luther’s christology. Only then could the Protestant camps unite.

4.4  De veritate and the extra Calvinisticum In De veritate, Chandieu presents the extra as the Reformed and catholic response to the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity, which he argues is a novel doctrine threatening the very foundation of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. He begins by offering the principia cognoscendi for the extra. He forms a wide argumentative and theological basis for the extra founded on the scriptural account of the Logos’s assumption of a full and true human nature. The union of the finite human nature to the eternal, infinite person of the Logos grounds the relationship of Christ’s divine presence and bodily absence from his ascension to the second coming. Moving from this, Chandieu rejects the doctrine of ubiquity, with a particular focus on Chemnitz’s formulation. He analyzes the nature of the finite and the infinite as well as the communicatio idiomatum to refute Chemnitz’s understanding of the genus maiesticum. Chandieu uses this analysis to expose what he sees as Lutheran christology’s fundamental error: the confusion of Christ’s natures. He further supports this contention by dissecting Lutheran distinctions that attempt to avoid this confusion, which he finds wanting. He offers a more elaborate and sophisticated presentation of the extra than his predecessors, e.g., utilizing scholastic distinctions and syllogistic logic. The fundamental theological rationale, however, remains the same as it has been since Zwingli: the preservation of the true humanity of Christ as essential to his office and function as the only mediator between God and humanity.

4.4.1  De veritate: Introduction and Structure Chandieu began writing De veritate in 1583. The first edition was published in 1585, with a modestly expanded and modified edition produced in 1590, which was published in the first edition of his Opera.139 In the opening 139 Van Raalte, following Bernus, is mistaken in claiming that the additions to the second edition are merely a few passages refuting Claude Auberi. Rather, Chandieu elaborates on several of his arguments and the conclusion of the work. I will quote from the second edition text as found in the 1620 Opera and note any passage that has been added from the first to the second edition. Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 184–​85; Bernus, Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu, 76n3.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  239 Epistle, dated March 1, 1585, Chandieu addresses De veritate to the German Protestant princes, likely to increase the possibility of religious unity with and political assistance for the French Huguenots. Following his method, Chandieu dedicates his treatise to a single question that he will answer from proper theological principia before using logical demonstration to preclude his opponents’ position. He states this question at the end of the first chapter by presenting the status quaestionis, or το ζητουμενον: Can it be that, by the force of the hypostatic union, the human nature of Christ really received from the λογος properties of the divine nature, chiefly omnipresence; and moreover that the human nature of Christ, which is in itself finite, might be also at the same time infinite, on account of the hypostatic union. This they affirm: we deny.140

Every argument in the treatise is directed toward this proposition: the rejection of ubiquity and establishing the corollary doctrine of the extra. While the subject of the treatise is christology proper, Chandieu conceived this work as the first volume and foundation of a trilogy, which would establish the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper in opposition to the positions of the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, and the Roman Catholics.141 De veritate is divided into six chapters. In the first chapter Chandieu presents the plan for the work and both his own position and the position of his opponents. In ­chapter 2 he sets forth his “positive demonstration”—​ κατασκευασικλω—​in which he presents a florilegium of scriptural citations and a summary statement of his own position based on these principia. The following chapters comprise the “destructive demonstration”—​ ἀνασκευασικλω. Chapter 3 is the longest of the work and offers ten syllogistic arguments against ubiquity, a section on the communicatio idiomatum, syllogistic arguments against the “real” communication of attributes, and a 140 Status igitur questionis et το ζητουμενον est: An, vi unionis hypostaticae, natura humana Christi acceperit realiter a λογῳ proprietates divinae naturae, et imprimis Omnipreaesentiam: atque ita, ut humana Christi natura, quae in se finita est, sit etiam simul infinita, propter unionem hypostaticam. Illi aiunt; nos negamus (Chandieu, 141, my translation). 141 Ut autem nostrum institutum facilius intelligatur, totam hanc queastionem tribus Disputationibus Theologicis comprhendemus:  quarum primam nunc proponimus:  De veritate humanae naturae Christi, tanquam aliarum fundamentum (Chandieu, Opera, 138). Antoine de la Roche Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], De spirituali manducatione corporis Christi et spirituali potu sanguinis ipsius in sacra coena Domini Theologica et scholastica tractatio (Geneva: Jean le Preux, 1589); Antoine de la Roche Chandieu [pseudo. Sadeele], De sacramentali manducatione corporis Christi et sacramentali potu sanguinis ipsius in Sacra Coena Domini, theologica et scholastica tractatio (Geneva:  Jean le Preux, 1589).

240  The Flesh of the Word refutation of a series of distinctions used to support ubiquity. In ­chapter 4 he addresses Lutheran theological and scriptural objections to the Reformed position and gives his response to each. In ­chapters 5 and 6, respectively, he presents arguments from the church fathers used to support ubiquity, which he refutes, and citations of the fathers that favor the Reformed position. The final chapter ends with a brief conclusion of the treatise. This structure is the macro-​level outworking of Chandieu’s theological method. The first part is the “positive demonstration” in which the principia cognoscendi of Scripture are used to establish the truth of the extra. The second part is a “destructive demonstration” in which the tools of logic are used to weight various Lutheran arguments by the preceding principia. The final two chapters then seek to adjudicate each tradition’s conformity with the lesser authorities of the church fathers. In what follows I will not explicate each argument, which would require a longer treatment than the original itself. Rather, I will focus on those sections representative of Chandieu’s method and pertinent to the extra.

4.4.2  The Chalcedonian Logic of the extra Calvinisticum In the treatise’s Epistle Chandieu identifies the central concern of the Reformed against the doctrine of ubiquity as the danger of the resurgence of ancient, christological heresies. He opens the work citing Gregory of Nazianzus:  “Even while quenching the flames the glowing coals remain a nuisance.”142 Although the fathers and the councils had quenched the flames of christological heresy, the coals remain ready to be fanned into life again.143 Chandieu’s fundamental theological rationale is to uphold the true human nature of Christ against the Lutheran doctrine in conformity with conciliar christology. According to Chandieu’s historiography, the doctrine

142 Etiam extincta flamma carbones molestos esse (Chandieu, Opera, 137, my translation). 143 “For although the flame of Arius, Eutyches, and similar of the old heretics, which in ancient times almost burnt down the whole Church, our pious and orthodox ancestors, by the greatest struggle and much diligence long ago extinguished; however, such was Satan’s cunning, that from the glowing coals of the Arians and the Eutychians, he caused to grow new troubles for the church; indeed while pressing down the names of the old heretics, but stirring up their very same errors.” Etsi enim Arrii, Eutychetis et consimilium veterum haereticorum flammam, qua priscis temporibus, universa propemodum Ecclesia conflagravit, pii atque orthodoxi Maiores nostri, summo labore, maximaque diligentia iampridem extinxerunt: tanta tamen fuit Satanae astutia, ut ex Arrianis atque Eutychianis carbonibus, novas Ecclesiae molestias crearit: veterum quidem haereticorum nominibus suppressis, at iis ipsis eorum erroribus excitatis (Chandieu, Opera, 137, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  241 of transubstantiation transported the errors of the ancient christological heresies into his own day by offering a foothold for the idea that Christ’s human nature transcended true human existence.144 The medieval Catholic theologians, however, according to Chandieu, avoided actualizing this heresy, embedded in the doctrine of transubstantiation, because they refused to accommodate their christology to this position. With the doctrine of transubstantiation, they were content to postulate a miraculous understanding of the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist rather than grounding it in the hypostatic union.145 Lutheran theologians, on the other hand, while rejecting transubstantiation, have maintained and magnified the embedded christological errors in the medieval concept through their doctrine of ubiquity: There are also others [the Lutherans] who in this mystery, while rejecting transubstantiation and retaining the substance of the bread, in order to (as they say) establish the true and real presence of the true and real body of Christ, contrive a doctrine concerning the omnipresence of Christ’s body, from which they consider, that the human nature of Christ possessed of its own dimensions, is at the same time present everywhere, circumscribed by no place and no dimensions, and therefore is not now a human nature.146

Chandieu therefore argues that by the dual doctrines of the real, corporeal presence in the Eucharist and the ubiquity of Christ’s human nature the Lutheran theologians resurrect Eutyches’s error of conflating the natures of Christ. Chandieu grants that they reject and condemn this view and profess the christology of the councils in their works. Yet the outworking of their doctrines produces the same effect:

144 Chandieu, Opera, 137. 145 “Indeed the former, namely the papists, assert that the body of Christ is in many places by the power of a miracle, while hiding the body of Christ under the accidents of the bread.” Priores quidem illi, nempe Pontificii contendunt, corpus Christi sub accidentibus Panis delitescens, esse simul pluribus in locis, vi miraculi (Chandieu, Opera, 138, my translation). 146 Sunt et alii qui in hoc ipso mysterio, repudiata Transsubstantiatione, retentaque Panis substantia, nililominus, ut veram et (ut illi quidem loquuntur) realem veri et realis Corporis Christi praesentiam in pane constituant, excogitarunt dogma de Omnipraesentia Corporis Christi: quod quidem eo spectat, ut Humana Christi natura suis praedita dimensionibus, simul sit ubique praesens, nullo loco, nullisque dimensionibus circunscripta: ac proinde iam non sit Humana natura (Chandieu, Opera, 137–​38, my translation).

242  The Flesh of the Word And so after assenting to those most sacred creeds of the Christian Church concerning Christ as truly God and truly man, they [the Lutherans] condemn by anathema Eutyches. In the next breath, by proposing those two doctrines, they incautiously declare the opinion that they condemn. As a result, they are restoring the same errors while changing the names, and (as we go back to Nazianzus) the troublesome coals of the ancient heretics, which they have inflamed with a new fan, have burst into the most sorrowful flames.147

Here Chandieu’s use of the scholastic method can be seen as he presses the point beyond eloquent presentation to the logical implications of doctrine. While the Lutherans claim to reject the heresy of Eutyches, the logical implications of the doctrine of ubiquity, which they use to support a corporeal presence in the Eucharist, result in the same error. Through his invocation of the ancient heresy of Eutychianism, Chandieu rhetorically situates the Reformed doctrine on the side of conciliar orthodoxy, as we saw in Vermigli’s Dialogue. He therefore can place the Reformed position in line with the doctrine of the ancient church, defusing any charge of novelty. Chapters 5 and 6 further support this by offering, respectively, a rejection of patristic citations used to support ubiquity and quotations in support of the Reformed position.148 Chalcedonian christology is the benchmark and standard he seeks for his christology to meet. This is demonstrated by the structurally significant quotations of the Chalcedonian Decree throughout the work. For instance, at the end of his section on the communicatio idiomatum he reiterates the Decree as a summary of his position, which he calls “the firm and constant truth of the Christian religion.”149 Chandieu’s opening statement of the Reformed position further shows this Chalcedonian logic: We believe that the human nature assumed by the Logos in one person, who is Jesus Christ, with the Logos itself inseparably and unconfusedly united, with the properties of each nature unharmed. And the same human nature is furnished with the highest and inconceivable gifts, to the extent that the 147 Itaque postquam illi sanctissimis Ecclesiae Christianse de Christo vero Deo, et vero homine Symbolis assentientes, Eutychetem anathemate damnarunt:  evestigio, duobus illis dogmatibus propositis, quam damnrunt, eam imprudentes confirmant sententiam. Ex quo factum est, ut iidem errores, mutatis nominibus repositi, et (ut ad Nazianzenum redeamus) molestissimi veterum haereticorum carbones, novis flabellis accensi, in flammas longe tristissimas eruperint (Chandieu, Opera, 138, my translation). 148 Chandieu, Opera, 203–​12.. 149 Firma, constantique Christianae religionis veritate (Chandieu, Opera, 153, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  243 essence of the nature is able to bear. Which profession of faith having been drawn out from the firmest evidences of Scripture and our pious ancestors until now have declared.150

Chandieu combines the Chalcedonian adverbs with an enhypostatic understanding of the human nature and a confession of the finita dona, based on the testimony of the Word of God written. Therefore, his exposition of the extra in the treatise aims for the promotion of a Chalcedonian christology, following that path already set forth by Bullinger and Vermigli. The debate over the Supper has moved into the background almost entirely, revealing the deeper christological rift between the Lutheran and the Reformed.

4.4.3 The Principia of Scripture and the extra Calvinisticum In ­chapter 2 of De veritate, Chandieu presents his “positive demonstration” by setting forth the scriptural principia on which his doctrine of the extra rests and his rejection of ubiquity proceeds. This presentation is a concrete outworking of his scholastic method presented in De Verbo Dei. I will set forth the scriptural principia that Chandieu offers for his doctrine and the summary of his position on Christ’s body maintaining its spatial bounds. These scriptural arguments also demonstrate the continuity of Chandieu with the exegetical basis for the extra established since the time of Zwingli. Chandieu offers seven sets of principia supporting the notion that Christ’s body remains circumscribed throughout the entire career of the incarnate Logos and its corollary that the Logos maintains his existence etiam extra carnem. In accordance with his scholastic method, only from Scripture can the truth of theological statements come and all reasoning on them proceed: “Because every true negation depends upon true positive statements, thus we listen to Scripture which is the most certain rule of truth; that from it we may learn what we are able truly to affirm and truly deny concerning so 150 Credimus in una Persona, qua est Iesus Chrisus, Humanam naturam a λογῳ assumptam, cum ipso λογῳ inseperabiliter er inconfuse unitum esse, salvis utriusque naturae proprietatibus. Ipsamque Naturam humanam summis et incomprehensibilibus donis exornatam esse, quatenus ipsius naturae essentia ferre potest. Quam fidei professionem ex certissimis Scripturae testimoniis depromptam, pii Maiores nostri hactenus ediderunt (Chandieu, Opera, 141, my translation).

244  The Flesh of the Word great a mystery.”151 Chandieu structures these scriptural arguments around the redemptive-​historical career of the Logos from the incarnation through the second coming, indicating each set with the conclusion that “therefore the body of Christ is not everywhere.”152 The first set of principia establishes the veracity of the human nature assumed by the Logos.153 Like humanity in every way except for its sinfulness, this human nature was of the seed of Abraham and David, partook of flesh and blood, and grew and matured in stature and wisdom. From his examination of the biblical texts Chandieu concludes, “From all of these citations it is understood: The eternal word of God assumed the human nature in a personal union; which since it is true, it follows, the body of Christ is a true body, and hence circumscribed and possessed of its dimensions.”154 Therefore, Christ’s true human nature like all other human natures is spatially bounded and located. From this, we can see for Chandieu that circumscription is an essential quality to “true humanity,” which cannot be removed without destroying the nature. Additionally, Chandieu’s conclusion demonstrates the ahypostatic status of the human nature, which exists only enhypostatically by the act of assumption by the personal Logos.155 The second set of principia establishes that during his earthly ministry Christ moved from place to place, departing from one area to another,

151 Quia omnis vera Negatio a vera affirmatione pendet, ita audiamus Scripturae quae certissima est regula veritatis: ut ab ea discamus, quidnam vere affirmare, et vere negare de tanto mysterio possimus (Chandieu, Opera, 141, my translation). 152 “Quare corpus Christi non est ubique,” or some variation thereof. Some collections of texts are strung together will multiple conclusions of this sort followed by a summary conclusion of the whole set. I have chosen to treat these as a single set of principia directed at a more complex conclusion. 153 John 1:14; 1 Tim. 3:16, 2:5; Heb. 2:12, 2:16–​17; Luke 2:52. 154 Ex quibus omnibus intelligitur:  Aeternum Dei Verbum assumpsisse in Unione Personae humanam naturam: quae quum sit vera, sequitur, Corpus Christi esse verum corpus, ac proinde esse circunscriptum, et praeditum suis dimensionibus. Non est igitur ubique (Chandieu, Opera, 142, my translation). 155 Chandieu makes use of an a/​enhypostatic understanding of the human nature of Christ throughout the treatise. The clearest exposition of this concept comes in his refutation of the Lutheran distinction between Christ’s body being present not naturaliter (naturally) but personaliter (personally). Chandieu, Opera, 169–​70. For instance, “It is evident enough, that the human nature is not a person in this discussion. . . . The human nature is personally united with the omnipresent Logos. . . . Since the Word is infinite and omnipresent, it is proved, that the human nature is sustained by the Word always and everywhere. . . . The human nature of Christ is personally omnipresent, that is to say, is personally united with the Word, and sustained by him; which Word indeed is omnipresent.” Humanam naturam non esse personam, in hac disputatione. . . . Humanam naturam esse personaliter unitam cum Omnipraesente λογῳ. . . . Quum autem Verbum sit infinitum et omnipraesens, efficitur, Humanam naturam semper et Ubicunque sit a verbo sustentari. . . . Humana natura Christi est Persaonaliter omnipraesens, hoc est dicere, est Personaliter coniuncta cum Verbo, et ab eo sustentata: quo quidem Verbum est Omnipraesens (169, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  245 and is said to be absent from events, such as Lazarus’s death.156 Since these statements of absence could not apply to Christ qua divinity, which is everywhere, these spatial movements refer to Christ’s body, which if absent from a place is not everywhere.157 Chandieu further supports the spatial circumscription of Christ’s body with texts where Christ predicts his absence from his people as well as his status as high priest by the ascension.158 These biblical texts overcome any argument that would posit a transformation in the nature of Christ’s body between the time of his humiliation and glorification. The essential nature of Christ’s humanity is maintained in both states. In these texts, Christ speaks of a time when the apostles would lack him, in some meaningful sense; thus the theologian must reckon with the absence of Christ after the ascension. Chandieu indicates a purpose to this absence through the incorporation of texts from Hebrews, which establish that Christ’s departure is essential to the function of his priestly office and act of intercession. The next three sets of principia establish more thoroughly the nature of Christ’s glorified body. This body remains a true body that is sensible to human senses; “therefore the body of Christ even glorified, is a true body, and possessed of his dimensions.”159 Because the glorified body remains a true body, it is in a place.160 Additionally, an eschatological conformity exists between the resurrection bodies of the saints and Christ’s glorified body.161 The glorified body of the saints will not be everywhere, and therefore Christ’s body, to which they will be conformed, is not everywhere lest the likeness to humanity be destroyed along with the hope of the resurrection. The final set of principia more fully explicates the locality of the glorified body whence it will come at the end of the age. At the present moment, as for the entire interadventum, Christ’s body “is not here,” which applies as much

156 Acts 10:38; Mark 6:46; John 11:15. 157 “Christ is spoken of departing from some places and arriving to other places, as well as being absent or present, such as ‘I rejoice that I was not there’ [John 10:15], without any dispute, these actions are to be understood according to his body.” Dicitur Christi ex aliis locis discedends, ad alia loca accessisse, dicitur etiam adfuisse, et abfuisse, ut, Gaudeo quod ibi non fuerim: quae, citra ullam controversiam, secundum ipsius Corpus intelligenda sunt (Chandieu, Opera, 142, my translation). 158 Matt. 26:11; John 16:28, 17:11; Heb. 4:14, 8:4. 159 Ergo corpus Christ, etiam glorificiatum, est verum corpus, suisque dimensionibus praeditum (Chandieu, Opera, 142); Luke 24:39. 160 John 20:17, 14:3; Rev. 14:4. 161 Phil. 3:21; Ex quibus efficitur Corpus Christi, etiam post resurrectionem et glorificationem, esse in loco, nec enim fideles in vita aeterna ubique futuri sunt, et particulam ubi de loco intelligendam esse, satis est perspicuum, cum ex propria significatione, tum ex iis quae de loco fidelibus parando, a Christo dicta sunt [added in 2nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 142).

246  The Flesh of the Word today as it did when the angel first spoke the words on Easter morning.162 This absence begins with the ascension, which precludes the present ubiquity of the body of Christ. Chandieu cites Acts 1, which recounts Christ’s ascension, “indicating Christ was separated by distance of space, namely according to the body.”163 Christ’s body has entered heaven and there resides until the day when he will visibly come again.164 Later in the work, Chandieu elaborates by distinguishing the metaphorical nature of the right hand of the Father, which symbolizes the divine power and reign, from heaven itself, which is a place.165 For Chandieu, Christ’s second coming is from heaven and it is there and there only from which Christ is to be expected to return in his bodily and visible presence.166 Chandieu’s principia show that he conceived of the epistemic foundations of his doctrine not as a product of philosophical speculation but as the testimony of the written word of God, contra the discontinuity thesis. Following his scholastic method, Chandieu has set forth the axioms of this testimony in a clear and condensed manner. These principia are in continuity with the scriptural arguments presented so far to support the doctrine of the extra, although Chandieu contributes to the form and manner of their presentation and even expands the exegetical base through the incorporation of the purpose of the ascension in Hebrews. Rather than being scattered throughout the text, he presents the principia in a short section, which would be easy for theological students and pastors to cite. Additionally, Chandieu offers a summation of his conclusions for these texts in syllogistic form: 1. No body, which is a true and essentially human body, and which in Scripture is said to truly ascend to a place, to be in a place, to descend from a place, to be touchable and visible, possessed of flesh and bone, to which, after the resurrection of the dead, our bodies will be conformed, that is to say no body, which is of this sort, is able, according to the truth of Scripture, to be omnipresent or everywhere. 162 “Therefore the glorious body of Christ is not everywhere. Otherwise the body would have been raised and in the tomb at the same time; which this text greatly opposes.” Matt. 28:6. Ergo gloriosum Christi corpus non est ubique. Alioqui Corpus resurrexisset, et fuisset in sepulchro simul; quod valde repugnat (Chandieu, Opera, 142). 163 Significans Christum disiunctum locorum intervallo, nempe secudum Corpus (Chandieu, Opera, 142, my translation). Chandieu further develops and defends his understanding of the ascension in his response to Lutheran exegesis of Ephesians 4. Chandieu, Opera, 195–​98. 164 Acts 3:21; also cited in this section is Luke 24:51 as a parallel to Acts 1. 165 Chandieu, Opera, 188–​91. 166 This point seems to call for the most citations: Acts 1:11; Matt. 24:30; 1 Thes. 1:10, 4:16; 1 Cor. 11:26; 2 Cor. 5:6–​7: Phil. 1:23.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  247 2. The body of Christ is a true and essentially human body, and is said in Scripture truly to ascend to a place, to be in a place, to descend from a place, to be touchable and visible, possessed of flesh and bone, to which, after the resurrection of the dead, our bodies will be conformed. 3. Therefore the body of Christ is not able, according to the truth of Scripture, to be omnipresent or everywhere.167 This argument incorporates the points of the earlier arguments into a quickly digestible and logically sound form and encapsulates the exegetical arguments for the continued spatial limitation of Christ’s humanity. Following the standard Reformed exegesis of these texts dating back to Zwingli, Chandieu establishes the uniformity of the Scriptures’ witness to the circumscription of Christ’s body from the incarnation through the second coming, including his exalted existence in heaven as a place, while the Logos exists beyond this limitation and is everywhere. Chandieu, however, at this point in his treatise offers no scriptural principia for the omnipresence of the divine nature of Christ. That he does not argue for this in the positive demonstration can be accounted for by the treatise’s stated question, which pertains specifically to the omnipresence of Christ’s body. The omnipresence of Christ’s divine nature is not disputed by either the Lutheran or the Reformed party. Chandieu makes the Logos’s existence beyond the circumscribed body explicit later in the treatise: The divine nature in the hypostatic union is always infinite, with regard to places as much as with regard to times; because it is eternal and ubiquitous, and in turn the human nature remains finite and circumscribed both with regard to time and place, for the human nature is always present and finite somewhere being sustained by the Logos, which is omnipresent and infinite.168 167 Nullum corpus, quod est vere, et essentialiter humanum corpus, et quod in Scriptura dicitur vere accedere ad locum, esse in loco, discedere a loco, esse palpabile et visibile, carne et ossibus praeditum, cui, post mortuorum resurrectionem, copora nostra futura sunt conformia; Nullum, inquam, corpus, quod est eiusmodi, potest, secundum veritatum Scripturae, esse omnipraesens, sive ubique. Corpus Christi est vere et essentialiter humanum corpus, et dicitur in Scriptura vere accedere ad locum, esse in loco, discedere a loco, esse palpabile er visibile, carne et ossibus praeditum, cui, post mortuorum resurrectionem, corpora nostra furtura sunt conformia. Quare corpus Christi non potest, secundum veritatem Scripturae, esse omnipraesens, sive ubique (Chandieu, Opera, 143, my translation). 168 Deitas in ipsa Unione hypostatica sit semper infinita, tum temporum, tum locorum respectu; quia est aeterna et ubique; et vicissim Humana natura remaneat tum tempore, tum loco finita et circunscripta; nam ipsa Humana natura alicubi praesens et finita semper sustenatur a λογῳ, qui est omnipraesens, et infinitus (Chandieu, Opera, 173, my translation).

248  The Flesh of the Word From this and sundry other passages in De veritate, we can see that Chandieu grounds his understanding of the first two propositions of the extra—​(1) Jesus Christ, the God-​man, maintained an existence extra carnem during his earthly ministry and (2) after the ascension and session the human body of Christ exists, in some sense, locally in heaven—​on the scriptural account of Christ’s human nature. The post-​ascension nature of Christ’s absence and presence is not addressed in depth, but the affirmation of the continued personal presence of the incarnate Son through his divinity is plain.169 From these principia and the Chalcedonian logic of the Epistle, one can reject Willis’s and Gisel’s assertions that the extra Calvinisticum comes to be grounded on the philosophical foundation of the non capax or the misappropriation of analogical reasoning in the early period of Reformed orthodoxy.170 Chandieu actually surpasses his predecessors in setting forth the epistemological ground of the extra by delineating the biblical citations as principia, the only source of dogmatic truth and certainty. Further, his positive demonstration makes no use of philosophical or analogical premises to establish the spatial limitation of Christ’s body. These tools will be used in their proper place, as Chandieu dedicates the rest of the treatise to refuting the Lutheran position of ubiquity. But all of this proceeds from the biblical arguments presented in the positive demonstration. Chandieu concludes this section, “Therefore, with the above scriptural citations having been put forth (to which many other similar passages could be added), now the very fountain has been opened, from which the truth of theological demonstration may flow.”171 He continues from this foundation to offer his “destructive demonstration” against ubiquity in which he uses the concept of the finitum non capax infiniti.

169 Chandieu more clearly expounded the pneumatological mediation of Christ presence in his follow-​up work De spirituali manducatione. For instance: “For we, being on earth, spiritually embraced by a true faith and the virtue of the Holy Ghost Jesus Christ, very God and very Man, according to His human nature corporeally present in heaven.” And “We again and again insist upon faith and the virtue of the Holy Ghost, and affirm that this presence, reception, and conjunction of the body of Christ is effected spiritually, so as nothing be detracted from the virtue of the body itself.” Antoine de Chandieu, A Theological and Scholastical Treatise, on the Spiritual Eating of the Body of Christ, and the Spiritual Drinking of His Blood, in the Holy Supper of the Lord, trans. J. V. (London: Rivingtons, 1859), 81, 84. 170 Darren O. Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word: Karl Barth’s Critical Reception of the Extra Calvinisticum,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 1 (2013): 43n1; Gisel, Le Christ de Calvin, 91; Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 23, 100, 153. 171 Itaque propositis superioribus Scripturae locis (quibus addi possunt plerique alii consimiles) Iam ipsi fontes aperti sunt, a quibus manat veritas Theologicae Demonstrationis (Chandieu, Opera, 143, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  249

4.4.4 The extra Calvinisticum, finitum non capax infiniti, and Christ as Mediator Chandieu dedicates the third chapter of De veritate to the logical refutation of the doctrine of ubiquity, the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum as advanced by its proponents, and theological distinctions used to support both. The variety and quantity of arguments is extensive, numbering at least twenty-​five formally distinct logical demonstrations in syllogistic form and eight refutations of distinctions with enumerated errors of each. The first ten arguments set forth Chandieu’s most general arguments against ubiquity; the reasoning for these arguments is developed throughout the work. Here I will focus on two aspects of these general arguments before delving into Chandieu’s more elaborate discussion of the communicatio idiomatum:  Chandieu’s use and understanding of the finitum non capax infiniti and its relationship to Christ’s mediatorial office. Rather than presenting the non capax as a general philosophical concept that serves as an epistemic foundation for the extra, Chandieu grounds the non capax in the Creator-​creature distinction and uses it to preserve the soteriological significance of Christ’s person. As I have explained, Willis and Gisel claim, echoing the critique of Werner Elert and Lutheran polemicists, that the heirs of Calvin in the early period of Reformed orthodoxy have subordinated theological and biblical reasoning to the philosophical principle of the finitum non capax infiniti.172 Chandieu would seem a prime candidate for this line of criticism because of his explicit invocation of this dictum in his formal arguments against ubiquity. His ninth general argument against ubiquity states plainly, “[I]‌f the body of Christ receives by the hypostatic union as to be omnipresent, then the finite grasps the infinite [finitum capit infinitum], which is impossible.”173 Therefore, at least Darren Sumner’s neutral claim—​“The tradition that followed the Genevan Reformer . . . certainly did rely upon it [finitum non capax infiniti] as inviolable proof ”174—​can be accurately maintained with regard to Chandieu. One must inquire, however, how Chandieu understood

172 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 100, 153; Gisel, Le Christ de Calvin, 91; Werner Elert, “Über die Herkunft des Satzes ‘Finitum infiniti non capax,’ ” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 16 (1939): 500–​504. 173 Si corpus Christ accepit ab Unione hypostatica ut sit omnipraesens. Ergo finitum capit infinitum.ἀδύνατον (Chandieu, Opera, 146, my translation). 174 Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word,” 43n1.

250  The Flesh of the Word this phrase and what place it held in his overall argument before the further pejorative implications of Willis and others might be evaluated. In the first edition of the work, Chandieu offers two reasons the finite cannot receive the infinite:  “This consequence follows from the nature of a body and from the word ‘receive.’ ”175 First, a human body is finite, circumscribed, and in a place. He has already supported this claim by principia indicating the spatial location of the human body of Christ from the incarnation to the eschaton. Second, Chandieu states that this follows from the meaning of the word “receive,” or accepit. He seems to take this word as “to receive something as one’s own,” asserting that a given nature cannot receive a property that negates that nature’s essential attributes. This could occur only if and when some essential change had occurred in the nature itself. With regard to Christ, such a reception of a uniquely divine quality by the human nature results in confusion of natures, thereby transgressing the Chalcedonian bounds. More than this, it would transgress the fundamental difference between God and creation: Although the human nature can be called a partaker of the Word, in as far as it is united with the Word by the personal union; however it does not therefore receive from the Word such that it is infinite because this most sacred union was made without confusion, with the properties of both natures being preserved. The rule of the personal union our opponents perpetually forget. Otherwise now the flesh is not a partaker of the divine nature but is itself the divine nature. Which is impossible.176

The human nature of Christ is personally united with the Logos in such a way that its nature is preserved; therefore, it may be called a particeps Verbi, a partaker of the Word. As he will later argue from Hebrews 2:12, the same can be said of the Logos who becomes a particeps in humanity.177 The main issue at hand is whether the finite nature can receive the quality of infinity in such a manner that does not constitute a confusion of the natures. Chandieu contends that this cannot be because it would mean that the flesh becomes 175 Consequentia patet ex natura corporis, et, ex verbo Accipiendi. (Chandieu, Opera, 146). 176 Licet enim humana natura dici possit particeps Verbi, quatenus unita est verbo Unione Personali; tamen non propterea accepit a verbo ut sit infinita, quia sanctissima haec union facta est absque confusione, servatis utriusque naturae proprietatibus; quam quidem rationem Personalis unionis isti perpetuo obliviscuntur, Alioqui iam non esset Caro particeps Divinae naturae, sed esset ipsa Divina natura. ἀδύνατον (Chandieu, Opera, 146, my translation). 177 Chandieu, Opera, 149.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  251 “the divine nature itself.” To understand his reasoning here, we must discuss his understanding of infinity as it relates to the divine nature. For Chandieu, infinity and omnipresence are qualities of the divine nature alone, and because the divine nature is simple, these qualities cannot be abstracted from the divine essence itself.178 Thus, in his first general argument, Chandieu presents the premise that “whatever is omnipresent or ubiquitous is infinite, uncreated, eternal, incomprehensible: That is, in a word, God.”179 Thus if Christ’s human body were infinite or omnipresent it would likewise be eternal, uncreated, and incomprehensible. Further, the human nature would become the divine nature, since the divine attributes are identical to the divine essence according to the doctrine of simplicity.180 Chandieu reiterates this point from divine simplicity throughout his refutation. For instance, he rejects a distinction of the human nature having the “use” but not the “ownership” of divine attributes because “the divine character is the simplest thing, in it κτησις [ownership] is not able to be distinguished from χρησει [use]. Therefore, if the human nature of Christ has the use of the divine character, then it has κτησιν [ownership], which is to be rejected.”181 Therefore, when Chandieu draws the distinction between the infinite and the finite he is drawing a distinction between divine and created realities. For Chandieu, there is no distinction between the sharing of divine properties with the human nature of Christ and the sharing of the divine nature itself. An ontological sharing at the level of natures would constitute a confusion of the natures, such that the human nature became divine by the incarnation. Chandieu does not neglect that Lutheran theologians attempt to avoid this conclusion by careful distinctions of how the human nature possesses ubiquity, which I will address shortly. 178 For instance, “The character [all the divine properties considered as a whole] of the divine nature, is not such that some are extrinsic and others from divinity itself, as we have often reminded; but the character is the essence. It is not so much that God alone has omnipresence, but he actually is the omnipresence and infinite; just as consequently he is truthful, he is the truth, as eternal he is the eternity.” Proprietas divinae naturae, non est aliquid adventitium, et aliud ab ipsa Deitate, ut iam saepe admonvimus: sed ipsa proprietas est essentia: adeo ut Deus non solum habeat omnipraesentiam, sed sit etiam ipsa omnipraesentia atque infinitas: quemadmodum ita est verax, ut sit ipsa veritas, ita aeternus, ut sit ipsa aeternitas (Chandieu, Opera, 166, my translation). 179 Quicquid est omnipraesens, sive, ubique, est infinitum, increatum, aternum, incomprehesibile; hoc est, uno verbo, est Deus (Chandieu, Opera, 143, my translation). 180 At Omnipraesentia, sive Ubiquitas του λογουnon potest separari ab aeternitate ipius λογου. Nam, quia Divina natura est simplicissima, idcirco proprietates Divinae essentiae, quae sunt ipsa essentia, sunt indivisibiles (Chandieu, Opera, 143). 181 Item: Quia proprietas divina est res simplicissima: in ea, non potest κτησις distingui a χρησει. Quare, si humana Christi natura habet usum proprietatis Divinae, habet igitur κτησιν, quod absit (Chandieu, Opera, 166, my translation).

252  The Flesh of the Word At stake for Chandieu in this discussion is the preservation of the two natures of Christ within the hypostatic union following his goal to preserve Chalcedonian christology. The human nature, according to Chandieu, cannot be infinite or possess infinity, lest its own dimensions and attributes be destroyed. If this were the case, Christ’s human nature and human body would cease to be truly human and like humanity in every way except sin. This would render him unfit to be the mediator. Chandieu summarizes: 1. If the body of Christ is everywhere; therefore, it is not a true human body; and for this reason Christ is not a true man. 2. And thus, our greatest comfort, which comprised our highest hope of salvation, is destroyed, that we are from his flesh and bone. 3. And likewise, it follows that Christ is not the mediator between God and man, since it is necessary that the mediator be true God and true man.182 With this argument, Chandieu exhibits the fundamental soteriological focus for the doctrine of the extra, which he shares with his predecessors. If the human nature of Christ is compromised, then salvation itself is called into question. Chandieu seeks to refute the doctrine of ubiquity by appealing not only to the nature of the infinite and the finite but also to the doctrines of God, the human body, and soteriology. He makes use of the non capax concept alongside a host of other arguments. He buttresses his position on the nature of Christ’s body, which he has already argued for from the principia of Scripture, with additional theological arguments, exegesis, and support from the church fathers. There is little difference between this use of the non capax in Chandieu and what we have seen previously in Vermigli. It remains one argument among many that Reformed theologians level against the Lutheran predication of infinitude to Christ’s humanity. As with Vermigli before him, Chandieu’s use of this concept does not result in a Nestorian separation of Christ’s person, as I will argue. Chandieu is, in fact, more explicit than Vermigli in situating the non capax in his theological method, as it is kept 182 Si corpus Christi est ubique: Ergo non est vere humanum corpus; ac propterea Chrisus non est verus Homo: atque ita nobis periit summa illa consolatio qua salutis nostra summa, continetur: Nos esse ex carne eius, et ex ossibus eius. Itemque sequitur, christum non esse Mediatorem inter Deum et homines: quippe quum Mediatorem verum Deum et verum hominem esse oporteat (Chandieu, Opera, 145, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  253 distinct from the principia cognoscendi for the doctrine being utilized only in the “destructive demonstration” against the Lutheran doctrine. Chandieu’s multifaceted approach can hardly be described as being one of the “prisoners of philosophical prejudices,” as Gisel has named Calvin’s successors.183

4.4.5  Chandieu and the Communicatio Idiomatum Chandieu devotes two sections of his “destructive demonstration” against ubiquity to the communicatio idiomatum directed at overturning the Lutheran “real” communicatio and Chemnitz’s genus maiestaticum. The question of the communicatio was a recurrent issue between the Lutheran and Reformed theologians throughout their debate over the nature of Christ’s bodily presence because this doctrine became the site of explaining the relationship of the two natures in the one person. For this reason, a particular understanding of the communicatio is required by or requires either the doctrine of ubiquity or the extra. It is difficult to assess in which direction the influence flows in most thinkers since the questions are inextricably intertwined. For the Reformed, the communicatio must terminate on the person of Christ lest a confusion of natures occurs. As such, this doctrine is a constitutive part of the extra. The body of Christ remains a true human body including spatial locality while the divine nature remains spatially transcendent; thus the person of Christ is truly said to be simultaneously everywhere and in a particular place. Chandieu was forced by the progress of polemics to more rigorously defend the Reformed doctrine and respond to Chemnitz’s version of the “real” communicatio. Chandieu defines the communicatio idiomatum with the aid of the fathers and some medieval schoolmen. He notes that the phrase is not used in the Bible or often by the fathers, but rather is used to denote a concept present in both, although variously expressed.184 According to Chandieu, it is the failure of the Lutherans to understand this diversity of expression in the fathers that has led to misinterpretation. Chandieu’s use of the fathers in this section indicates his humanist inclinations, which in turn support 183 Gisel, Le Christ de Calvin, 91. 184 Hoc loquendi genus, Communicatio proprietatum in Scriptura non reperitur:  et raro apud ipsos etiam Veteres extat totidem verbis; sed a Scholasticis potissimum introductum est, ut hac phrasi, et contracto illo loquendi genere (qui Scholasticorum mos est) sententiam veterum Doctorum comprehenderent, de locis aliquot Scripturae recte et ὀρθοδόξως intelligendis quos olim haeretici depravabant (Chandieu, Opera, 149).

254  The Flesh of the Word his scholastic endeavors as he utilizes the patristic sources and historical reconstruction to forward his dogmatic position. He argues that the fathers reflected on the communicatio in a polemical context to correct a heretical reading of biblical statements: For they [the heretics] confuse the natures in Christ, when they read, “the Lord of glory crucified,” “God bought the church with his own blood,” “the Son of Man while remaining on earth, is at the same time in heaven,” and many similar phrases. The fathers judged that these statements should be understood in the following manner. What is said concerning the person in concreto ought not for this reason be asserted about one nature in abstracto, contrary to the properties of that nature. Indeed, it should not be believed that the divinity was crucified, possessed blood, or, on the other hand, that the humanity was at the same time on earth and in heaven.185

The concept of the communicatio arises from the need to interpret properly the words of Scripture regarding the relation of the properties of the two natures in Christ. Chandieu supports this by evoking the in concreto/​ in abstracto distinction taken from the medieval scholastic tradition.186 He explains this distinction more fully later in the text:  “Abstract statements must be distinguished from concrete statements:  because the natures [of Christ] are signified absolutely and simply by abstract expressions, but they are signified by concrete expressions relatively or insofar as they are united with one another.”187 With this distinction, Chandieu is tapping into an elaborate medieval model for discussing christological predication that reflects upon how both abstract and concrete qualities can be predicated of a subject in valid ways. As applied to Christ this medieval reflection centers on why statements such as “humanity is divinity” are false, while statement such as “a man is God” are true.188 This medieval understanding is connected to 185 Nam illi naturas in Christo confundebant, eo quod legerent, Dominum gloriae crucifixum: Deum acquivisse Ecclesiam suo sangunine, Filium hominis in terris existentem, esse simul in coelo, et pleraque consimilia, quae Maiores nostri ita intelligenda esse censuerunt, ut quod dicitur de Persona in Concreto, non propterea dicendum sit de altera Natura in Abstracto, contra alterius Naturae proprietatem: adeo ut neque Deitas crucifixa, nec sanguine praedita, nec rursus Humana simul in terra et in coelo fuisse, credenda sit (Chandieu, Opera, 149, my translation). 186 Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 149–​50. 187 Abstracta esse a Concretis distinguenda: quia Abstractis vocibus Naturae significantur absolute et ἀπλως: Concretis vero vocibus significantur, Relatè, sive, quatenus unitae (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation). 188 For the definition of the term communicatio idiomatum as understood in theological discourse c.  1517, see Johannes Altensteig, Lexicon Theologicum Complectens Vocabulorum Desriptiones, Diffinitiones et Interpretationes (Antwerp:  Petri Belleri, 1576), fol. xliiii.r. For an extensive

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  255 complex theories of predication, which Chandieu does not explain in the treatise. Rather, he seems to take the conclusion of this system when applied to Christ’s natures and person without necessarily adopting the underlying theory of language. For Chandieu, in abstracto statements refer to one nature or the other considered without regard to the union in an absolute sense—​ divinity is impassible and humanity is passible. In concreto statements, however, refer to Christ’s person and natures with reference to the fact of their union—​Christ suffered on the cross. Because concrete statements are particular to the hypostatic union, they cannot then be predicated of the other nature in abstracto. Thus the statement “Divinity suffered on the cross or has blood” is false. Chandieu goes to great lengths to support this understanding of the communicatio from the fathers and the medieval scholastics. He provides an extensive collection of quotations from these sources explaining the communicatio. Over three pages of the Opera edition, he supports his position with citations from Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzus, Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Dionysius, Fulgentius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodoret, John of Damascus, and Thomas Aquinas.189 This expansive set of quotations illustrates the significance of the fathers within Chandieu’s works, which are used as supporting, subordinate authorities for doctrinal fidelity. From these citations, Chandieu summarizes the position of the tradition regarding the meaning of the communicatio idiomatum: “It is a custom of Scripture, that on many occasions it attributes to the person of Christ, what is only proper to one of the natures according to the hypostatic union, lest someone who understands the phrases of Scripture very poorly, either confuses or tears apart the natures.”190 Therefore, the communicatio serves a hermeneutical and dogmatic function as a Chalcedonian interpretation of scriptural texts, which avoids christological errors that would either rend apart or mix together the two natures in the one person of Christ. For Chandieu, the communicatio is a guide to how theologians talk about Christ and how they interpret Scripture. The discussion of christological predication within the medieval scholastic tradition, see Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation:  Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2002), 183–​229. 189 Chandieu, Opera, 149–​51. 190 Nempe hunc esse morem Scripturae, ut saepenumero id dicat de ipsa Persona Chirsti, quod alterius tantum Naturae est proprium, idque propter unionem hypostaticam, ne quis forte ex locis Scripturae male intellectis, Naturas vel confundat, vel divellat (Chandieu, Opera, 151, my translation).

256  The Flesh of the Word communicatio is a matter of second-​order thinking rather than first-​order reality. By grounding this definition in the fathers and medieval tradition, Chandieu seeks to establish his definition of the communicatio as in basic continuity with theological tradition and thus place the Lutheran understanding and use of the doctrine on the side of novelty.191 As he asserts at the beginning of his discussion, “And this is the explanation of the fathers, which the scholastics desire to signify with the two words Communicatio proprietatum, it does not state that the properties of one nature are shared with the other nature but rather the properties of both natures are shared with the person. That is, on account of the person, the properties of one nature are spoken of as properties of the other nature.”192 While there is debate over whether this is the case for all of the patristic sources, especially John of Damascus, Chandieu’s declaration of continuity with the medieval tradition has been confirmed by modern scholarship. In his study on the metaphysics of christology in the Middle Ages, Richard Cross argues, “I want there to be no doubt about what is at issue for the medievals here: not the communication of properties understood in any sense as the ascription of the properties of the one nature to the other, but the communication of properties understood as the ascription of divine and human properties to the person of the Word.”193 That the communicatio for Chandieu deals primarily with predication and second-​order thought does not thereby mean that it is merely verbal, i.e., referring to nothing besides verbal expressions being therefore “false and an invention.” This charge is explicit in both Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord.194 Chandieu identifies this charge as the fantasy of his opponents.195 191 Characteristically, Chandieu present this case in a syllogistic form. 1. Qui vocabula et phrases veterum Doctorum contra ipsorum sententiam usurpant, illi ex suo commento, non autem ex Veterum sententia ratiocinantur. 2. Qui per Communicationem proprietatum intelligunt Realem communicationem, qua proprietates Deitatis vere et realiter communicantur Humanae naturae, haec vocabula, et haec phrasin a veteribus Doctoribus propositam, contra ipsorum sententiam usurpant. 3. Quare illi ex suo commento, non autem ex Veterum sententia rationcinantur. (Chandieu, Opera, 153) 192 Atque hanc Veterum expositionem, Scholastici duobus hisce vocabuli, Communicatio proprietatum, significare voluerunt, non quod unius Naturae Proprietas cum altera Natura, sed potius utriusque Naturae proprietates cum ipsa Persona communicetur; hoc est, de ipsa Persona tam unius quam alterius Naturae Proprietates enuntientur (Chandieu, Opera, 149, my translation). 193 Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation, 184. 194 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 309–​10; “The Formula of Concord,” 512. 195 Non quod sit ficta, aut, commentitia, aut, (ut nonnulli loquuntur,) verbo tenus tantum (quod est illorum somnium) (Chandieu, Opera, 150, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  257 He calls the communication verbal because “it pertains to words and the explanation of expressions.”196 Like his predecessors in the Reformed tradition, Chandieu identifies the ontological basis of the communicatio idiomatum as the reality of the hypostatic union of Christ’s natures, yet this does not thereby mean that the communicatio itself is an ontological reality: Since the power of the hypostatic union is so great, that Scripture speaks with regard to the person what is only proper of the other nature; and because the one Christ is God and man, Scripture attributes to Christ as God what is proper to the human nature, and in turn assigns what is proper to divinity to Christ as man.197

The communicatio is a mode of verbal expression authorized by the precedent reality and truth of the union, which permits ways of speaking that would be false and inappropriate of any other subject. Thus the communicatio obliquely indicates an ontological reality, the real possession of all properties of the divine and human nature by the eternal Word. Chandieu considers this the rationale of Scripture itself when it employs such phrases as “you crucified the Lord of glory.” He rhetorically asks why Scripture speaks in this way and answers, “[T]‌hese sorts of expressions are speaking about one and the same person, God and Man, one and the same God-​man, as it is most truly said ‘δια την της ὑποσρασεως ταυτοτητα,’ as the Damascene said, that is, according to the identity of hypostasis or person.”198 The communicatio expresses the inseparability and unity of Christ’s person, which is just as much a necessary part of Christ’s salvific function as the God-​man. Attributes of one nature or the other subsist in the eternal person of the Logos, who by the incarnation possesses all the attributes of both natures, yet not in such a way that the divine is diminished or the humanity elevated to divinity. Later in the treatise, Chandieu offers five theorems that define the range of expressions that the Scriptures employ as a result of the hypostatic union and offers examples of each. He asks the reader to bear these in mind as a 196 Sed quia pertinet ad verboum et φρασεων expositionem (Chandieu, Opera, 150, my translation). 197 Quandoquidem tanta vis est Unionis illius hypostaticae, ut Scriptura de Persona id enuntiet, quod alterius tantum Naturae est proprium; et quia unus Christus est Deus et homo, Scriptura id Christo Deo attribuat, quod Humanae naturae proprium est, et vicissim, id Christo homini tribuat, quod est proprium Deitatis (Chandieu, Opera, 149, my translation). 198 Nempe quia est una eademque Persona, Deus et Homo, unus idemque θεανθρωπος de quo eiusmodi enuntiata dicuntur, et verissime dicuntur δια την της ὑποσρασεως ταυτοτητα, inquit Damascenus: hoc est, propter identitatem hypostaseos sive Personae [added in 2nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 150, my translation).

258  The Flesh of the Word hermeneutic key to christological predication.199 The first three theorems address statements that are spoken of the person of Christ, which can be understood according to either nature or the office of mediator: Theorem 1: Certain things are said concerning Christ, which ought to be understood according to his divine nature only.   Theorem 2: Certain things are said concerning Christ, which ought to be understood according to his human nature only.   Theorem 3: Certain things are said concerning Christ, which ought to be understood according to his person only.200

The person of Christ is the proper locus of predication as the entity in which all properties of both natures subsist. And yet, because the person possesses two natures it is appropriate to distinguish the nature whence a property obtains.201 For instance, only the divine nature can be said to exist before the creation of the world, and only the human nature is from the seed of Abraham, yet Christ is both Abraham’s seed and eternal Lord. The third theorem concerns those actions and properties of Christ that are not particular to one nature or the other but are the result of the incarnation and the office of mediator: “These are those statements which particularly are pertinent to his office and are said concerning the whole Christ [toto Christo] and the whole of Christ [toto Christi], namely the divine nature performing what is divine but the human nature what is human.”202 Christ has become the mediator between God and man, offered the sacrifice for sin, and reigns as the head of his church, not according to one nature or the 199 Peto igitur a lectoribus, ut superiorum Theorematum meminerint, quandoquidem intra hos cardines vertetur omnis nostra responsio, et diligenter animaduertant (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation). 200 Quaedam dicuntur de Christo quae secundum Divinam eius naturaum tantum intelligenda sunt. Examples: Rom. 9; John 8; Heb. 1; 2 John 1; Col. 1:17. Quaedam discunter de Christo, quae secundum Humanam eius naturam tantum intelligenda sunt. Examples: Luke 1, 2:52; Matt. 4, 16, 26. Quaedam dicuntur de Christo, quae secdundum eius Personam tantum intelligenda sunt. Examples:  Matt. 7; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 2; Heb. 8, 9; 1 Cor. 1.  (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation).  201 According to Chandieu’s usage, the name “Christ” refers to the person according to both natures. Quia Christus est nomen Personae (Chandieu, Opera, 170). 202 Et consimilia pleraque, ea praesertim quae ad ipsius officium pertinent, dicunturque de toto Christo, et toto Christi, nempe agente Deitate quae Divina sunt, Humanitate vero quae humana, (inquiunt Veteres) (Chandieu, Opera, 188).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  259 other but because the eternal Son has taken to himself a full human nature and existence. Chandieu thus employs a modification of the totus/​totum distinction to convey this reality. This distinction is taken from Peter Lombard and has been employed previously by Calvin and Vermigli, yet in very limited ways.203 Totus in the masculine gender refers to the person of Christ, the who of the union, while totum in the neuter refers to Christ according to his natures, the what of the union. This distinction, while not identical, maps onto the in concreto/​in abstracto distinction. Therefore, in a statement regarding Christ as mediator, the whole Christ, the person, and the whole of Christ, both natures, are intended. Such statements are distinguished from the fourth and fifth theorems. These refer to the whole Christ (toto Christo) but not to the whole of Christ (toto Christi). Such statements as these are the standard texts for reflection on the communicatio idiomatum: Theorem 4: Certain things are said concerning Christ as God, which ought to be understood according to his human nature.   Theorem 5: Certain things are said concerning Christ as man, which ought to be understood according to his divine nature.204

In these cases, the primary referent is the person of Christ according to a particular nature, with properties of the other nature having been attributed to the person: “Indeed these things are thus said concerning the whole Christ [toto Christo] so that they are not said concerning the whole of Christ [toto Christi].”205 For instance, the person of Christ was crucified according to the office of mediator, according to the rules of theorem 3; therefore, Paul can say, “God who bought the church with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). This statement refers to the totus Christus (the whole Christ); the person is the active subject of suffering and sacrifice. The specific phrase “his own blood,” however, does not refer properly to the totum Christi (the whole of Christ), 203

For this distinction in the medieval period, see Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology,  34–​44. Quaedam dicuntur de Christo Deo quae secundum eius Humanam naturam intelligenda sunt, Examples: 1 Cor. 2:8 and Acts 20:28. Quaedam dicuntur de Christo homine, que secundum eius Divinam naturam intelligenda sunt. Examples: John 3; Matt. 9; John 6. (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation) 205 Quae quidem ita dicuntur de toto Christo ut non dicantur de Toto Christi (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation).

204

260  The Flesh of the Word since the quality of having blood and suffering is particular to the human nature of the suffering subject. These theorems are for Chandieu nothing other than the application of the Chalcedonian logic to statements about Christ, and it is for this reason that he concludes his case for the communicatio with a quotation of the Chalcedonian Formula.206 Since Christ’s natures are inseparable and indivisibly united in the single hypostasis, any predication must apply to the whole Christ (toto Christo), yet if they are to remain so united without conversion or change not all properties will apply to the whole of Christ (toto Christi).207 With regard to the extra Calvinisticum, Chandieu holds that Christ is everywhere according to his person by dint of the omnipresent divine nature; thus the whole Christ is everywhere. Since, however, this is an essential quality of the divine nature and contrary to the essential, spatial limitation of the human nature, the whole of Christ is not everywhere. Anything less than this for Chandieu is to nullify Christ’s status as mediator and perpetuate an ontological confusion of the natures of Christ in violation of Chalcedonian christology. It is this very error that he sees in the Lutheran doctrine of the “real” communication of attributes. Chandieu initially describes the Lutherans’ position of the communicatio from their own perspective: In the person of Christ, the divine nature of the Logos and the properties of this nature share or κοινωνειν with the human nature (the word “communicandi” “are shared” is used interchangeably), that is, are most closely and personally united with the human nature, which the Logos assumed. And this is a true and real sharing of properties, or mutual participation [communio], which Scripture teaches, the Fathers recognized, and all the orthodox piously and religiously embrace.208 206 Chandieu, Opera, 153. 207 According to van Asselt, this distinction will continue to have significant weight in the division between the Lutheran and Reformed tradition beyond early orthodoxy. Willem J. van Asselt, “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​Reformation Reformed Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, ed. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 215. It is possible that Chandieu was the first to introduce this formulation into the intra-​Protestant christological debate as a significant point of discussion. 208 In persona Christi, Naturam divinam του λογου, et ipsius Naturae proprietates, comunicare, sive, κοινωνειν Humanae naturae (verbo communicandi intransitive accepto) hoc est, arctissime, et Personaliter uniri cum Humana natura, quam ipse λογος assumpit. Et haec est vera et Realis proprietatum communicatio, sive, communio, quam Scriptura tradit, quam Veteres agnoverunt, et quam Orthodoxi omnes pie et religiose amplectuntur (Chandieu, Opera, 149–​50, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  261 We have already seen how he attempts to erode the foundations of this position through his exposition of the Scriptures and his study of the fathers’ conception of the communicatio. He goes further to refute this “real” communication by investigating distinctions and applying syllogistic logic. He summarizes his fundamental critique of the Lutheran communicatio thus: “[T]‌hose who uphold the doctrine of omnipresence or ubiquity first affirm that the communication of properties is real, that is, essential (whatever at length they pretend), and they consider this not in the person but in its natures. Then, they understand the word ‘communicari’ as to become common.”209 Although Chandieu will continue to offer many arguments against the “real” communicatio, this statement encompasses the heart of his critique. Throughout De veritate, Chandieu rejects Chemnitz’s distinction between a “real” and an “essential” sharing of attributes between the two natures in Christ. In claiming a “real” communication in which properties become common not to the person but to the natures themselves, the Lutherans are proposing an essential sharing of properties between the human and divine natures. According to Chandieu’s assessment, this is a violation of the communicatio, as understood by the fathers and the medievals since the Lutheran “real” communicatio claims that properties become common in abstracto, i.e., to the natures considered in themselves, and not only in concreto, i.e., as considered according to Christ’s person.210 Further, given the simplicity of the divine nature, it is not possible to distinguish between the divine essence and attributes in a “real” manner. Therefore, divine attributes cannot be communicated to the human nature without communicating the whole, simple divine essence.211 Because of this, such a “real” sharing would result in Eutychianism and a confusion of natures:

209 Illi qui dogma Omnipraesentiae, sive Ubiquitatis tuentur, primum affirmant, communionem prorietatum esse realem, hoc est, essentialem (quicquid tandem praetexant) eamque non in Persona, sed in ipsius Naturis considerant. Deinde, verbo Comunicari, intelligunt, commune fieri (Chandieu, Opera, 152, my translation). 210 For an example, Chemnitz states, “When it [Christ’s human nature] is considered according to its natural principles in itself, of itself, either outside or inside the union, possesses qualities above, beyond, or contrary to the natural conditions of human nature.” Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 242. 211 Quod siquis Reale, sine Re, consideret, ille merito dici posset sine ratione ratiocinari. Proprietates autem Divinae naturae, de quibus hic agitur, sunt ipsa Deitatis essentia, adeoque ipsa Deitas; quia Deitas est simplicissima, et nihil accidit Deitati. In hac ergo quaestione, Reale idem est, quod verum et essentiale: et Realiter, idem quod vere et essentialiter, nec ulla subterfugia quaeri possunt (Chandieu, Opera, 152, my translation).

262  The Flesh of the Word If the communication of properties is real, the equalization and confusion of the natures in Christ follows—​which is not so. The consequence is clear from the rule of confusion, which is when two or more things and their properties are shared, i.e. become common. For we are speaking about essential properties or (as some prefer) conditions, which if they become common will be common of the things themselves and also, without a doubt, of the natures. Therefore, some other third composite emerges from the sharing of those original things.212

Because the divine nature is simple, its properties cannot be shared with the human nature in a piecemeal fashion.213 A “real” sharing of divine omnipresence to the human nature is a sharing of the divine nature itself, which would mean that the human nature possesses divine attributes in such a way that it is a third thing, neither human nor divine. While the first description of the Lutheran position, offered by Chandieu, seems likely to be affirmed by his opponents, the critique offered in the second description—​that a “real” communication is an essential communication—​would be violently rejected. To address this objection, Chandieu dedicates the remainder of ­chapter 3 and all of ­chapter 4 to refuting the strategies, arguments, and distinctions that the Lutherans propose to support their claim of a “real” but not essential sharing of attributes. Before turning to this subject, a summary of Chandieu’s doctrine of the communicatio is in order. For Chandieu, the communicatio idiomatum is a doctrine that arises from Scripture’s own way of speaking. Properly considered it is a mode of speaking about the two natures in the one person of Christ, which reflects the prior ontological reality that the eternal Logos has assumed to himself a concrete human nature in the closest possible union. The unifying hypostasis is the locus of all action, whether acting in accordance with the properties of the human nature, the divine nature, or both. The properties of both natures belong to the eternal preexistent person of the Son

212 Si realis est communicatio proprietatum, sequitur Naturarum in Christo exaequatio, et confusio, quod absit. Consequentia patet ex ratione confusionis, quae sit, quum res duae, vel plures, earumque proprietates communicantur, hoc est, communes fiunt. Loquimur enim de proprietatibus sive (ut nonnulli malunt) conditionibus essentialibus, quae quidem si communes fiunt, proculdubio ipsae quoque naturae communes erunt. Quod, quum fit, tum emergit aliquid tertium ex rerum illarum communicatione compositum (Chandieu, Opera, 156, my translation). 213 Si realis est communicatio proprietatum. Ergo illi dicunt pugnantia; quippe qui negent, omnes divinae naturae proprietates communicari Humanae naturae, ne scilicet cogantur statuere aeternitatem corporis Christi (Chandieu, Opera, 154).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  263 who has become the God-​man. Chandieu will call this the “real” and true communication: But if we are following Scripture, we ought to say that in Christ is a true and real union of the assuming divine nature with the assumed human nature. And, therefore, the natural properties of each nature are united in Christ truly and really, and this is the true and real communication of properties in Christ. Therefore, the omnipresence of the Logos is not divided from the circumscription of the body and neither, however, is the Logos circumscribed. And in turn the circumscription of the body is not divided from the omnipresence of the Logos; neither, however, is the body omnipresent.214

Therefore, there is a real, true, and ontological communication or sharing of attributes in Christ, but this is to his person and not to the natures themselves. All properties divine and human belong to the whole Christ (totus Christi), but not to the whole of Christ (totum Christi). The enhypostatic human nature has received the highest possible gifts, the finite dona, that such a nature can possess by this union, but not divine properties. Thus Chandieu utilizes the communicatio to perpetuate the extra Calvinisticum within the bounds of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, in conversation with the fathers, and by employing medieval scholastic distinctions.

4.4.6  Scholastic Distinctions and the extra Calvinisticum In accordance with Chandieu’s goal to set forth a scholastic treatment that dissects the body of human eloquence to expose internal error, he dedicates the final section of ­chapter 3 to the refutation of distinctions used to support the doctrine of ubiquity. By submitting these distinctions to logical analysis Chandieu seeks to overcome the Lutheran claim that the ubiquity of Christ’s human body is possible while preserving the integrity of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Chandieu exposes the rational entailments of ubiquity by 214 Quod si Scripturam sequamur, dicemus, in Christo esse veram et Realem Unionem Divinae naturae assumentis, cum Humana natura assumpta. Ac proinde naturales utriusque naturae proprietates esse in Christ vere et realiter unitas, et hanc esse veram et realem in Christo Communionem Proprietarum. Itaque omnipraesentia λογου non separatur a circunscriptione corporis:  neque tamen ὁ λογος circunscribitur. Et vicissim circunscriptio corporis non separatur ab Omnipraesentia λογου: neque tamen Corpus sit Omnipraesens (Chandieu, Opera, 159, my translation).

264  The Flesh of the Word demonstrating the insufficiency and instability of the distinctions used to preserve this integrity. Chandieu begins the section by setting out four criteria for properly formed theological distinctions and then investigates eight distinctions used to support the “real” communicatio.215 For each distinction, he sets forth its definition, numbered reasons for its failure to accomplish its task, often introduced with names of the fallacies committed, and occasionally a retort (retorqetur), by which the distinction is turned back against its intended purpose.216 I will expound Chandieu’s general rules for proper theological distinction before explicating his refutation of the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction, which Chemnitz used to justify his understanding of the genus maiesticum. This distinction is the most fundamental Chandieu addresses, being both typical of his method of refutation and offering the overarching framework into which the others fall. The refutation of these distinctions is Chandieu’s attempt to answer objections to his previous arguments, especially that there is no distinction between a “real” and an “essential” communication of attributes. His use of the scholastic methodology provided a new level of rigor and exactness to the polemics in favor of the extra. Chandieu begins with several arguments concerning the nature of proper theological distinctions before moving to specific refutation. The concern for proper distinction puts him in line with both the medieval and early modern scholastic methodology. Distinctions were an essential part of the toolkit of scholastic method, which brought clarity to knotty theological questions through careful differentiation of terms and senses of words. As van Asselt notes, the proper understanding of distinctions stretches from the medieval schoolmen through the period of Protestant orthodoxy and was a preoccupation of both Catholic and Protestant scholastics, “for making clear distinctions (distinguere) was the heart of the scholastic tradition.”217 Chandieu presents four critiques of Lutheran distinctions that seek to maintain that Christ’s body is simultaneously finite and omnipresent. These critiques function as criteria for well-​formed theological distinctions. He first argues that no distinction that destroys the nature of the things being distinguished can be rightly considered “theological” or even a distinction 215 Chandieu, Opera, 160–​70. 216 For a discussion of the scholastic technique of retort, see Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 259–​60. 217 Willem J. van Asselt, “The Theologian’s Toolkit:  Johannes Maccovius (1588–​1644) and the Development of Reformed Theological Distinctions,” Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 1 (2006): 28.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  265 at all.218 By “theological” here Chandieu is recalling the nature of theology as science based on the principia cognoscendi of Scripture. A distinction that, rather than preserving the natures of the things distinguished, destroys their substance through the act of distinguishing could not be based on the truth of God’s word. In fact, this would result in nothing to distinguish at all: “For if you want to distinguish one thing from another, and you destroy both; I ask you, what are you distinguishing?”219 Chandieu supports this assertion by appealing to his previous arguments that ubiquity destroys the human nature of Christ and compromises divine simplicity as well as building on his previous scriptural principia to set theological limitations on distinctions. In his second critique, Chandieu argues that no distinction that entails a contradiction can be considered properly formed. He argues that this is the case with the presented distinctions in support of ubiquity “because they desire to prove that the body really and at the same time is finite and infinite.”220 Further, these distinctions violate the proper function of a distinction itself, which is to bring clarity: “For distinctions are set apart in order to produce light on things, and by them things which seem more difficult to understand are rendered easier to understand.”221 According to Chandieu, the position purported by ubiquity, however, brings darkness instead of light with the idea of an illocal, corporeal presence of a really finite and infinite human body. He therefore labels these distinctions “inexplicable.”222 And finally, no distinction can properly be considered a theological distinction if it upholds something that is denied by Scripture. Ubiquity violates the clear meaning of the biblical text in claiming “the body of Christ is everywhere, which both the gospel history and all the writings of the Apostles contradict; as was clear from the Scriptural loci cited above.”223 Through these four

218 Chandieu, Opera, 161. 1. Nullae distinctiones quae tollunt ipsa subiecta inter quae distinguere videntur, sunt Theologicae: ac ne distinctiones quidem. 2. Sequentes distinctiones ad confirmandam corporis Christi omnipraesentiam adhibitae, tollunt ipsa subjecta inter quae distinguere videntur. 3. Non sunt igitur Theologicae distinctiones, ac ne distinctiones quidem. 219 Etenim si velis unum ab altero distinuere, et utrumque tollis; obsecro te, quidnam distinguis? (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation). 220 Quia hoc volunt efficere, ut corpus realiter et simul sit finitum et infinitum (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation). 221 Abhibentur enim distinctiones ut rebus lucem afferant, et ea quae alioqui difficiliora videbantur, reddantur faciliora (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation). 222 Chandieu, Opera, 161. 223 Nempe Corpus Christi esse ubique: cui tum historia Euangelica, tum omnia scripta Apostolorum contradicunt: ut perspicuum fuit ex Scipturae locis supra citatis (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation).

266  The Flesh of the Word arguments Chandieu integrates the practice of distinction with his theological and scholastic method. To function properly, distinctions must preserve the integrity of the terms distinguished. Distinctions must be consonant with the scriptural principia and in conformity with the ancillary function of logic by avoiding contradiction. And they must produce clarity rather than obscurity, in line with the overarching purpose of scholastic method to produce clear and “naked arguments,” by avoiding the possible obfuscation of the rhetorical method. The first Lutheran distinction that Chandieu refutes is the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction, which is the most foundational of Chemnitz’s christology. Chandieu defines this distinction as follows: The body of Christ is indeed finite and circumscribed, per se [essentially or according to itself], but it is omnipresent and everywhere κατ’ ἀλλο, that is according to another thing; because the body has this quality not from the nature of a body, but from the hypostatic union, through which it is united to the λογος. The λογος is omnipresent, and shares with the body, such that it is also omnipresent.224

Proponents of ubiquity use this distinction to overcome the accusations of contradiction and confusion. First, it addresses the criticism that there is a simple contradiction in saying that Christ’s body is at the same time finite and infinite. This contradiction holds only if the body is A and ~A at the same time and in the same way. This distinction avoids the contradiction. The body is A and ~A at the same time but not in the same way. It is finite per se and infinite κατ’ ἀλλο. Second, the accusation of confusion is addressed by avoiding a straightforwardly ontological or essential predication of a divine attribute to the human nature. Many of the distinctions Chandieu addresses have this same aim. Thereby the goal of the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction is to keep Lutheran christology within the bounds of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Before turning to Chandieu’s refutation of this idea, we can achieve greater clarity by briefly investigating Chemnitz’s use of this concept more fully. Chemnitz takes the terminology of per se and κατ’ ἀλλο from the Damascene and uses it to explain the nature of predication in the three 224 Corpus Christi esse quidem finitum et cirunscriptum, Per se, sed esse omnipraesens et ubique κατ’ ἀλλο, hoc est, secundum aliud; quia hoc habet, non a natura corporis, sed ab Unione hypostatica, per quam τῳ λογῳ unitum est. λογος autem est omnipraesens, et communicat Corpori, ut sit quoque omnipraesens (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  267 genera of the communicatio. In the context of the first two genera, κατ’ ἀλλο indicates one of Christ’s natures. Thus the Lord of glory is crucified, but the deity does not suffer or die except κατ’ ἀλλο, according to the human nature.225 In the genus maiestaticum, however, Chemnitz shifts the referent of κατ’ ἀλλο to the hypostatic union rather than the natures. Thus he quotes Cyril to this effect: “Cyril says, ‘The flesh of Christ is life-​giving not according to itself (καθ’ ἐαυτην) but according to and through something else (κατ’ ἀλλο δι’ ἀλλο) in this case according to the union.’ ”226 Chemnitz sets forth, then, two different functions and referents of κατ’ ἀλλο. In the first instance, which corresponds to the first two genera, it applies to statements that predicate a quality of one nature that is proper to the other. Thus God dies κατ’ ἀλλο, i.e., according to the human nature assumed by the Logos. In this way, the predication of a particular attribute is properly reckoned to the person according to the appropriate nature within the union. But, moving from Cyril, another meaning is given such that the κατ’ ἀλλο refers to the hypostatic union itself. According to Chemnitz, the human nature of Christ is life-​giving not in the sense that the person of Christ is life-​giving according to the divine nature, but the human nature itself is life-​giving by the power of the union. This difference can be more clearly seen when applied to the statement “God dies.” In the second sense of κατ’ ἀλλο, the divine nature dies according to the union, not that the person of Christ fully God and fully man dies according to the human nature. Chemnitz, however, would reject such a statement, since it confuses the natures.227 This second use of the κατ’ ἀλλο is the rationale for the communication of omnipresence to the human nature. Thus, according to Chemnitz, the human nature of Christ is everywhere not per se, considered in itself, but κατ’ ἀλλο, by the hypostatic union. In sum, Chemnitz uses the phrase κατ’ ἀλλο in two distinct ways: one where ἀλλο refers to a nature, and the other where it refers to the union of natures. In the first, a predicate is applied to one nature of Christ verbally, because the person has that attribute according to the other nature, κατ’ ἀλλο. In the second sense, a predicate is applied to one nature metaphysically, because of the hypostatic union, κατ’ ἀλλο. It is this shift in meaning and implication that Chandieu seeks to bring to light through his rejection of this distinction.



225 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 184.

226 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 184, citing Cyril, De Recta Fide, Basel ed. III, 279. 227 Chemnitz, The Two Natures in Christ, 163.

268  The Flesh of the Word According to Chandieu, the Lutherans’ use of term κατ’ ἀλλο diverges from its traditional theological use. Κατ’ ἀλλο, he says, designates a type of verbal communicatio idiomatum by which in concreto predications of one nature’s attributes are applied to the other by dint of the hypostasis possessing both natures. To show this, Chandieu enlists the same fathers, John of Damascus and Cyril of Alexandria, that Chemnitz employs to support his use of the distinction.228 Especially from the work of Cyril, Chandieu draws out a connection between the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction and a complementing or grounding distinction: alius et alius versus aliud et aliud—​one person and another person versus one thing and another thing.229 This distinction is the Latin translation of the Greek ἀλλος και ἀλλος versus ἀλλο και ἀλλο, which perhaps derives from Gregory of Nazianzus and is utilized by Cyril against Nestorius.230 This distinction was picked up by the scholastics, both medieval and early modern, to denote the difference between nature and hypostasis. The neuter gender (aliud and ἀλλο) signifies nature, and the masculine gender (alius and ἀλλος) signifies hypostasis. For instance, the persons of the Trinity are alius et alius but not aliud et aliud because there is a distinction of person but not of essence or nature. On the other hand, the human and divine natures of Christ are aliud et aliud but not alius et alius, since there exists no division of person but a distinction of natures.231 Chandieu offers an extensive quotation from Cyril’s Scholia addressing christological predication, in order to support the use of this distinction in the fathers: How was he [Christ] born and yet called everything into being, according to one nature and the other [Aliud et Aliud]. He was born in that he was man, and called everything into being in that he was by nature God. . . . How is he called only-​begotten and firstborn? According to one nature and the other [Aliud et Aliud]. . . . Likewise how does he sanctify and yet was sanctified; baptizes and was baptized? Again, according to one nature and the other [Aliud et Aliud]. In what way is he said to be resurrected, vivified, and 228 Chandieu, Opera, 161–​62. 229 Chandieu, Opera, 162. 230 For the distinction in Nazianzus, see Andrew Hofer, O.P, Christ in the Life and Teaching of Gregory of Nazianzus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 135–​36. For how this distinction was misunderstood by Nestorius, see Alois Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, trans. John Bowden (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975), 1:516. 231 Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 30. See, for example, ST 3a, 2, 3 in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae: Volume 48, The Incarnate Word: 3a. 1–​6, ed. R. J. Hennessey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 50.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  269 awakened from the dead? Of course, according to one nature and the other [Aliud et Aliud]. He suffers and does not suffer according to one nature and the other. For he suffered humanly in the flesh, because he is man, and he remains divinely impassible, because he is God. He himself worshiped with us, and yet still ought to be worshiped [by us]. This is also according to one nature and the other [Aliud et Aliud]. . . . However, the one who ought to be worshipped is one.232

Chandieu uses Cyril to establish that ἀλλο in the neuter (aliud) refers to nature and not to the person or the union. As this term is used in the Lutheran distinction in support of ubiquity, κατ’ ἀλλο refers neither to Christ’s person nor his natures but to the hypostatic union. Chandieu contends that this is a novel form of expression that threatens disastrous confusion of an ancient way of expressing the unity of the two natures in the one person of Christ by which “we seek to hold the right course between the rocks of Eutychianism and Nestorianism.”233 Thus even in specific refutations of ubiquity throughout the text the confluence of Chandieu’s method is evident as he draws on the fathers and scholastic distinctions to preserve the Chalcedonian logic. From his critique of the novelty of the reference κατ’ ἀλλο, Chandieu turns to evaluate its function as a distinction to promote ubiquity while preserving the human nature of Christ. Chandieu argues that the Lutheran use of the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction results in a contradiction with other Lutheran claims regarding the preservation of the natures in Christ. If this can be shown, Chandieu effectively overcomes the force of this distinction given the criteria he has provided for a proper theological distinction. He demonstrates this contradiction by comparing the use of the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction with the Lutheran claim

232 This quotation was modified and edited to emphasize the aliud et aliud distinction made by Cyril from his Scholia. Cyril of Alexandria, Operum divi Cyrilli Alexandrini episcopi (Basil: Ioannem Hervagium, 1546), 4:255–​56. Natus est, ad nativitatem vocat, secundum Aliud et Aliud. Natus est eo quod Homo, vocat ad nativitatem eo quod natura sit Deus, etc. Quomodo proficit puer, et sapientia impletur et gratia? secundum Aliud et Aliud, etc. Quomodo Unigenitus et Primogentius dicitur? secundum Aliud et Aliud, etc. Quomodo idem sanctificat et sanctificatur: bapizat et baptizatur? Secundum Aliud porro et Aliud. Resurrexisse et vivificari et suscitare a mortuis, et vivifacare dicitur, quonam modo? Secundum Aliud nempe et Aliud. Patitur et non patitur, secundum Aliud et Aliud. Patitur autem Humana carne, eo quod Homo sit: Impassibilis autem Divine manet ut Deus. Adoravit ipse nobiscum. Adest etiam adorandus. Hoc quoque secundum Aliud et Aliud, etc. Unus tamen adorandus, etc. [added in 2nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 162). 233 Ut rectum cursum teneamus inter Entychetis et Nestorii scopulos [added in 2nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 162, my translation).

270  The Flesh of the Word that “the communication [sharing] of properties was real, while preserving the special character of both natures.”234 Chandieu argues that, while attempting to maintain the Chalcedonian logic of the incarnation, the proponents of ubiquity reject a confusion of attributes or peculiar properties and affirm the corollary that these properties remain intact in the hypostatic union. Thus, according to the hypostatic union, the properties of both the human and divine natures remain unchanged. The set of the human nature’s peculiar properties includes the attribute of being finite and circumscribed within the dimensions of the body. The proponents of ubiquity affirm this since they posit the finitude of the human nature per se, essentially or according to itself. If this is the case, then finitude is preserved according to the hypostatic union. Thus Chandieu argues, “[I]‌f the special character of the human nature is preserved in the personal union, therefore the body of Christ is not everywhere κατ’ ἀλλο, even as they use the term. For what even is the ‘aliud’ to which they refer? Is it not the union of person with the Logos?”235 Thus by the force of the distinction compared with the affirmation that the properties are preserved in the union, Chandieu derives the following contradiction: 1. According to the principle of nonconfusion: the body of Christ has the property of spatial finitude, per se, which is preserved in the hypostatic union, κατ’ ἀλλο. 2. According to the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction as presented: the body of Christ has the property of spatial finitude, per se, and also the property of omnipresence or infinitude, κατ’ ἀλλο, that is according to the power of the hypostatic union. 3. Therefore, Christ’s body κατ’ ἀλλο, according to the hypostatic union, both has the property of being finite and not finite, which is a contradiction.236 Thus, far from avoiding the contradiction threatened by the doctrine of ubiquity, the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction, as used by Chemnitz, exhibits and

234 Sic enim illi Realis, inquiunt, proprietatum communicatio facta est, seruata utriusque naturae proprietate (Chandieu, Opera, 163, my translation). 235 Si in Unione Personali servatur Humanae naturae proprietas: Ergo Corpus Christi non est ubique κατ’ ἀλλο, ut quidem illi usurpant hoc loquendi genus. Ecquid enim illis est istud Aliud? nonne est Union Personalis cum τῳ λογῳ? (Chandieu, Opera, 163, my translation). 236 Chandieu, Opera, 163.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  271 perpetuates it: “For to remain finite in the personal union and to become infinite by the personal union is a contradiction.”237 Chandieu concludes his refutation of the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction with a retort, which turns the distinction back on itself to support the extra. Van Raalte defines this scholastic move as “proffering a correction by showing how an opponent’s premises might support one’s own thesis.”238 The marginal notation of the treatise marks this argument with Distinctio retorquetur.239 In this case, Chandieu offers what he considers a proper understanding of the per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο distinction articulated in line with its use in the Damascene and Cyril. Christ’s human nature is finite per se—​that is, according to the human nature considered in itself. Chandieu can affirm that Christ’s human nature can be called omnipresent κατ’ ἀλλο. But ἀλλο here refers to the divine nature in the hypostatic union, not the union itself. The statement “Christ’s human nature is omnipresent κατ’ ἀλλο” must be understood in concreto, i.e., in reference to the person of Christ considered in his concrete particularity, not in abstracto, considered on the level of natures. Chandieu summarizes, “The body or actually the human nature of Christ is omnipresent; and we ought thus to speak concerning the person in concreto. Christ is omnipresent; Christ is everywhere. Just as this expression is true: the Lord of glory was crucified, but κατ’ ἀλλο, according to the human nature. But this expression in abstracto is false: deity was crucified.”240 For Chandieu, properly considered, the distinction of per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο supports the extra Calvinisticum rather than the doctrine of ubiquity. Christ is everywhere and omnipresent, transcending the limitations of the human body, according to the divine nature to which this property is peculiar, while the human nature and body of Christ remains spatially circumscribed. The person of Christ is both infinite and finite as the one mediator between God and humanity, truly human and truly divine unconfusedly and inseparably. Within this Chalcedonian framework, Chandieu articulates the communicatio idiomatum, which avoids an essential communication between the natures by understanding Christ’s person as the termination of all predication. He thereby secures an essential 237 Nam permanere finitum in Unione Personali, et fieri infinitum ab Unione Personali, dicuntur ἀντ ιφατικως (Chandieu, Opera, 163, my translation). 238 Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu, 260. 239 Chandieu, Opera, 166. 240 Corpus, vel, humana natura Christi est omnipraesens: et ita de Persona in Concreto dicendum est:  Christus est omnipraesens, Christus est ubique:  quemadmodum etiam hoc enunciatum verum est: Dominus gloriae crucifixus est: sed κατ’ ἀλλο propter Humanam naturam. Sed hoc enuntiatum in Abstracto est falsum: Deitas fuit crucifixa (Chandieu, Opera, 164, my translation).

272  The Flesh of the Word element of the extra Calvinisticum utilizing the witness of the fathers, the tools of syllogistic logic, and theological distinctions.

4.5 Conclusion In many ways, Antoine de la Roche Chandieu can be seen as an epitome of the continuity and development between the generation of the reformers and the following stage of orthodoxy. Furthermore, he is becoming acknowledged as one of the fathers of Reformed scholasticism, the method that would dominate Reformed academic discourse over the next two centuries. But in addition, his other activities and personal experience mirror the broader trends of “confessionalization and codification” as well as struggle on the national and international levels, which have been identified as marks of transition into the early orthodox period. More specifically for the historical and theological understanding of the extra Calvinisticum, scholars such as Willis and Gisel are mistaken that theologians of the early Reformed orthodox period removed the extra Calvinisticum from its biblical and theological roots and derived it from philosophical rather than biblical principia. Further, several of the foci of the extra in the scholarship on this period are misplaced, with their focus on the analogical argumentation for the doctrine, such as Antwerp and the ocean. Nor does Barth’s claim that the extra is a means of establishing a basis for natural theology have any purchase on the doctrine as articulated by Chandieu. Therefore, if Chandieu is indicative of other figures from this period, then perhaps the entirety of the early orthodox period avoids these critiques as well, although substantiating this claim would require a broader study. This conclusion is nevertheless strengthened by the absence of concern for the infinite and the finite, analogies such as Antwerp and the ocean, or natural theology in the scholastic treatment of Christ by other important theologians for the early orthodox period, such as William Perkins and William Bucanus.241 In the second edition of De veritate, Chandieu amended the opening lines of the treatise proper to reflect the gravity and bounds of inquiry into the incarnation:

241 See the locus of christology in William Perkins, Armilla aurea, 3rd ed. (Cantabrigiæ: Ex officina Johannis Legatt, 1590); Gulielmus Bucanus, Institutiones theologicae (Bern:  Johannes & Isaias le Preux, 1605).

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu  273 The personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, Augustine piously and most truly called “singularly miraculous and miraculously singular.” From which we ought to be reminded, when we deal with this singular and especially miraculous fact, then if at any other time, bidding human invention farewell and having been bound by the limits of the divine Scriptures concerning this most sacred mystery, we must argue piously and religiously from the most pure Word of God. Therefore, we assert the truth of the human nature of Christ, against the invention of the omnipresence of the same, which never before some years ago they have attempted to introduce into the Church, in order that we may prevail against it suitably and from the rule of our method.242

It is within this understanding of the mystery of the incarnation and the supremacy of the Scripture that Chandieu expounds the extra. Through a careful application of his scholastic method he moves from the principia cognoscendi of Scripture to set forth the nature of Christ’s human body in its finitude united hypostatically to the eternal Logos. Christ exists both wholly in the flesh and yet still transcends it. Chandieu buttresses this doctrine with analytic reasoning, scholastic distinctions, and the support of the church fathers. Even so, he sought never to transgress the bounds of Scripture nor rationalize the incarnation’s “singularly miraculous and miraculously singular” nature.

242 Divinae et Humanae naturae Personalem in Christo unionem Augustinus singulariter mirabilem et mirabiliter singularem pie et verissime appellavit. Ex quo nos admonitos voluit, ut quando in hoc singulari atque imprimis mirabili argumento versabimur, tum, si unquam alias, humanis commentis valere iussis, divinarum Scripturarum finibus inclusi de hoc sanctissimo mysterio, ex purissimo Dei Verbo pie ac religiose disseramus. Quare quum nobis propositum sit Humanae Christi naturae veritatem asserere, adversus commentum de ipsius Omnipreaesentia quam nonnulli, ante aliquot annos, in Ecclesiam invehere conati sunt: ut id commode et ex methodi nostrae ratione praestare possimus [added in 2nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 141, my translation).

Conclusion C.1  Summary of Content and Contributions In 1631, as the Thirty Years’ War raged around them, three Reformed and three Lutheran theologians met at Leipzig. On the table were the same issues that just over a hundred years earlier had occupied Luther and Zwingli at Marburg: Protestant unity in the face of Catholic military threat and the prospect of confessional rapprochement.1 Over weeks of debate and negotiation, the two parties pronounced agreement on twenty-​six of the twenty-​ eight articles of the Augsburg Invariata. On this occasion, the impasse was not the presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, as at Marburg. The confessional parties concurred that “in the spiritual partaking not only the power, benefit, and effect, but also the being and the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ are partaken in the Lord’s Supper as it takes place here in the world.”2 Thus it seemed the fault line over eucharistic presence had been overcome, the only remaining point of contention being the question of the eating for those who lacked faith—​the manducatio impiorum.3 Yet the Leipzig Colloquy laid bared the deeper division between the confessional bodies that the Marburg Articles had passed over in silence. This fissure was over the hypostatic union and its implications for the body of Christ. After laying down twelve points of agreement on Christ’s person, the Reformed demurred:

1 For the context and outcomes of the Leipzig Colloquy (1631), see Bodo Nischan, “Reformed Irenicism and the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631,” Central European History 9, no. 1 (1976): 3–​26. 2 “Leipzig Colloquy (1631),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. Peter Van Der Schaaf (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 4:175. 3 Although the agreement on this point likely stemmed from a double-​reading technique or strategic vagueness, such as advocated by Bucer for the Wittenberg Concord, without the deeper theological issues being resolved. The Leipzig document would not have any ultimate effect on Reformed and Lutheran unity. The Flesh of the Word. K.J. Drake, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197567944.003.0006

Conclusion  275 One thing only they [the Reformed] steadfastly deny and hold to be contrary to the Holy Scripture—​that Christ, according to the manhood (or according to His human nature and being; or the body of Christ according to its substance and being in some invisible manner) is in all places and with all creatures, either in the state of humiliation or in the state of exaltation, either because of the personal union or because of the session on the right hand of God.4

The extra Calvinisticum, here expressed in its negative form as the rejection of ubiquity, was the immovable point, and unlike the Marburg Articles the importance of this division was clearly stated and brought to light. Despite over one hundred years of polemics and theological developments as well as the pressing demands of a war-​torn Europe, the person of Christ and especially the nature of his body remained the main cause behind the parting of ways between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. The early work of Ulrich Zwingli highlights the emergence of the extra from his understanding of the saving significance of Christ as mediator and of the ascension. The historic meeting at Marburg demonstrates how the extra emerged and developed through polemical engagement with Luther and how different understandings of the place of reason, the interpretation of Scripture, and the nature of God’s power contributed to the christological divide between Luther and the Swiss. The extra was then perpetuated by the work of Bullinger and Calvin and confessionalized in the Consensus Tigurinus, which disseminated the doctrine throughout the Reformed world and represented the definitive break between the Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Reformation as a result of the extra and the view of eucharistic presence that it supports. The Consensus led to renewed polemics over the Supper, which quickly moved firmly into the locus of christology, as proponents of the doctrines of ubiquity and the extra vied for Protestant support. Peter Martyr Vermigli took up this challenge with his Dialogue against Johannes Brenz through an exposition of Chalcedonian logic of the extra and further support from the church fathers and a scripturally modified, Aristotelian cosmology. In the period of early Reformed orthodoxy Chandieu further supported the Reformed doctrine in his work De veritate. Chandieu’s treatise revealed that the scholastic method, rather than distorting the doctrine, built on the same foundations and produced a rigorous account of the 4 “Leipzig Colloquy,” 4:173–​74.

276  The Flesh of the Word extra based on the principia of Scripture. Chandieu developed his scholastic account in dialogue with the church fathers to address advancing Lutheran polemics. Rather than being a peripheral or esoteric question, the extra rests at the heart of the division between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions in the sixteenth century. In fact, it is this dispute over the nature of Christ’s humanity that represented the impassible divide between the traditions as they developed over the course of the sixteenth century even more than the dispute over the Lord’s Supper, which can be seen as both the site and the product of the christological divergence. The formulation arose from a complex set of doctrinal concerns and had ramifications for various aspects of the theological development of each tradition, ranging from concepts of the sacraments, christology, anthropology, cosmology, theological method, and so on.

C.2  The Ramifications of the Extra beyond Christology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries The debate over the extra and ubiquity revealed a deep theological division between the two leading magisterial Protestant traditions, which would exercise great influence on each tradition’s development beyond the sixteenth century. The divergent paths of the Reformed and Lutheran traditions on christology were not an isolated concept but overflowed into various theological, philosophical, and practical topics. To demonstrate the usefulness of this study for understanding later developments and to support the centrality of the extra in intra-​Protestant dispute, I  will offer three brief case studies that demonstrate the far-​reaching consequences of the christological debate beyond christology. First, the commitment to the finitude of Christ’s humanity led the Reformed to a different understanding of theology itself through the discussion of the knowledge of God accessible to Christ’s human mind, the theologia unionis. Second, each tradition’s understanding of Christ’s body contributed to different concepts of bodies themselves and to the confessionalization of physics in early modern universities. Third, the different concepts of the presence of Christ’s body resulted in different eucharistic ritual practices.

Conclusion  277

C.2.1 The Extra and the Theologia Unionis From the logic of the extra Calvinisticum, Reformed theologians drew conclusions regarding the knowledge of Christ’s human mind, the theologia unionis, which had ramifications on their understanding of the telos of theology itself.5 The question of the theologia unionis asks what type of knowledge of God Christ’s human mind possesses according to its union with the divine nature. The Reformed scholastic theologians distinguished between archetypal and ectypal knowledge of God.6 Archetypal knowledge of God is God’s own self-​knowledge, which is complete, infinite, perfect, and one with his nature. Franciscus Junius, one of the first Reformed theologians to make this distinction, defines archetypal knowledge as “the divine wisdom of divine matters. Indeed, we stand in awe before this and do not seek to trace it out.”7 On the other hand, humans possess only ectypal knowledge of God through his revelation of himself. This ectypal knowledge applies both to theology in via, or theology of the pilgrim (viator), and in patria, the perfected human knowledge of God in humanity’s final state. Ectypal knowledge is the subject of our theology, which is true only inasmuch as it reflects God’s archetypal knowledge of himself. As Herman Bavinck explains, “The distinction contains the true idea that the ectypal knowledge of God that is granted to creatures by revelation is not the absolute self-​knowledge of God but the knowledge of God as it has been accommodated to and made fit for the finite consciousness.”8 Following the medieval scholastics, Reformed theologians reflected on the nature of knowledge that Christ’s human nature/​ mind possessed, which is held to be the proper telos at which human theological thinking should aim.9 Is this knowledge ectypal or archetypal? The Reformed answer to this question is predicated on their understanding of the hypostatic union and the insistence that the human nature does not 5 Richard A.  Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:  Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 304. 6 For a helpful introduction to these categories, see Willem J. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology:  Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (September 2002): 319–​35. 7 Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 107. 8 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:214. 9 For an extended discussion of the theoloia unionis in the Reformed orthodoxy, see Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2003), 1:248–​55; Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 330–​32.

278  The Flesh of the Word partake of divine attributes in such a way that a comingling of natures occurs. As the extra expresses the effect of Christ’s two natures with regard to space and locality, the theologia unionis attempts to express the epistemological implications of the hypostatic union. Junius defines the theologia unionis as follows: “[T]‌he theology of union is the whole wisdom of divine matters, communicated with Christ as God-​man, that is, as the Word made flesh, according to His humanity.”10 This knowledge is “most absolute according to the mode of a created nature.”11 Thus the Reformed followed through the christological implications of the extra, which have been seen since Zwingli, such that a true human growth and development and true ignorance is possible for the human nature.12 Thus the person of Christ has both archetypal knowledge, as the eternal Son of the Father, and the highest conceivable form of ectypal knowledge: And so in Christ our Redeemer the mode of communicating theological wisdom is twofold: One is divine, according to His deity. The other is quasi-​ divine according to His humanity. This quasi-​divine mode, moreover, is on the one hand divine in its own eternal foundation and remaining eternal in the unity of his person. And on the other hand it is quasi-​divine or very close to the divine, according to its own manner. For both had to exist simultaneously in Christ our mediator, so that by this arrangement He could reconcile and unite divine with things human, reconcile God to men, and lead men to God.13

Junius here is moving from the same Chalcedonian logic that underpinned the extra: the single person of Christ possesses the infinite perfection of the eternal Son and the finite perfection of humanity. This theologia unionis is the foundation of all proper creaturely knowledge of God and makes it possible, since the theologia unionis’s final cause, the end for which it exists, is “the illumination of those who have been created according to God’s image.”14 Therefore, the Reformed saw Christ’s role as mediator extending beyond salvation to all the ways of knowing God, which continues into the eschaton. All 10 Junius, A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, 124. 11 Junius, A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, 126. 12 See, for instance, Ulrich Zwingli, “Fidei Ratio,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T.  Dennison Jr., trans. S.  M. Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 1:115. 13 Junius, A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, 126. 14 Junius, A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, 125.

Conclusion  279 creaturely knowledge of the Creator flows from the one created nature that has been perfectly united with God without losing its creatureliness. Thus the theologia unionis, “in Christ is the mother of ” both the knowledge of God on the earthly pilgrimage (theologia viatorum) and the knowledge of the glorified saints in heaven (theologia beatorum).15 The Reformed doctrine of the theologia unionis further separated the Reformed and Lutheran traditions with regard to theological prolegomena. The Lutheran orthodox, based on their definition of the communicatio idiomatum and especially the genus maiestaticum, held that the full infinite knowledge of the eternal Son is communicated to the human mind of Christ in an infinite manner.16 The seventeenth-​century Lutheran theologian Abraham Calov (1612–​1685), while commenting on Colossians 2:3, states, “According to Christ’s human nature, by virtue of the personal union, all these treasures [of wisdom and knowledge] have been hidden in Him. Hence Christ according to his human nature, in virtue of the personal union, is omniscient with a complete and truly divine omniscience.”17 By this doctrine, the Lutheran orthodox sought to secure the certainty of the church’s theology, which not only flows from the fountain of divine truth but also is divine truth. As Robert Preus summarizes, “The deep concern of the Lutherans, therefore, in the whole discussion of original and derived theology is to show that the church possesses and teaches doctrina divina.”18 Therefore, because the theologia unionis is the final cause of all theology, Lutheran orthodox dogmatics saw theology tending toward archetypal knowledge of God mediated through Christ. Lutheran theologians argued that as a result of the theologia unionis Reformed christology “will likely result in the false conception of a theology that has definite limitations, is finite and not grounded sufficiently in God’s Self-​manifestation.”19 As Willem van Asselt concludes, “One is justified to say that the results of Reformed and Lutheran christology played a 15 Junius, A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, 129. Further reflection on this topic would likely have allayed Barth’s fears that the extra opens up the possibility of knowledge of God unmediated by Christ ensarkos. The knowledge of the Incarnate Word according to his humanity is the perfect object of theology such that through the Spirit and union of believers with Christ the archetypal knowledge of God is mediated to the ectypal capacity of humanity. Muller summarizes the Reformed Scholastic position: “The theology of union is the foundation of the theology of all who are in Christ, the basis for and substance of the vision of God ultimately bestowed upon believers in their final union with Christ.” Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:255. 16 For discussion of the theologia unionis in Lutheranism, see Robert D. Preus, The Theology of Post-​ Reformation Lutheranism, 2 vols. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1970), 1:113–​14, 167–​73. 17 Calov, Systema, Vii, 359, cited in Preus, The Theology of Post-​Reformation Lutheranism, 1:168. 18 Preus, The Theology of Post-​Reformation Lutheranism, 1:172. 19 Preus, The Theology of Post-​Reformation Lutheranism, 1:172.

280  The Flesh of the Word significant role in shaping the form and contents of the [sic] prolegomena. Christology articulates the presuppositions and approaches to theology in both Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy.”20 Therefore, the logic of the extra eventually extended beyond christology and comes to define the ends of theological prolegomena itself.

C.2.2 The Extra and “Confessional Physics” The doctrine of the extra had implications beyond the bounds of what would be generally considered theological discourse. Because the extra and the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity had necessary implications for the nature of bodies and cosmology, these two theological positions affected the development of physics at the universities founded according to the principles of each tradition in the early modern period. This gave rise to what has been termed “confessional physics.”21 Cees Leijenhorst and Christoph Lüthy note the important substratum of Aristotelian physics that underlies the eucharistic controversy between the Lutheran and Reformed: “Aristotelian concepts and arguments played a crucial role in these controversies. Notably the concepts of body or matter, and of place or space, were of paramount importance in these early battles.”22 Yet Leijenhorst and Lüthy are mistaken to locate the difference exclusively in the respective understandings of eucharistic presence without acknowledging the foundational christological differences that both propelled the doctrines of eucharistic presence and applied pressure to their physics. One of the driving factors for the development of physics within the confessional traditions revolved around the issues arising from the extra. Of particular importance is the argument over the nature of bodies and place. As we have seen, the Reformed argued—​following Augustine—​that the quality of being-​in-​a-​place is an essential attribute of a body. Lutheran critics, however, often responded with the claim from Aristotelian physics that the universe 20 Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 332. 21 Christoph Lüthy, “The Confessionalization of Physics: Heresies, Facts and the Travails of the Republic of Letters,” in Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion, ed. John Brooke and Ian Maclean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 81–​114. 22 C. H. Leijenhorst and C. H. Lüthy, “The Erosion of Aristotelianism: Confessional Physics in Early Modern Germany and the Dutch Republic,” in The Dynamics of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century, ed. C. H. Leijenhorst, C. H. Lüthy, and Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Science 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 383.

Conclusion  281 itself cannot be said to be in a place yet is a body. Both Luther and Brenz made use of this argument, and it was often replicated during the period of Protestant orthodoxy. According to Aristotle’s concept of place, a thing is in a place only insofar as it is surrounded by another medium that marks the boundary of the object, which is sometimes called the container view of space.23 Since the universe is all that exists, there is nothing outside of it to denote its boundary, and therefore it is a body but is not in a place. The Lutherans reasoned from this that Christ’s body could likewise be a body and yet lack a definite boundary. Thus according to Lutheran thought, the property of being-​in-​a-​place is not essential to being a body. This line of argument resulted in a definition of bodily physics in general that corresponded to the doctrine of ubiquity. Leijenhorst and Lüthy show how the confessional questions of whether the universe can be said to be in a place, and whether place belongs to the essence of a body, were determining factors for many early modern natural philosophers. The dispute over faith versus reason that divided the Reformed from the Lutherans in questions regarding christology functioned similarly in the field of physics. The opposition of faith and reason can be seen in Leijenhorst and Lüthy’s assessment of the work of the Lutheran thinker Conrad Meisner: “In a stunning outburst of fideism amidst hundreds of pages of philosophising, Meisner declares that all philosophical talk about locality, place and suchlike cannot capture the mystery of Christ’s presence, but that faith alone can help us here.”24 The Reformed concern to maintain that the quality of being-​ in-​a-​place was essential to all bodies, however, led many Calvinist thinkers substantially to change or to abandon Aristotelian concepts of place. Many Calvinist natural philosophers and theologians, therefore, opted for Julius Scaliger’s concept of space that focused on the concept of void and “three-​ dimensional space as the place (locus) of all corporeal entities.”25 While it would be too simplistic to claim the doctrine of the extra determined the Reformed understanding of physics or vice versa for the Lutherans and ubiquity, the theological, philosophical, and cosmological implication of these christological positions influenced what a successful theory of space and place could include. As Leijenhorst summarizes:

23 Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 50–​71. 24 Leijenhorst and Lüthy, “The Erosion of Aristotelianism,” 392–​93. 25 Leijenhorst and Lüthy, “The Erosion of Aristotelianism,” 387.

282  The Flesh of the Word Historical reality is far too rich and varied in order to speak of “a” Lutheran versus “a” Calvinist position with respect to the concepts of place and space. Nevertheless, we can note some important structural differences. For most Lutheran philosophers up until the end of the seventeenth century, any concept of place or space had to fulfill one important criterion: it should leave open the possibility for natural bodies not to be circumscribed by a finite, definite place. In other words: it should allow for illocalitas as a viable concept in natural philosophy.26

The issues of the extra thus exercised surprising influence beyond the traditional theological realm and reshaped how Reformed theologians viewed the world itself.

C.2.3 The Extra and Eucharistic Ritual Practice The issues surrounding the extra, ubiquity, and the question of Christ’s presence had implications on the ceremonial eucharistic practices of the Lutheran and Reformed churches, which likewise led to controversy. One example of this effect of the extra on liturgical practice can be seen in the controversy surrounding the eucharistic liturgy of the second Book of Common Prayer in 1552. Largely composed by Thomas Cranmer, this edition, written during England’s further reformation under King Edward VI, still left open the practice of kneeling at the communion rail. Those who sought a more extensive reform of the English Church, such as John Knox, rejected this practice. Preaching before Edward VI’s court in autumn of 1552, Knox railed against the practice of kneeling and caused uproar.27 The reforming party would prevail with the inclusion of the Black Rubric, so-​called because it was inserted into the document days before its final publication and, therefore, was not in red ink like the other rubrics in the text.28 This Black Rubric did not prohibit kneeling but reframed the act as one of gratitude to God and rejected any adoration of the eucharistic elements. The author, likely Cranmer, bases the

26 Cees Leijenhorst, “Place, Space and Matter in Calvinist Physics,” Monist 84, no.  4 (October 2001): 524. 27 Iain R Torrance, “A Particular Reformed Piety: John Knox and the Posture at Communion,” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 4 (2014): 401. 28 For an overview of the controversy surrounding the Black Rubric, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 525–​30.

Conclusion  283 reinterpretation of the ritual act on the logic of the extra that Christ’s body is in heaven and cannot be in multiple locations: Whereas it is ordered in the book of common prayer, in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants kneeling should receive the holy Communion: which thing being well meant, for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder, which about the holy Communion might else ensue: lest the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential presence there being of Christ’s natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body, to be in more places than in one at one time.29

The Black Rubric, and the christological rejection of corporeal presence it supported, would be a point of contention throughout the next century of debate over the Eucharist in the English church. For our purposes, this incident reveals both the spread of the concept of the extra beyond the continent and its import for liturgical practice. The doctrine of the extra, likely mediated to the English church through Bucer and Vermigli, would be one of the definitive factors in England’s adoption of a Reformed rather than Lutheran view of the Supper.30 Another example of such a debate was the conflict over the fractio panis, the practice of ritual breaking of the bread in celebrating the Lord’s Supper, which distinguished the eucharistic ceremony of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions and issued into controversy in Brandenburg in the early

29 Modern English of the rubric quoted from Gordon Jeanes, “Cranmer and Common Prayer,” in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, ed. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 29. 30 For the development of Cranmer’s eucharistic thought away from the Lutheran to a Reformed doctrine and its effect on the English Reformation, see Peter Newman Brooks, Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of the Eucharist:  An Essay in Historical Development, 2nd ed. (London:  Macmillian Academic, 1992).

284  The Flesh of the Word seventeenth century.31 In developing his liturgy of the Lord’s Supper, Luther omitted the medieval practice of breaking the bread, which he saw as a ritual representation of the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice.32 This act was retained, however, by many Reformed pastors because Christ himself broke the bread at the Last Supper. As the two camps entered into conflict in the Holy Roman Empire, the fractio panis took on the additional significance of an enacted polemic against Lutheran doctrines of corporeal presence in the seventeenth century. The practice of breaking the bread would take on this additional importance in Brandenburg during its so-​called Second Reformation.33 The controversy heated up after the conversion of the Elector John Sigismund, who on Christmas Day 1613 declared his public conversion to Calvinism by taking communion according to the Reformed manner in Holy Trinity Cathedral. The public confession explaining his conversion—​ghostwritten by Martin Füssell—​presented the person of Christ and the extra as one of foundational differences between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. This distinction in turn provided a rationale for fracture: Christ is with us and remains until the end of the world according to His infinite nature, supported by His divine majesty and strength, but not with respect to the nature in which He went into heaven and from thence will come again which even in the highest exaltation cannot be everywhere present with respect to its essence, without the destruction of its own character since ubiquity is only attributable to the divine nature.34

Because Christ has ascended and there is no corporeal, physical, or local presence in the elements, and Christ is said to have broken the bread at the Last Supper, fractio panis ought to be practiced. Additionally, this act was a ritual polemic against the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity. By breaking the bread, the

31 Bodo Nischan, “The ‘Fractio Panis’:  A Reformed Communion Practice in Late Reformation Germany,” in Lutheran and Calvinists in the Age of Confessionalism, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1999), 17–​29. 32 Thomas H. Schattauer, “From Sacrifice to Supper:  Eucharistic Practice in the Lutheran Reformation,” in A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, ed. Lee Palmer Wandel, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Boston: Brill, 2014), 216. 33 Bodo Nischan, Prince, People, and Confession:  The Second Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994). 34 Martin Füssel, “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. Christina Munson and R. Sherman, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008), 4:75–​87.

Conclusion  285 Reformed were signaling to the people that Christ’s presence is not corporeal. This ceremonial act also indicated a protest to the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity. As summarized by Bodo Niachan, Füssell asserts, “ ‘Ubiquity’ is like a Sauerteig, or poison, that eventually will destroy the entire gospel.”35 Thus in the Brandenburg fractio panis debate, the foundational soteriological motivation for the extra is signified by liturgical performance. These case studies demonstrate that the controversy over the extra issued into theological developments well beyond the locus of christology and eucharistic doctrine, where it was initially deployed. For the historical understanding of the confessional divide and confessionalization of the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, the extra is not a piece of theological trivia. Instead the extra Calvinisticum represents one of the deepest fissures between the traditions and had wide ramifications. Therefore, the affirmation or rejection of the extra not only distinguished Protestant traditions on the Lord’s Supper but also underlay other doctrinal, philosophical, and liturgical demarcations. Acknowledging this point will clarify and deepen our understanding of Lutheran-​Reformed relations and polemics from the sixteenth century to the present day.

C.3  Contributions for Contemporary Doctrinal Retrieval What can understanding the historical development of the extra Calvinisticum contribute to contemporary discussions of the doctrine and attempts to retrieve it? The fact that the past decade has witnessed the first monographs on the extra since David Willis’s 1966 work, as well as increased engagement with the theme in scholarly journals, demonstrates the growing interest in the extra.36 These projects have often proceeded in the mode of theologies of retrieval and analytic theology. For instance, Myk Habets proposes that the extra should be retrieved as a firewall against modern passibilist doctrines of God.37 On the other hand, James Gordon in The Holy One in 35 Nischan, “The ‘Fractio Panis,’ ” 26. 36 Myk Habets, “Putting the ‘Extra’ Back into Calvinism,” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 4 (January 1, 2009): 441–​56; Darren O. Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word: Karl Barth’s Critical Reception of the Extra Calvinisticum,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no.  1 (2013): 42–​57; Andrew M. McGinnis, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh: A Historical and Theological Study of the Extra Calvinisticum, T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology 29 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014); James R. Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst: An Essay on the Flesh of Christ (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016). 37 Habets, “Putting the ‘Extra’ Back into Calvinism,” 443.

286  The Flesh of the Word Our Midst offers a contemporary defense of the extra using analytic method and establishing the doctrine biblically through temple christology.38 This recent work, however, is largely disconnected from detailed study of the original exposition of the doctrine in the sixteenth century. If the extra is to be placed in the service of contemporary dogmatic and constructive theology, then the doctrinal exposition within the Reformed tradition is an essential partner in the conversation. As John Webster notes, projects of theological retrieval thrive when historical study is used to deepen theological understanding beyond the constraints of present-​oriented urgency:  “Historical work enables theologies of retrieval to place, interpret, and in some measure transcend the constraints of modern theology by unearthing the neglect and disorder by which they are imposed. . . . And this, in turn, necessitates a further historical task, namely the reclamation of tracts of the Christian past as a resource for present constructive work.”39 Thomas McCall, who argues that analytic theology is an example of doctrinal retrieval, has also noted this need for careful historical study as a necessary component of contemporary analytic theology: “Put baldly, one must really know the past—​and not just a shadowy simulacrum of our own preferred positions that we call ‘the tradition’—​in order to reclaim it.”40 I hope that this historical study will help to dispel some of the shadows surrounding the history of the extra and can assist the contemporary reception of the doctrine by revealing the theological resources used to formulate and defend it in the sixteenth century and offer fruitful paths for future theologizing. The following are a few suggestions for how the history of the extra can contribute to such a task. First, I have shown that many of the modern concerns that swirl around the doctrine were not present in its early formulation. For instance, questions revolving around natural theology, the nature of revelation, the relationship between the economic and immanent Trinity, and the relation of the ensarkos and asarkos result from modern theological questions, which have arisen largely due to Barth’s discussion of the extra and the contemporary concerns over perfect being theology.41 Not that the extra lacks implications for these issues or that they are beyond the doctrine’s scope. If one desires 38 Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst. 39 John Webster, “Theologies of Retrieval,” in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, ed. John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 589–​90. 40 Thomas H. McCall, An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 86. 41 For an exposition of many of these contemporary concerns, see Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst, 151–​204.

Conclusion  287 to accurately and faithfully retrieve the doctrine from the Reformed tradition, however, one must be clear-​sighted about what is present or absent in the earlier formulations of the doctrine. The Reformed theologians in the sixteenth century derived the extra through scriptural exegesis, especially reflection on the implications of Christ’s ascension into heaven, and the nature of the hypostatic union, and did not have in mind the contemporary concerns that would come into prominence only with the changes and challenges of twentieth-​century theology. This should serve as a warning that retrieval projects of the extra should avoid anachronistic readings of Calvin and his contemporaries and carefully distinguish the positions being retrieved from the operations on and developments of the doctrine through the act of retrieval. For instance, Willis makes claims regarding Calvin’s use of the extra and natural theology while attempting to address issues arising from the Barth-​ Brunner debate, around which Willis explicitly frames the issue.42 But if one investigates Willis’s arguments closely, his claim that Calvin in his own reasoning connected the concept of the extra with natural theology seems tenuous. Rather than offering Calvin’s position, Willis presents his own theological pastiche. To conduct a retrieval project of the extra with integrity and precision vis-​à-​vis contemporary theological disputes, one must recognize where the historical theological reconstruction ends and the systematic or dogmatic construction begins. Second, I  have documented the biblical and exegetical support for the sixteenth-​century doctrine of the extra that contemporary discussion largely neglects. James Gordon repeatedly laments the lack of biblical justification for the doctrine of the extra within the modern theological literature. He claims that “one of the most significant criteria is whether the doctrine has biblical warrant, that is, whether the doctrine is either explicitly stated in the contents of Scripture or implicitly found in the judgments of the biblical authors. However, this criterion in relation to the extra Calvinisticum has been almost entirely ignored.”43 To overcome this apparent paucity, Gordon offers an argument from the current trend of temple christology.44 This 42 E. David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 101–​4. 43 Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst, 206, passim. 44 Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst, 115–​49. At times in this section, Gordon seems to privilege temple christology over other strands of biblical witness to the incarnation. This leads him to offer anachronistic critiques of Calvin for failing to thoroughly develop a concept that has gained traction only in the past forty years as a site of christological reflection. See, for instance, 123.

288  The Flesh of the Word criticism of a lack of biblical argument, however, holds only if one restricts oneself to contemporary constructive utilizations and historical descriptions of the extra. The sixteenth-​century Reformed theologians reflected on various biblical texts to promote the extra. Chandieu is a clear example of this through his use of scriptural principia ordered around the whole redemptive-​ historical career of Christ. The sixteenth-​century appeals to statements of Christ’s absence in the present age as well as to reflections on the ascension and session are especially significant and worthy of further study. My study of the historical development of the extra calls for greater reflection on the ascension for theological articulations of the extra. While the doctrine of the extra Calvinisticum might seem arcane, it naturally arises from a rather simple question provoked by the biblical witness and the Christian tradition: Where is Christ’s body now? If the incarnation is not to be understood as transitory or temporary, as the tradition of conciliar christology maintains, the whither of the ascension, the where of the flesh, and the thence of the second coming must be addressed. These questions, as seen from Zwingli onward, must lead one to reflection on Christ’s human nature and the hypostatic union. Perhaps one reason for the extra’s neglect by many theologians and within periods of church history lies in a failure to reflect on the meaning, purpose, and significance of the creedal phrase “he ascended into heaven.” In much contemporary work on the extra, this concrete event of Christ’s earthly life has been entirely neglected. For instance, Gordon’s lengthy argument for the extra makes no reference to the ascension; Habets’s argument for reclaiming the extra does not even mention this act of Christ; and Darren Sumner passes over without comment the event in the standard litany of resurrection, ascension, and session.45 The neglect of the ascension is not unique to studies on the extra but is a blind spot in most discussions of christology. Contemporary arguments for and dogmatic elaborations of the extra as well as Christ’s person and work should follow the lead of the sixteenth-​century Reformed theologians and reflect deeply on what it means that Christ has ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.46 45 Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst; Habets, “Putting the ‘Extra’ Back into Calvinism”; Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word,” 47. 46 For contemporary studies on the ascension that would be worth bringing into conversation with the extra and its implications, see Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 106–​58; Peter Toon, The Ascension of Our Lord (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1984); Douglas Farrow, Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Eerdmans, 1999); Douglas B. Farrow,

Conclusion  289 The previous two points arising from this study lead to a third, which ought to allay contemporary anxieties concerning the extra on the basis of foundational metaphysical considerations. One critique raised against the extra by Barth and those who follow him is that it relies on a doctrine of God that is not sufficiently modified by christology. This dovetails with a more recent criticism that the traditional doctrine of the extra is beholden to “perfect being theology.” Gordon raises this issue plainly in The Holy One in Our Midst and attempts to argue that while the traditional doctrine likely falls prey to this critique, the doctrine can be reconstructed biblically by utilizing temple christology.47 As I have shown, however, one need not grant that the extra falls prey to these criticisms in the sixteenth century. The thinkers of the Reformation era did not construct the extra from some sort of “perfect being theology” but rather reflected on the concrete nature of humanity, the event of the ascension, and the proper articulation of Chalcedonian christology to preserve the soteriological significance of the mediator. Whether sixteenth-​century proponents of the extra succumbed to perfect being theology is almost wholly dependent on the term’s definition. The extra does presuppose certain qualities of the Triune God, such as that he exists a se and is infinite, eternal, and omnipresent, as well as certain qualities of human nature, such as finitude, spatial boundedness, and spatial locatability. If understanding God in these terms qualifies as “perfect being theology” then the extra cannot avoid this label without abandoning central tenets of the doctrine of God as expressed in the Reformed tradition. This would mean that another doctrine of God would need to be devised. This seems to be the route taken by Sumner in his attempt to preserve a qualified doctrine of an extra in Barth despite Barth’s repeated and strenuous rejections of the doctrine.48 Webster, however, has argued that omnipresence can be derived from revelation and not perfect being theology. In fact, Webster argues that the entire line of theological critique based on perfect being theology is not applicable to the early modern period at all. As Webster argues, “The antecedent of ‘perfect being theology’ is thus not the pre-​modern theology of the church, but rather the development from the seventeenth century onwards of a systematic natural theology, in which the divine attributes are deduced from a Ascension Theology (London:  T&T Clark, 2011); Gerrit Dawson, Jesus Ascended:  The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation (London: T&T Clark, 2004).

47 Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst, 108–​14. 48 Sumner, “The Twofold Life of the Word.”

290  The Flesh of the Word conception of God which is itself established as part of the project of giving a theistic explanation of the world.”49 If Webster is correct, and I believe that he is, Gordon’s claim that the extra has yet to be biblically established is historically myopic. Moreover, Gordon’s failure to engage with any primary sources in the origination of the doctrine other than Calvin further weakens his argument. In his concern to ground the extra biblically, he in fact overlooks the main locus of reflection for the doctrine in the early modern period and the concrete event that gives it shape and grounds it in redemptive history—​the ascension of Christ. This historical study also should draw contemporary theological attention to the soteriological import of the extra. As I have shown, the nature of Christ as mediator and the integrity of the human nature of Christ were the driving theological motivations behind the sixteenth-​century theologians’ arguments for the extra. Both of these issues are largely absent from the modern constructive literature on the doctrine. Likely because of the influence of modern kenotic christology, more attention has been given to guarding the divine nature from diminution than the preservation of the true humanity of Christ.50 The Reformed tradition takes its starting point from the nature of the gospel and what must be true of Christ if he is the mediator between God and humanity and whether his death on the cross secures our salvation. Reflection on the soteriological foundation of the doctrine of the extra could also be fruitfully extended to questions of the ascension. Possible areas of reflection would be the relationship of the extra to the Reformed configuration of nature and grace as well as questions of theosis and deification, which are currently in vogue.51 The extra Calvinisticum can stem from the simplest of questions: Where is Christ’s body now? Yet answering this in a complete manner sends one headlong into the mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation and contemplation 49 John Webster, “The Immensity and Ubiquity of God,” in Confessing God (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 89. While Gordon acknowledges Webster’s attempt to argue for divine omnipresence without perfect being theology, he ignores the fact that Webster himself rejects the claim that the perfect being theology critique has any purchase on early modern Reformed theology. Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst, 109–​12. 50 Habets, “Putting the ‘Extra’ Back into Calvinism”; Gordon, The Holy One in Our Midst. 51 George D. Dragas, “Exchange or Communication of Properties and Deification:  Antidosis or Communicatio Idiomatum and Theosis,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, nos. 1–​4 (1998): 377–​99; Alasdair I. C. Heron, “Communicatio Idiomatum and Deificatio of Human Nature: A Reformed Perspective,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, nos. 1–​4 (1998):  367–​76; Bruce McCormack, “Participation in God, Yes, Deification, No: Two Modern Protestant Responses to an Ancient Question,” in Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 235–​60.

Conclusion  291 of Christ as Emmanuel and the gap of the already/​not yet age. In the extra the mystery of the incarnation is in full view. The humility and grandeur of the eternal Son and Galilean carpenter should lead to the confession of the unfathomable otherness of God and yet his intimate closeness to humanity through Christ. The extra places this tension firmly before us, eliciting from the Christian both contemplation and praise. Even after thorough and rigorous examination, we will not likely surpass Calvin’s exclamation: “Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning.”52

52 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2.13.4.

Bibliography Primary Sources Altensteig, Johannes. Lexicon Theologicum Complectens Vocabulorum Desriptiones, Diffinitiones et Interpretationes. Antwerp: Petri Belleri, 1576. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae: Volume 48, The Incarnate Word: 3a. 1-​6. Edited by R. J. Hennessey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Augustine. Letters 156–​210: Epistulae II. Translated by John E. Rotelle. New York: New City Press, 2004. Brenz, Johannes. De Personali unione duarum naturarum in Christo, et ascensu Christi in coelum, ac sessione eius ad dextram Dei Patris. Tübingen:  The Widow of Ulrich Morhard, 1561. Brenz, Johannes. Die Christologisch Schriften. Edited by Theodor Mahlmann. Tübigen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981. Bucanus, Gulielmus. Institutiones theologicae. Bern: Johannes & Isaias le Preux, 1605. Bullinger, Heinrich. Heinrich Bullinger Werke:  Theologische Schriften, edited by Zwingliverein in Zurich. 7 vols. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2008. Bullinger, Heinrich. “Preface to Exposition of the Christian Faith.” In On Providence and Other Essays, edited by Willian John Hinke, translated by Henry Preble, 236. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983. Bullinger, Heinrich. Utriusque in Christo naturae tam divinae quam humanae, contra varias haereses, pro confessione Christi catholica assertio orthodoxa. Zürich: Christoffel Froschouer, 1534. Calov, Abraham. Systema locorum theologicorum, vol. VII. Wittenberg, 1677. Calvin, John. Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas Ad Galatas Ad Ephesios Ad Philippenses Ad Colossenses. Edited by Helmut Feld. Vol. 16. Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, 2. Genéve: Librairie Droz, 1992. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 1st ed. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975. Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss. 59  vols. Corpus Reformatorum vols. 29–​87. Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863–​1900. Calvin, John. “Two Discourses on the Articles (1536).” In Calvin: Theological Treatises, edited by J. K. Reid, 38–​46. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 2000. Calvin, John, and Heinrich Bullinger. “Consensus Tigurinus (1549).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by I. D. Bunting, 1:537–​45. Grand Rapids, MI:  Reformed Heritage Books, 2008.

294 Bibliography Calvin, John, and Heinrich Bullinger. “Consensus Tigurinus, 1549.” Translated by Torrance Kirby. Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016): 34–​44. Catechesis Religionis Christianae, Quae Traditur in Ecclesiis et Scholis Palatinatus. Heydelbergae: Michael Schirat, 1563. “The Chalcedonian Decree.” In Christology of the Later Fathers, edited by Edward R. Hardy, 371–​74. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1954. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche. Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilis Simi Viri Opera Theologica. edited by Jacobus Lectius. 5th ed. Geneva: Peter and Jacob Chouët, 1620. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche [pseudo. Sadeele]. De sacramentali manducatione corporis Christi et sacramentali potu sanguinis ipsius in Sacra Coena Domini, theologica et scholastica tractatio. Geneva: Jean le Preux, 1589. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche [pseudo. Sadeele]. De spirituali manducatione corporis Christi et spirituali potu sanguinis ipsius in sacra coena Domini Theologica et scholastica tractatio. Geneva: Jean le Preux, 1589. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche. De veritate humanae naturae Iesu Christi, theologia et scholastica disputatio. Geneva: Johannes le Preux, 1585. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche [pseudo. Zamariel]. Historie des Persecutions, et Martyrs de l’Egelise de Paris, depuis l’An 1557. Lyon: Claude Senneton, 1563. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche. La confirmation de la discipline ecclesiastique, observée ès Eglises reformées du royaume de France. Geneva: Henri II Estienne, 1566. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche [pseudo. Sadeele]. Locus De Verbo Dei Scirpto Adversus Humanas Traditiones, Theologice et Scholastice tractatus: Ubi agitur de vera methodo Theologice simul et Scholastice disputandi. 1st ed. Morges: Jean le Preux, 1580. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche. Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxiii. Lausanne: François le Preux, 1578. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche. A Theological and Scholastical Treatise, on the Spiritual Eating of the Body of Christ, and the Spiritual Drinking of His Blood, in the Holy Supper of the Lord. Translated by J. V. London: Rivingtons, 1859. Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche [pseudo. Sadeele]. A Treatise Touching the Word of God Written, against the Traditions of Men Handled Both Schoolelike, and Divinelike, Where Also Is Set Downe a True Method to Dispute Divinely and Schoolelike. Translated by John Coxe. London: John Harison, 1583. Chemnitz, Martin. The Two Natures in Christ. Translated by J. A.  O. Preus. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971. “Consensio Tigurinae.” In Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, edited by Emidio Campi and Ruendi Reich, 125–​42. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. Cyril of Alexandria, Operum divi Cyrilli Alexandrini episcopi. vol. 4.  Basil:  Ioannem Hervagium, 1546. Eck, John. “Refutation of the Articles of Zwingli.” In On Providence and Other Essays, edited by Willian John Hinke, translated by Henry Preble, 62–​ 104. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983. Fatio, Olivier, and Olivier Labarthe, eds. Registres de la Compagnie des pasteurs de Genève (Tome III 1565–​1574). Genève: Droz, 1969. “The Formula of Concord.” In The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, translated by Robert Kolb, 486–​523. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000.

Bibliography  295 Füssel, Martin. “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by Christina Munson and R. Sherman, 4:75–​87. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Gerhard, Johann. Theological Commonplaces: On the Person and Office of Christ. Edited by Benjamin T. G. Mayes. Translated by Richard J. Dinda. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2009. “The Heidelberg Catechism.” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by the Reformed Church of the United States, 2:769–​99. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Junius, Franciscus. A Treatise on True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius. Translated by David C. Noe. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014. Köhler, Walther. Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529:  Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger Eger & Sievers, 1929. “Leipzig Colloquy (1631).” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by Peter van der Schaaf, 4:164–​81. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Labarthe, Olivier and Micheline Tripet, eds. Registres de la Compagne des Pasteurs de Genève (Tome V 1583–​1588). Genève: Librairie Droz, 1976. Luther, Martin. D.  Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 73  vols. Weimar: Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883–​2009. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut T.  Lehmann, and Christopher Boyd Brown. 75 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955-​. Morély, Jean. Traicté de la discipline & police chrestienne. Lyon: Ian de Tournes, 1562. Perkins, William. Armilla aurea. 3rd ed. Cantabrigiæ: Ex officina Johannis Legatt, 1590. Quenstedt, Johann. Theologic Didactica-​Polemica, sive Systema Theologicum in duas sectiones. Leipzig: Fritisch, 1715. Salvart, Jean François, ed. Harmonia Confessionum fidei orthodoxarum et reformatarum Ecclesiarum. Geneva: Petrum Santandreanum, 1581. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ. Edited and translated by John Patrick Donnelly S.J. The Peter Martyr Library Vol. 2. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Dialogus de utraque in Christo natura. 1st ed. Zürich: Christophorus Froschouerus, 1561. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Epistolae duae ad ecclesias Polonicas Iesu Christi Evangelium amplexas. Zürich: Froschauer, 1561. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Letter No 126 (1556) To the Polish Lords Professing the Gospel and to the Ministers of Their Churches. Edited and translated by John Patrick Donnelly S.J. The Peter Martyr Library Vol. 5. Kirksville, MO:  Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Letter No 247 (1560) To the Polish Churches. Edited and translated by John Patrick Donnelly S.J. The Peter Martyr Library Vol. 5. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Letter No 267 To Illustrious Polish Noblemen (1561). Edited and translated by John Patrick Donnelly S.J. The Peter Martyr Library Vol. 5. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Loci Communes. London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583.

296 Bibliography Zwingli, Ulrich. “Amica Exegesis, id est:  Expositio eucharistiae negocii ad Martinum Lutherum.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 5:562–​758. Corpus Reformatorum 92. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1934. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Auslegen und Gründe der Schlußreden.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 2:14–​457. Corpus Reformatorum 89. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio ad regem Christianum.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 6.5:50–​163. Corpus Reformatorum, 93.5. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991. Zwingli, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion. Edited and translated by Samuel Jackson. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Complanationis Isaiae prophetae,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 14:1–​412. Corpus Reformatorum 101. Zürich: Verlag Berichthaus, 1959. Zwingli, Ulrich. “De vera et falsa religione commentarius.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 3:628–​912. Corpus Reformatorum, 90. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1914. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Nachtmahl Christi.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 4:789–​862. Corpus Reformatorum 91. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Eine kurze christliche Einleitung.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 2:628–​63. Corpus Reformatorum 89. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908. Zwingli, Ulrich. “The Exposition of the Sixty-​Seven Articles.” In Huldrych Zwingli Writings, translated by E. J. Furcha, vol. 1. Huldrych Zwingli Writings. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Farrago annotationum in Genesim,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 13:1–​288. Corpus Reformatorum 100. Zürich: Verlag Berichthaus, 1963. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Fidei Expositio.” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by S. M. Jackson, 1:177–​225. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Fidei Ratio.” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by S. M. Jackson, 1:113–​ 36. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Friendly Exegesis, That Is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther.” In Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, translated by H. Wayne Pipkin, 2:238–​385. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984. Zwingli, Ulrich. Huldrych Zwingli, edited by G. R. Potter, Documents of Modern History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978. Zwingli, Ulrich. “In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 6.1:21–​196. Corpus Reformatorum 93.1. Zürich: Berichthaus, 1961. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Letter to Haner.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 8:791–​95. Corpus Reformatorum 95. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1914. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Letter to Matthew Alber concerning the Lord’s Supper.” In Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, translated by H. Wayne Pipkin, 2:127–​45. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Letter to Wyttenbach.” In Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 8:84–​89. Corpus Reformatorum 95. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1914. Zwingli, Ulrich. “On Baptism.” In Zwingli and Bullinger, edited and translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, 129–​75. The Library of Christian Classics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Bibliography  297 Zwingli, Ulrich. “On Original Sin.” In On Providence and Other Essays, edited by Willian John Hinke, translated by Henry Preble, 1–​32. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983. Zwingli, Ulrich. “On Providence.” In On Providence and Other Essays, edited by Willian John Hinke, translated by Henry Preble, 128–​234. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983. Zwingli, Ulrich. “On the Lord’s Supper.” In Zwingli and Bullinger, edited and translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, 185–​238. The Library of Christian Classics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Responsio ad epistolam Ioannis Bugenhagii,” in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 4:558–​76. Corpus Reformatorum 91. Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Short Christian Instruction.” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., translated by H. Wayne Pipkin, 1:10–​39. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Zwingli, Ulrich. “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist.” In Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and Edward J. Furcha, translated by H. Wayne Pipkin, 2:187–​231. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 1984. Zwingli, Ulrich, and John Oecolampadius. “Über D. Martin Luthers Buch, Bekenntnis genannt, zwei Antworten von Johannes Oekolampad und Huldrych Zwingli.” In Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, 6.2:22–​48. Corpus Reformatorum, 93.2. Zürich: Berichthaus, 1968.

Secondary Texts Anderson, Marvin. “Peter Martyr, Reformed Theologian (1542–​1562):  His Letters to Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin.” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 41–​64. Anderson, Marvin. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: Protestant Humanist.” In Peter Martyr and Italian Reform, edited by Joseph C. McLelland, 65–​84. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980. Anderson, Marvin. “Vista Tigurina: Peter Martyr and European Reform (1556–​1562).” Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 2 (1990): 181–​206. Armstrong, Brian G. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy:  Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France. Madison:  University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Aubigné, Merle J. H. d’. History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Vols. 1–​5. Translated by Henry White. Religious Heritage Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976. Augustijn, Cornelis. “Zwingli als Humanist.” Nederlans Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 67, no. 2 (1987): 120–​42. Aus der Au, Christina. “Das Extra Calvinisticum:  Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?” Theologische Zeitschrift 64, no. 4 (2008): 358–​69. Backus, Irena. “The Disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the Early Church.” Studies in Reformed Theology and History 1, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 1–​130. Backus, Irena. “Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer and the Church Fathers.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West, edited by Irena Backus, 2:627–​60. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Barclay, Alexander. The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: A Study in the Eucharistic Teaching of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie, 1927.

298 Bibliography Barker, Sara. Protestantism, Poetry and Protest:  The Vernacular Writings of Antoine de Chandieu, (c. 1534–​1591). St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV.1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 2nd ed. London: T&T Clark, 1956. Barth, Karl. The Göttingen Dogmatics. Edited by Hannelotte Reiffen. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991. Barth, Karl. Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism. Translated by Shirley G. Guthrie Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. Baschera, Luca. “Aristotle and Scholasticism.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, edited by Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, 133–​59. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Baschera, Luca. “Zwischen Philosophie und Theologie:  Aspekte der Aristoteles-​ Auslegung Peter Martyr Vermiglis.” In Konfession, Migration und Elitenbildung: Studien zur Theologenausbildung des 16. Jahrhunderts, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis and Markus Wriedt, 85–​97. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Baumann, Michael. Petrus Martyr Vermigli in Zürich (1556–​1562):  Dieser Kylchen in der Heiligen Gschrifft Professor und Laeser. Reformed Historical Theology, vol. 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Baur, Jörg. “Ubiquität.” In Creator est creatura:  Luthers Christologie als Lehre von der Idiomenkommunikation, edited by Oswald Bayer and Benjamin Gleede, 186–​301. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 138. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 1. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Benedict, Philip. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Berkouwer, G. C. The Person of Christ. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954. Bernus, Auguste. Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu: D’après son journal autographe inédit, 1534–​1591. Paris: Imprimeries Reunies, 1889. Beto, George John. “The Marburg Colloquy of 1529:  A Textual Study.” Concordia Theological Monthly 16, no. 2 (February 1945): 73–​94. Biel, Pamela. “Colloquy or Cul de Sac at Maulbronn in 1564.” In American Society of Church History Papers, SCH-​9116. Theological Research Exchange Network, 1991. Bietenholz, Peter G. Encounters with a Radical Erasmus: Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Bolliger, Daniel. Infiniti Contemplatio: Grundzüge der Scotus-​und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Borgeaud, Charles. Histoire de l’Université de Genève. Genève: Georg & Company, 1900. Bradley, James E., and Richard A. Muller. Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Brandy, Hans Christian. Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz. Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther 1521–​ 1532:  Shaping and Defining the Reformation. Translated by James L. Schaaf. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994. Bromiley, Geoffrey William. “On the Lord’s Supper Introduction.” In Zwingli and Bullinger, 176–​84. The Library of Christian Classics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Bibliography  299 Brooks, Peter Newman. Thomas Cranmer’s Doctrine of the Eucharist: An Essay in Historical Development. 2nd ed. London: Macmillian Academic, 1992. Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Humiliation of Christ in Its Physical, Ethical and Official Aspects. New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1895. Burnett, Amy Nelson. Debating the Sacraments:  Print and Authority in the Early Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Burnett, Amy Nelson. “From Concord to Confession: The Wittenberg Concord and the Consensus Tigurinus in Historical Perspective.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 47–​58. Burnett, Amy Nelson. Karlstadt and the Origins of the Eucharistic Controversy: A Study in the Circulation of Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. 2nd ed. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2012. Campi, Emidio. “The Consensus Tigurinus: Origins, Assessment, and Impact.” In Shifting Patterns of Reformed Tradition, 83–​121. Reformed Historical Theology 27. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Campi, Emidio. “Zurich:  Professor in the Schola Tigurina.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, edited by Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, 95–​114. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Campi, Emidio, and Ruendi Reich, eds. Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. Casey, Edward S. The Fate of Place:  A Philosophical History. Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1997. Chadwick, Owen. The Early Reformation on the Continent. The Oxford History of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Church, Frederic Corss. The Italian Reformers, 1534–​ 1564. New  York:  Columbia University Press, 1932. Clark, Dorothy. “Erasmus and Zwingli’s On the True and False Religion.” In Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years, edited by E. J. Furcha and H. Wayne Pipkin, 23–​42. Pittsburgh Theological Monographs. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984. Constable, John Wesley. “Johann Brenz’s Role in the Sacramentarian Controversy of the Sixteenth Century.” PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, 1967. Cooper, Jordan. The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Crisp, Oliver D. Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cross, Richard. “Alloiosis in the Christology of Zwingli.” Journal of Theological Studies 46, no. 2 (April 1995): 105–​22. Cross, Richard. “Angelic Time and Motion:  Bonaventure to Duns Scotus.” In A Companion to Angels in Medieval Philosophy, edited by Tobias Hoffmann, 117–​47. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Cross, Richard. Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Cross, Richard. Duns Scotus. Great Medieval Thinkers. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1999.

300 Bibliography Cross, Richard. “Perichoresis, Deification, and Christological Predication in John of Damascus.” Mediaeval Studies 62 (2000): 69–​124. Cross, Richard. The Metaphysics of the Incarnation:  Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Daley, Brian. Gregory of Nazianzus. London: Routledge, 2006. Daniels, Richard. The Christology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004. Davidson, Ivor. “Theologizing the Human Jesus: An Ancient (and Modern) Approach to Christology Reassessed.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 3, no. 2 (July 2001): 129–​53. Dawson, Gerrit. Jesus Ascended:  The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dellsperger, Rudolf. “Gottfried Wilhelm Locher:  29 April 1911–​ 11 January 1996.” Zwingliana 23 (1996): 5–​9. Dennison, James T., Jr. “Introduction to Fidei Expositio.” In Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, edited by James T. Dennison Jr., 1:176. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books, 2008. Dingel, Irene. “Calvin in the Context of Lutheran Consolidation.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 12, nos. 2–​3 (August 2010): 155–​87. Dingel, Irene. “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord (1548–​1580).” In Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture 1550–​1675, edited by Robert Kolb, 15–​64. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Donnelly, John Patrick, S.J. A Bibliography of Peter Martyr Vermigli. Vol. 13. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1990. Donnelly, John Patrick, S.J. Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Donnelly, John Patrick, S.J. “Calvinist Thomism.” Viator 7 (1976): 441–​55. Donnelly, John Patrick, S.J. “Christological Currents in Vermigli’s Thought.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations:  Semper Reformanda, edited by Frank A. James III, 177–​96. Studies in the History of Christian Transitions 115. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Donnelly, John Patrick, S.J. “Introduction to Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ.” In Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, edited by John Patrick Donnelly S.J., vii–​xxv. The Peter Martyr Library 2. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995. Dorner, Isaak August. History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Translated by D. W. Simon. Vol. 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890. Dowey, Edward A. “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​ 1575, edited by Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi, 35–​65. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Dragas, George D. “Exchange or Communication of Properties and Deification: Antidosis or Communicatio Idiomatum and Theosis.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, nos. 1–​4 (1998): 377–​99. Eck, John. “Refutation of the Articles of Zwingli.” In On Providence and Other Essays, edited by Willian John Hinke, translated by Henry Preble, 62–​ 104. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983. Edmondson, Stephen. Calvin’s Christology. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Bibliography  301 Eire, Carlos M.  N. “‘True Piety Begets True Confession’:  Calvin’s Attack on Idolatry.” In John Calvin and the Church, edited by Timothy George, 247–​ 76. Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1990. Eire, Carlos M. N. War against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Elert, Werner. “Über die Herkunft des Satzes ‘Finitum infiniti non capax.’” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 16 (1939): 500–​504. Estes, James M. “Johannes Brenz and the German Reformation.” Lutheran Quarterly 16, no. 4 (2002): 373–​414. Farner, Oskar. Huldrych Zwingli:  Sein Entwicklung zum Reformator, 1506–​ 1520. Zürich: Zwingli-​Verlag,  1946. Farrow, Douglas. Ascension and Ecclesia: On the Significance of the Doctrine of the Ascension for Ecclesiology and Christian Cosmology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Eerdmans, 1999. Farrow, Douglas B. Ascension Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Farthing, John L. “Praeceptor Carissimus: Images of Peter Martyr in Girolamo Zanchi’s Correspondence.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations:  Semper Reformanda, edited by Frank A. James, 3–​25. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 115. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Fisher, Jeff. A Christoscopic Reading of Scripture: Johannes Oecolampadius on Hebrews. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Friedrich, Martin. “Heinrich Bullinger und die Wittenberger Konkordie: Ein Ökumeniker im Streit um das Abendmahl.” Zwingliana 24 (1997): 59–​79. Furcha, E. J., and H. Wayne Pipkin, eds. Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years. Pittsburgh Theological Monographs. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984. Gäbler, Ulrich. Huldrych Zwingli: His Life and Work. Translated by Ruth C. L. Gritsch. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986. Ganoczy, Alexandre. The Young Calvin. Translated by David Foxgiver and Wade Provo. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1987. Garside, Charles. Zwingli and the Arts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966. Gawrisch, Wilbert R. “On Christology, Brenz and the Question of Ubiquity.” In No Other Gospel: Essays in Commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of the Formula of Concord 1580–​1980, edited by Arnold J.  Koelpin, 229–​53. Milwaukee, WI:  Northwestern Publishing House, 1980. George, Timothy. “John Calvin and the Agreement of Zurich.” In Calvin and the Church, edited by Timothy George, 42–​58. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990. Gisel, Pierre. Le Christ de Calvin. Paris: Desclée, 1990. Göckel, Matthias. “A Dubious Christological Formula? Leontius of Byzantium and the Anhypostasis-​Enhypostasis Theory.” Journal of Theological Studies 51, no. 2 (October 2000): 515–​32. Godfrey, W. Robert. “Dutch Reformed Response.” In Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, edited by Lewis Spitz and Wenzel Lohff, 166–​77. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977. Gollwitzer, Helmut. Coena Domini:  Die altlutherische Abendmahlslehre in ihrer Auseinandersetzung mit dem Calvinismus, dargestellt an der lutherischen Frühorthodoxie. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1988. Gordon, Bruce. Calvin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.

302 Bibliography Gordon, Bruce. “Heinrich Bullinger.” In The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, edited by Carter Lindberg, 170–​ 83. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Gordon, Bruce. The Swiss Reformation. New Frontiers in History. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. Gordon, James R. The Holy One in Our Midst: An Essay on the Flesh of Christ. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016. Gounelle, André. “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ: Tillich entre l’extra Calvinisticum et l’intra lutheranum.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 61, no. 3 (1981): 249–​57. Graham, W. Fred, ed. Later Calvinism International Perspectives. Vol. 22. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994. Grant, Edward. Much Ado about Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Grillmeier, Alois. Christ in Christian Tradition. Translated by John Bowden. Vol. 1. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975. Gunnoe, Charles. Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate:  A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Haag, Eugène, and Émile Haag. La France protestante. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1877. Habets, Myk. “Putting the ‘Extra’ Back into Calvinism.” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 4 (January 1, 2009): 441–​56. Haga, Joar. Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of Communicatio Idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism. REFO500 2.  Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Halevi (Kirtchuk), Pablo-​Isaac. “The Hebrew Language.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, edited by Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen, and David Jan Sorkin, 491–​ 514. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Haykin, Michael A.  G., and Mark Jones, eds. Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Heller, Henry. “Antoine Du Blet.” In Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, edited by Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Brian Deutscher, 407–​8. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Helm, Paul. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hemel, Ernst van den. “Things That Matter: The Extra Calvinisticum, the Eucharist, and John Calvin’s Unstable Materiality.” In Things: Religion and the Question of Materiality, edited by Dick Houtman and Birgit Meyer, 62–​74. New  York:  Fordham University Press, 2012. Henning, E. M. “The Architectonics of Faith:  Metalogic and Metaphor in Zwingli’s Doctrine of the Eucharist.” Renaissance and Reformation/​Renaissance et Réforme 10, no. 4 (1986): 315–​65. Henrich, Rainer. “Bullinger’s Correspondence:  An International News Network.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, edited by Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi, 231–​41. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Heppe, Heinrich. “Der Charakter der deutsch-​reformirten Kirche und das Verhältniss derselben zum Luthertum und zum Calvinismus.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 3 (1850): 669–​706.

Bibliography  303 Heppe, Heinrich. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​ reformirten Kirche. Elberfeld:  R. L. Friedrichs, 1861. Heron, Alasdair I.  C. “Communicatio Idiomatum and Deificatio of Human Nature:  A Reformed Perspective.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43, nos. 1–​4 (1998): 367–​76. Heyer, Henri. Guillaume Farel:  An Introduction to His Theology. Lewiston, NY:  Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Hobbs, R. Gerald. “Strasbourg: Vermigli and the Senior School.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, edited by Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, 35–​ 69. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hofer, Andrew, O.P. Christ in the Life and Teaching of Gregory of Nazianzus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Holder, Ward. “The Pain of Agreement:  Calvin and the Consensus Tigurinus.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 18, no. 1 (March 2016): 85–​94. Holmes, Stephen R. “Reformed Varieties of the Communicatio Idiomatum.” In The Person of Christ, edited by Stephen R Holmes and Murray A. Rae, 70–​86. London:  T&T Clark, 2005. Horton, Michael S. “Theologies of Sacraments in the Reformation and Catholic Counter-​ Reformation.” In Christian Theologies of the Sacraments: A Comparative Introduction, edited by Justin S. Holcomb and David A. Johnson, 119–​ 31. New  York:  NYU Press, 2017. Huelin, Gordon. “Peter Martyr and the English Reformation.” PhD dissertation, University of London, 1954. Hund, Johannes. Das Wort ward Fleisch: Eine systematisch-​theologische Untersuchung zur Debatte um die Wittenberger Christologie und Abendmahlslehre in den Jahren 1567 und 1574. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. James, Frank A., III. “Peter Martyr Vermigli:  At the Crossroads of Late Medieval Scholasticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism.” In Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, edited by Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, 62–​78. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Janse, Wim. “The Controversy between Westphal and Calvin on Infant Baptism, 1555–​ 1556.” Perichoresis 6, no. 1 (2008): 3–​43. Jeanes, Gordon. “Cranmer and Common Prayer.” In The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, edited by Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Junod, Louis. L’Académie de Lausanne au XVIe siècle: Leges scholae Lausannensis 1547. Lettres et documents inédits publ. et annotés par Louis Junod et Henru Meylan. Edited by Louis Junod and Henru Meylan. Lausanne: Ronge, 1947. Keck, David. Angels and Angelology in the Middle Ages. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1998. Kendall, R. T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1979. Kilcrease, Jack D. The Self-​Donation of God: A Contemporary Lutheran Approach to Christ and His Benefits. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2013. Kim, Jin Heung. Scripturae et Patrum Testimoniis:  The Function of the Church Fathers and the Medievals in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Two Eucharistic Treatises: Tractatio and Dialogus. Publications of the Institute for Reformation Research 5. Apeldoorn: Insituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009.

304 Bibliography Kingdon, Robert MacCune. Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 1564–​1572. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967. Kirby, Torrance, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, eds. A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kittelson, James M. “Capito, Wolfgang.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans Joachim Hillerbrand, 1,259–​ 260. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1996. Klempa, William. “Classical Christology.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, edited by Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, 321–​53. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Klooster, Fred H. Our Only Comfort: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2001. Köhler, Walther. Zwingli und Luther: Ihr Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, Bd. 6–​7. Gütlersloh: Bertelsmann, 1924. Kolb, Robert. “Altering the Agenda, Shifting the Strategy:  The Grundfest of 1571 as Philippist Program for Lutheran Concord.” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 3 (1999): 705–​26. Kolb, Robert. “Dynamics of Party Conflict in the Saxon Late Reformation:  Gnesio-​ Lutherans vs. Philippists.” Journal of Modern History 49, no. S3 (1977): D1289–​305. Kolb, Robert. “Historical Background of the Formula of Concord.” In A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, edited by Wilbert Rosin and Robert D. Preus, 12–​87. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1978. Kolb, Robert. “Maulbronn, Colloquy of.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans Joachim Hillerbrand. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Kolb, Robert, and Carl R. Trueman. Between Wittenberg and Geneva:  Lutheran and Reformed Theology in Conversation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017. Krusche, Werner. Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Lang, Uwe Michael. “Anhypostatos-​Enhypostatos: Church Fathers, Protestant Orthodoxy and Karl Barth.” Journal of Theological Studies 49 (October 1, 1998): 630–​57. Lect, Jacques. De Vita Anton Sadeelis et Scritpis, Epistola in Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilissimi Viri Opera Theologica. Geneva, 1599. Lee, Daniel Y. K. The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought. Bern: Peter Lang, 2011. Lehman, Martin. “Introduction to The Marburg Colloquy and The Marburg Articles.” In Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament IV, edited by Martin Lehman and Helmut T. Lehmann, 38:5–​14. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971. Leijenhorst, C. H., and C. H. Lüthy. “The Erosion of Aristotelianism:  Confessional Physics in Early Modern Germany and the Dutch Republic.” In The Dynamics of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century, edited by C. H. Leijenhorst, C. H. Lüthy, and Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, 375–​411. Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Science 5. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Leijenhorst, Cees. “Place, Space and Matter in Calvinist Physics.” Monist 84, no. 4 (October 2001): 520–​41. Lenz, Martin, and Isabel Iribarren, eds. Angels in Medieval Philosophical Inquiry: Their Function and Significance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 20012. Lienhard, Marc. Luther:  Witness to Jesus Christ. Stages and Themes of the Reformer’s Christology. Translated by Edwin H. Robertson. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1982.

Bibliography  305 Linder, Robert D. “The French Calvinist Response to the Formula of Concord.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19, no. 1 (Winter 1982): 18–​37. Lindholm, Stefan. Jerome Zanchi (1516–​90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology. Reformed Historical Theology 37. Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Link, Christian. “Die Entscheidung der Christologie Calvins und ihre theologische Bedeutung:  Das sogenannte Extra-​Calvinisticum.” Evangelische Theologie 47, no. 2 (1987): 97–​119. Link, Christian. “Extra Calvinisticum.” In Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, edited by Hans Dieter Betz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Locher, Gottfried Wilhelm. Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Lichte seiner Christologie: Die Gotteslehre. Vol. 1. Zürich: Zwingli-​Verlag,  1952. Locher, Gottfried Wilhelm. Die zwinglische Reformation in Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Locher, Gottfried Wilhelm. Zwingli’s Thought:  New Perspectives. Translated by Milton Aylor and Stuart Casson. Studies in the History of Christian Thought 25. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther’s Theology:  Its Historical and Systematic Development. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999. Lugioyo, Brian. “Martin Luther’s Eucharistic Christology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Christology, edited by Francesca Aran Murphy, 267–​83. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2015. Lüthy, Christoph. “The Confessionalization of Physics: Heresies, Facts and the Travails of the Republic of Letters.” In Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion, edited by John Brooke and Ian Maclean, 81–​114. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Luy, David J. Dominus Mortis:  Martin Luther on the Incorruptibility of God in Christ. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2014. Maag, Karin. Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–​1620. St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press, 1995. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, edited by Emidio Campi and Peter-​Joachim Opitz, 173–​201. Geneva: Droz, 2002. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer:  A Life. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 1996. Mackintosh, H. R. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Manetsch, Scott M. Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–​1609. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. McCall, Thomas H. An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015. McCormack, Bruce. “Grace and Being:  The Role of God’s Gracious Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, edited by J. B. Webster, 92–​110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. McCormack, Bruce. “Participation in God, Yes, Deification, No: Two Modern Protestant Responses to an Ancient Question.” In Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, 235–​60. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

306 Bibliography McGinnis, Andrew M. The Son of God Beyond the Flesh:  A Historical and Theological Study of the Extra Calvinisticum. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology 29. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought:  An Introduction. 4th ed. Oxford:  Wiley-​Blackwell,  2012. McLelland, Joseph C. “Italy: Religious and Intellectual Ferment.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, edited by Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, 25–​ 33. Leiden: Brill, 2009. McLelland, Joseph C., ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980. McLelland, Joseph C. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: Scholastic or Humanist.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform, edited by Joseph C. McLelland, 141–​51. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980. McLelland, Joseph C. “Translator’s Introduction.” In The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist, 1549, edited and translated by Joseph C. McLelland, xvii–​xlvi. The Peter Martyr Library 7. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 2000. McLelland, Joseph C. The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli a.d. 1500–​1562. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957. McNair, Philip. Peter Martyr in Italy:  An Anatomy of Apostasy. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1967. McNair, Philip M. J. “Peter Martyr in England.” In Peter Martyr and Italian Reform, edited by Joseph C. McLelland, 85–​105. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1980. Methuen, Charlotte. “Oxford: Reading Scripture in the University.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, edited by Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James III, 71–​92. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Miller, Ed L. “Oecolampadius: The Unsung Hero of the Basel Reformation.” Iliff Review 39 (September 1982): 5–​25. Moon, Byung-​Ho. Christ the Mediator of the Law: Calvin’s Christological Understanding of the Law as the Rule of Living and Life-​Giving. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006. Morita, Yasukazu. “Bullinger und Schwenckfeld.” In Heinrich Bullinger 1504–​ 1575 Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag Zweiter Band: Beziehungen und Wirkungen, edited by Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath, 143–​ 56. Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 7. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1975. Mueller, John T. “The Issue Involved in the Lutheran Rejection of Consubstantiation.” Concordia Theological Monthly 21, no. 8 (August 1950): 602–​5. Muller, Richard A. After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition:  On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree:  Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985. Muller, Richard A. “From Zurich or Wittenburg? An Examination of Calvin’s Early Eucharistic Thought.” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 243–​55.

Bibliography  307 Muller, Richard A. Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics:  The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2003. Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1999. Neuser, Wilhelm H. “Der zweite Abendmahlsstreit.” In Handbuch der Dogmen-​und Theologiegeschichte, edited by Carl Andresen, 272–​85. Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Ngien, Dennis. The Suffering of God According to Martin Luther’s “Theologia Crucis.” Vancouver: Regent College, 2005. Nijenhuis, Willem. “Calvin and the Augsburg Confession.” In Ecclesia Reformata: Studies on the Reformation, 97–​114. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Nischan, Bodo. “The ‘Fractio Panis’:  A Reformed Communion Practice in Late Reformation Germany.” In Lutheran and Calvinists in the Age of Confessionalism, 17–​ 29. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1999. Nischan, Bodo. Prince, People, and Confession: The Second Reformation in Brandenburg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. Nischan, Bodo. “Reformed Irenicism and the Leipzig Colloquy of 1631.” Central European History 9, no. 1 (1976): 3–​26. Nugent, Donald. Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy. Harvard Historical Studies, vol. 89. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Oberman, Heiko A. “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin.” In The Dawn of the Reformation, 234–​58. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Oberman, Heiko A. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Oberman, Heiko A. “Luther and the Via Moderna: The Philosophical Backdrop of the Reformation Breakthrough.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 54, no. 4 (October 2003): 641–​70. Oberman, Heiko A. “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna:  Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought.” In From Ockham to Wyclif, edited by Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, 445–​63. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus, God and Man. Translated by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1977. Partee, Charles. The Theology of John Calvin. Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Patterson, William Brown. “Anglican Reaction.” In Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, edited by Lewis Spitz and Wenzel Lohff, 150–​65. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977. Pieper, Franz. Christian Dogmatics. Translated by John Theodore Mueller. Vol. 2. 4 vols. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1951. Piotrowski, Nicholas. “Johannes Oecolampadius:  Christology and the Supper.” Mid-​ America Journal of Theology 23 (2012): 131–​37. Pipkin, H. Wayne. “Introduction to Friendly Exegesis.” In Huldrych Zwingli Writings, 2:235–​37. Huldrych Zwingli Writings. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984. Potter, George Richard. Zwingli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Poythress, Diane. Reformer of Basel:  The Life, Thought, and Influence of Johannes Oecolampadius. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.

308 Bibliography Preus, J. A. O. The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1994. Preus, Robert D. The Theology of Post-​ Reformation Lutheranism. 2 vols. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1970. Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis, eds. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 3 vols. Translated Texts for Historians 45. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005. Pseudo-​Plutarch. Essay on the Life and Poetry of Homer. Edited by John J. Keaney and Robert Lamberton. American Classical Studies, no.  40. Atlanta, GA:  Scholars Press, 1996. Raitt, Jill. “The French Reformed Response.” In Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, edited by Lewis Spitz and Wenzel Lohff, 178–​90. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977. Rein, Nathan Baruch. “Faith and Empire:  Conflicting Visions of Religion in a Late Reformation Controversy—​ The Augsburg Interim and Its Opponents, 1548–​ 50.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 71, no. 1 (March 2003): 45–​74. Richards, George Warren. “Introduction to Commentary on True and False Religion.” In Commentary on True and False Religion, edited by Samuel Jackson and Clarence Heller, 1–​42. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1981. Riggs, John W. The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015. Rilliet, Jean. Zwingli:  Third Man of the Reformation. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1964. Rolston, Holmes, III. John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972. Rorem, Paul. Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper. Alcuin/​GROW Liturgical Study 12. Bramcote, UK: Grove Books, 1989. Ross, David. Aristotle. 6th ed. London: Routledge, 1995. Rummel, Erika, and Milton Kooistra, eds. The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito: 1524–​ 1531. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body:  Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1959. Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Revised ed. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984. Schattauer, Thomas H. “From Sacrifice to Supper: Eucharistic Practice in the Lutheran Reformation.” In A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, edited by Lee Palmer Wandel, 205–​30. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Boston: Brill, 2014. Schindler, Alfred. “Zwingli als Leser von Johannes Damascenus.” In Auctoritas Patrum:  Zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, edited by Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt, 185–​95. Mainz:  Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993. Schreiber, Scott G. Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. SUNY Series in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2003. Schweizer, Alexander. Die Glaubenslehre der evangelisch-​reformierten Kirche dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt. 2 vols. Zürich: Orell, Füssli und Comp, 1844. Schweizer, Alexander. Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche. 2 vols. Zürich: Orell, Füssli und Comp, 1854. Seeberg, Erich. “Der Gegesatz zwischen Zwingli, Schwenckfled und Luther.” In Reinhold Seeberg Festschrift, edited by Wilhelm Koepp, 1:43–​80. Leipzig: Deichert/​Scholl, 1929.

Bibliography  309 Selderhuis, H. J., ed. The Calvin Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Selderhuis, Herman, ed. A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Shults, F. LeRon. “A Dubious Christological Formula from Leontius of Byzantium to Karl Barth.” Theological Studies 57, no. 3 (September 1, 1996): 431–​46. Siggins, Ian D.  Kingston, ed. Luther. Evidence and Commentary. New  York:  Barnes & Noble Books, 1972. Simler, Josiah. Oration on the Life and Death of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermigli. Edited and translated by John Patrick Donnelly, S.J. The Peter Martyr Library 5. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1999. Sinnema, Donald. “Chandieu’s Scholastic Reformed Theology.” In Later Calvinism International Perspectives, edited by W. Fred Graham, 159–​89. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 22. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994. Sparn, Walter. “Jesus Christus V Vom Trideninum bis zur Aufklärung.” In Theologische Realenzyklopädie, edited by Gerhard Müller. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Spruyt, Bart Jan. Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius) and His Epistle on the Eucharist (1525):  Medieval Heresy, Erasmian Humanism, and Reform in the Early Sixteenth-​ Century Low Countries. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, vol. 119. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006. Stephens, W. P. “The Person and Work of Christ in the Theology of Heinrich Bullinger.” Reformation & Renaissance Review 17, no. 3 (November 2015): 230–​43. Stephens, W. Peter. The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Stephens, W. Peter. “The Theology of Zwingli.” In The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, edited by David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz, 80–​ 99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Stephens, W. P. Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Stephens, W. P. “Zwingli on John 6:63: ‘Spiritus est Qui Vivificat, Caro Nihil Prodest.’” In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Richard A Muller and John L. Thompson, 156–​85. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Sturm, Klaus. Die Theologie Peter Martyr Vermiglis während seines ersten Aufenthalts in Strassburg 1542–​1547: Ein Reformkatholik unter den Vätern der reformierten Kirche. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, Bd. 31. Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. Sumner, Darren O. “The Twofold Life of the Word:  Karl Barth’s Critical Reception of the Extra Calvinisticum.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 1 (2013): 42–​57. Sunshine, Glenn S. Reforming French Protestantism:  The Development of Huguenot Ecclesiastical Institutions, 1557–​1572. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 66. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003. Sutherland, N. M. “Calvinism and the Conspiracy of Amboise.” History 47, no. 160 (1962): 111–​38. Taplin, Mark. “Bullinger on the Trinity: ‘Religionis Nostrae Caput et Fundamentum.’” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, edited by Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi, 67–​99. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Taplin, Mark. “Josias Simler and the Fathers:  The ‘Scripta Veterum Latina’ (1571).” Zwingliana 38 (2011): 67–​152. Teigen, Bjarne W. The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz. Des Moines, IA: Trinity Lutheran Press, 1986.

310 Bibliography Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Person of Christ.” In A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord, edited by Wilbert Rosin and Robert D. Preus, 232–​ 52. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1978. Thompson, Bard. Humanists and Reformers: A History of the Renaissance and Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Toon, Peter. The Ascension of Our Lord. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1984. Torrance, Iain R. “A Particular Reformed Piety:  John Knox and the Posture at Communion.” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 4 (2014): 400–​413. Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time and Incarnation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time and Resurrection. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Trueman, Carl R., and R. Scott Clark, eds. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Tylenda, Joseph N. “Calvin-​Westphal Exchange: The Genesis of Calvin’s Treatises against Westphal.” Calvin Theological Journal 9, no. 2 (November 1974): 182–​209. Tylenda, Joseph N. “Christ the Mediator:  Calvin versus Stancaro.” Calvin Theological Journal 8, no. 1 (April 1973): 5–​16. Tylenda, Joseph N. “Controversy on Christ the Mediator:  Calvin’s Second Reply to Stancaro.” Calvin Theological Journal 8, no. 2 (November 1973): 131–​57. Urban, Wacław. “Die grössen Jahre der stancarianischer ‘Häresie.’” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 81 (1990): 309–​18. Urban, Wacław. “Stancarus, Francis.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, edited by Hans Joachim Hillerbrand. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. van Asselt, Willem J. “Christ, Predestination, and Covenant in Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​ 1800, edited by Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, 211–​27. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. van Asselt, Willem J. “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Thought.” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (September 2002): 319–​35. van Asselt, Willem J. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Translated by Albert Gootjes. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011. van Asselt, Willem J. “The Theologian’s Toolkit: Johannes Maccovius (1588–​1644) and the Development of Reformed Theological Distinctions.” Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 1 (2006): 23–​40. van Asselt, Willem J., and Eef Dekker, eds. Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise. Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Van Raalte, Theodore G. Antoine de Chandieu:  The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Von Hagel, Thomas A. “The Genus Maiestaticum-​ Christology of the ‘Catalog of Testimonies.’” PhD dissertation, Saint Louis University, 1997. Walton, Robert C. “Let Zwingli Be Zwingli.” In Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years, edited by E. J. Furcha and H. Wayne Pipkin, 171–​90. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984. Wandel, Lee Palmer. “The Body of Christ at Marburg, 1529.” In Image and Imagination of the Religious Self in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 195–​213. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2007.

Bibliography  311 Wandel, Lee Palmer, ed. A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition. Boston: Brill, 2014. Wandel, Lee Palmer. The Eucharist in the Reformation:  Incarnation and Liturgy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wandel, Lee Palmer. Voracious Idols and Violent Hands:  Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Webster, John. “The Immensity and Ubiquity of God.” In Confessing God, 87–​107. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Webster, John. “Theologies of Retrieval.” In The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, edited by John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance, 583–​99. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Williams, George Huntston. The Radical Reformation. 3rd ed. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1995. 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 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Willis, E David. “Interview of E. David Willis.” By Ray F. Kibler III. November 18, 1993. Graduate Theological Union Digital Library. http://​cdm15837.contentdm.oclc.org/​ cdm/​ref/​collection/​p15837coll1/​id/​329. Wisse, Maarten, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten, and Willem J. van Asselt, eds. Scholasticism Reformed Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt. Studies in Theology and Religion, vol. 14. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Wright, William J. “Philip of Hesse’s Vision of Protestant Unity and the Marburg Colloquy.” In Pietas et Societas:  New Trends in Reformation Social History Essays in Memory of Harold J. Grimm, edited by Kyle C. Sessions and Phillip N. Bebb, 163–​79. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 4.  Kirksville, MO:  Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1985. Wyatt, Peter. Jesus Christ and Creation in the Theology of John Calvin. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1996. Zuidema, Jason. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–​1562) and the Outward Instruments of Divine Grace. Reformed Historical Theology 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Zwanepol, Klaas. “A Human God:  Some Remarks on Luther’s Christology.” Concordia Journal 30, nos. 1–​2 (April 2004): 40–​53. Zwanepol, Klaas. “Lutheran and Reformed on the Finite and the Infinite.” Lutheran Quarterly 25 (2011): 414–​34.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages.    Abraham, Calov, 279–​80 Aristotle, Vermigli and, 140, 141–​42, Against Eutyches (Vigilius), 182–​83, 150, 275–​76 184–​85,  193 Brenz and, 147, 147n.25, 177–​78, Against Praxeus (Tertullian), 171–​72 192–​93,  195 Agricola, Stephen, Swabian coherence of Christian faith, 173–​74 Syngramma, 54 connected Reformed churches to, à Laski, Jan, 143, 144, 156–​57 152–​53,  164–​65 aliud et aliud, 268–​69, 269n.232, 270 Dialogue on the Two Nature in Christ, alloiosis, 25–​26, 43–​44, 53, 56, 61n.154 170–​71,  196–​99 communicatio idiomatum, 61–​74 heavenly realm, 192–​93 Amboise Conspiracy, 227–​28 local heaven, 164–​65 Anderson, Marvin, 202–​3 use vs. rejection of, 141–​42 anhypostatic human nature, 77–​78, 104–​6, ascension of Christ, 5, 16 244, 244n.155 circumscribed body, Marburg Anselmian logic of satisfaction, 34, Colloquy, 90–​101 103–​4,  123–​24 to local heaven, 192–​202 anti-​Trinitarianism, 80, 124–​25, 157n.73, 158 neglect of, 288 Antoine de la Roche. See Chandieu, twofold presence, 15 Antoine de la Roche ascension of Christ, Zwingli on, Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilis Simi Viri 39, 60, 75 Opera Theologica (Chandieu), alloiosis, 70 232, 238–​39 body takes another state, 58–​59 Apologeticus Archteles (Zwingli), 40–​41 corporal presence in mass, 41–​42 Apostles’ Creed, 46–​47, 113 Ephesians 4:10, 59 Bullinger, Heinrich, 121–​22 On the Lord’s Supper, 43, 44–​45, Calvin, John, 127 46–​48,  49–​50 Aquinas, Thomas, 10 Marburg Colloquy, 90–​91, 92, Arianism, 98n.73, 157 93–​96,  98–​101 Aristotle, 18 where he now resides, right hand of the Chandieu, 209–​10, 232–​33, 234, 235 Father, 60, 68–​69 Luther, 96 Athanasius, 18, 34, 123, 255–​56 physics and conception of place, 96–​97, Augsburg Confession, 44, 101, 117–​18, 98, 137–​38,  280–​81 212–​13,  222 Posterior Analytics, 232–​33 Augsburg Interim, 117–​18, 118n.133, Prior Analytics, 232–​33 124–​25, 131,  154–​55 Zwingli, 21n.8 Augsburg Variata, 117–​18, 212,  214–​15

314 Index Augustine, 280–​81 Chandieu, 255–​56,  273 Letter to Dardanus, 93–​94, 126n.162, 170–​71 Tractates on John, 61n.152, 68–​69 Vermigli, 151, 172–​73, 179, 184–​85,  198–​99 Willis, 6 Zwingli, 21, 24n.19, 60–​61, 61n.152 Augustine, Marburg Colloquy discussion Luther, 84–​85 Zwingli and Oecolampadius, 83–​84, 90–​91, 93–​94, 97–​98, 100–​1, 111–​12, 123, 130 Aus der Au, Christina, “Das extra calvinisticum: Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?,” 9–​10,  208    Barclay, Alexander, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, 40–​41, 42–​44, 43n.86, 109 Barth, Karl, 11–​12 Church Dogmatics, 3 doctrine of election, 207n.5 Götttingen Dogmatics, 3 McGinnis on, 11 natural theology and, 272 rejection of extra, 3–​5, 7–​8, 208, 211 Willis on, 6–​7 Baumann, Michael, 140–​41,  194 Baur, Jörg, 149–​50, 149n.35, 217 Bavinck, Herman, 277 Berkouwer, G. C., 105–​6, 186–​87, 186n.179 Bernus, Auguste, Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu: D’après son journal autographe inédit, 1534-​1591, 226 Beza, Theodore, 218 on Chandieu, 230 Harmonia confessionum fidei, 229 McGinnis on, 10 Black Rubric, 282–​83 Blanke, Fritz, 64 body (of Christ). See also specific topics being in a place, 94, 177–​78, 280–​81 Christ’s human, 1, 19 circumscribed, Marburg Colloquy, 90–​101

Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ (Vermigli), 168–​74 Luther Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ-​Against the Fanatics, The, 43–​44, 51–​52, 51n.111, 54, 56–​57,  58–​59 “This is my body” and Marburg Colloquy, 78–​85, 87–​101, 274 Book of Common Prayer (1552), 282–​83 Brandy, Hans, 140–​41, 147, 149–​50, 173–​ 74, 174n.138, 197, 198–​99 Brecht, Martin, 51n.111 Brenz, Johannes, 275–​76 Chandieu and, 210–​11, 212–​13, 215–​16, 217, 237–​38, 240–​41, 242, 249, 252–​53, 263–​64,  270–​72 on communicatio idiomatum, 148–​49 De Personali unione and, 145–​52, 164–​ 65, 176–​77,  192–​93 doctrine of ubiquity, 140, 141–​42, 144–​46, 148, 150, 152, 154–​56, 159, 164 Vermigli’s Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ, 165, 167, 168–​69, 173–​74, 175, 179, 185, 191–​92,  203 Eutychianism and, 179, 179n.151, 213, 215–​16 hypostatic union, 151, 191–​92,  193 Chemnitz compared with, 214, 216–​21 Lutheran Reformation, career, 146 Syngramma Suevicum, 41–​42, 43–​44, 43n.86, 56–​57, 146 Bromiley, Geoffrey, 45, 50–​51 Bruce, A. B., 148–​49, 214 Bucanus, William, 272 Bucer, Martin, 55, 55n.124, 84–​85, 117–​ 18, 118n.130, 146, 153–​54, 274n.3, 283 Bugenhagen, Johan, 42–​43 Bullinger, Heinrich, 117, 275–​76 Apostles’ Creed, 121–​22 Consensus Tigurinus, 12–​13, 77, 117–​19, 131–​39,  275–​76 De Institution Eucharistiae, 120 First Helvetic Confession, 101–​2

Index  315 Mansiones, 199–​200 McGinnis on, 10 on Nestorianism, 122–​23 Orthodox Assertion of the Two Natures of Christ, An, 78, 120–​21, 120n.142, 124–​25,  159 transubstantiation, 120 Vermigli correspondence with, 202–​3 on Wittenberg Concord, 117–​18, 118n.130 Zwingli christology, continuation, 119–​25 on Fidei Expositio, 101–​2 influence, 22–​23 Burnett, Amy, 42n.79, 117–​18, 120n.140, 132    Calvin, John, 3, 117, 275–​76 Apostles’ Creed, 127 Consensus Tigurinus, 12–​13, 77, 117–​19, 131–​39,  275–​76 Institutes of the Christian Religion, 14, 19–​20, 30n.39, 78, 125–​31, 203, 210–​11,  227 triplex munus, 133–​34 Zwingli’s influence on, 22–​23 Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology (Willis). See Willis, David, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology Calvins vs. Calvinists paradigm, 206, 207–​8 Capito, Wolfgang, 55n.124 Chalcedonian christology, 289 Brenz, 275–​76 Chandieu, 209–​10, 238, 248, 250, 252, 255–​56, 260, 263–​64, 266, 269, 270, 272 logic, 240–​43 Junius, 278–​79 Chalcedonian christology, Vermigli and,  174–​92 communicatio idiomatum, 183–​86 finitum noncapax infiniti, 186–​92 hypostatic union, 175–​83

Chalcedonian Definition, 106, 122–​23, 142, 145–​46, 148, 160, 175, 176–​77, 178, 179, 182, 242, 260 Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche, 205–​73,  275–​76 aliud et aliud, 268–​69, 269n.232, 270 Amboise Conspiracy, 227–​28 Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilis Simi Viri Opera Theologica, 232, 238–​39 Christ as mediator, 209, 249–​53, 258–​59,  260 in concreto/​in abstracto distinction, 254–​55, 258–​59, 261, 268, 271–​72 debate development, Vermigli to Chandieu,  210–​26 Chemnitz, Martin, voluntary ubiquity and genus maiestaticum, 150n.43, 215–​21,  253 Formula of Concord, 222–​26 De Verbo Dei Scripto, 231–​32, 237, 243 doctrine of ubiquity, 205, 209–​11, 212, 215–​16, 217, 237–​38, 240–​42, 249, 252–​53, 263–​64,  270–​72 enhypostatic christology, 243, 244, 244n.155, 263 Eutychianism and, 224–​25, 242, 261–​62,  269 Harmonia confessionum fidei, 229 Histoire des persecutions et martyrs de l’eglise de Paris, 227, 228 hypostatic union, 239, 240–​41, 247, 249–​50, 252, 254–​58, 263, 266–​ 67, 269–​72, 273 La Confirmation de la discipline, 228 life, 226–​31 Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxii, 229 on Nestorianism, 224–​25, 252–​53,  269 per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο (aliud) distinction,  266–​72 principia (see principia, Chandieu) principia cognoscendi, 209, 234, 235, 238, 252–​53, 264–​65,  273 principia essendi, 234–​35 reason and logic, 236–​37 Response a la profession de foy, 229

316 Index Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche (cont.) on rhetorical theology, 209–​10,  231–​33 scholastic method, 231–​38 on scholastic theology, 232–​33 totus Christus/​totum Christi, 258–​60,  263 Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche, De veritate humanae naturae Iesu Christi, 17, 205, 229, 238–​72 Chalcedonian logic, 240–​43 communicatio idiomatum, 253–​63 Epistle, 240–​41 finitum non capax infiniti and Christ as mediator, 249–​53 Principia of scripture, 243–​48 (see also principia, Chandieu) scholastic distinctions, 263–​72 status quaestionis,  238–​39 structure, 238–​40 transubstantiation,  240–​41 Chemnitz, Martin, 150n.43 on communicatio idiomatum, 216,  218–​21 De Duabus Naturis in Christo, 215–​16 Eutychianism, 215–​16,  220–​21 Formula of Concord, 209–​10, 212–​13, 214–​16, 221, 222n.68, 222–​26, 224n.75, 229, 237–​38,  256–​57 on hypostatic union, 214, 216–​21 Brenz’s, 214, 216–​21 multivolipresence, 218 ubiquity, doctrine of, 150n.43, 209–​10,  214–​15 Christ as mediator, 278–​79,  290 Chandieu, 209, 249–​53, 258–​59,  260 Stancaro, 154–​55, 155n.66, 156–​58, 156n.71, 157n.73, 159–​60 Vermigli, 156–​58, 159–​63, 164–​65, 167, 169, 188, 198–​99 Zwingli, 19, 23–​24, 27–​28, 31–​35, 37–​38,  275–​76 christology. See also specific topics Chalcedonian, hypostatic union and, 175–​83 Vermigli, early, 155–​64 Wittenberger, 213–​14,  215–​16 Württemberger,  213–​14 christology, Zwingli’s, 22–​23

Bullinger’s continuation, 119–​25 early (before Eucharistic Controversy),  28–​39 late, Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, 101–​17 Church Dogmatics (Barth), 3 Colloquy of Maulbronn, 212 Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Ursinus), 11, 212 Commentary on True and False Religion, The (Zwingli), 25–​26, 29–​32, 41, 74 christology, 32–​37 historical context and purpose, 28–​32 inspiration for, 29–​30 reforming agenda, 31–​32 sections, 31–​32 writing and purpose, 25–​26,  29–​31 communicatio idiomatum, 8, 15, 16, 18, 72–​73, 99, 106, 113, 116–​17, 127, 139, 279–​80 Brenz,  148–​49 Chandieu, 209–​10, 213, 218–​20, 224, 238, 239–​40, 242, 249, 253–​63, 268, 271–​72 Chemnitz, 216, 218–​21 concept, origins, 254–​55 definition, theological discourse, 254–​55n.188 “real” vs. “essential,” 209–​10, 220–​21, 224, 239–​40, 253, 260–​63, 264 Vermigli, 141–​42, 147, 148, 151, 162–​ 63, 174–​75,  193 Chalcedonian christology and, 183–​86 Zwingli, 27, 50, 53, 62–​64, 70–​71, 72, 73n.198, 74, 75–​76 confessionalization, 207 “confessional physics,” 280–​82 Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (Luther), 43–​44 Consensus Tigurinus (Bullinger & Calvin), 12–​13, 19–​141, 207,  275–​76 Lutheran riposte, 140 Vermigli, 145–​46, 192,  201–​2 Vermigli, fallout and Second Eucharistic controversy, 143–​45 consubstantiation, 39, 39n.68

Index  317 contemporary doctrinal revival, 285–​91 Council of Chalcedon, 1 Cranmer, Thomas, 282–​83 Cross, Richard, 72, 73–​74, 73–​74n.204 Crypto-​Kenotic Controversy,  13–​14 Cyril of Alexandria, 6, 10, 123, 148, 151, 178–​81, 184–​86, 193, 255–​56,  266–​69 Scholia, 268–​69,  271–​72    Daneau, Lambert, Harmonia confessionum fidei, 229 Dass diese Wort Christi (Luther), 43–​44 Dass diese Worte (Zwingli), 43–​44 d’Aubigné, Merle, 82–​83, 82–​83n.16 de Blet, Antoine, 29–​30 de Bourbon, Antoine, 227 De Canone Missae (Zwingli), 40–​41 De Duabus Naturis in Christo (Chemnitz), 215–​16 De Institution Eucharistiae (Bullinger), 120 De Personali unione (Brenz), Vermigli and, 145–​52, 164–​65, 176–​77,  192–​93 Orothetes, 166, 168–​70 Pantachus, 166, 168–​72, 175–​76, 180n.156, 187–​88, 197, 199–​200,  202 d’Étaples, Lefèvre, 29–​30 De Verbo Dei Scripto (Chandieu), 231–​32, 237, 243 De veritate humanae naturae Iesu Christi (Chandieu), 17, 205, 229,  238–​72 Chalcedonian logic, 240–​43 communicatio idiomatum, 253–​63 finitum non capax infiniti and Christ as mediator, 249–​53 introduction and structure, 238–​40 Principia of scripture, 243–​48 (see also principia, Chandieu) scholastic distinctions, 263–​72 Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ (Vermigli), 164–​202,  275–​76 bodies, reason, and God’s power, 168–​74 Brenz’s doctrine of ubiquity, 140 Chalcedon, hypostatic union, and communicatio idiomatum,  174–​92

Chalcedonian christology and hypostatic union, 175–​83 communicatio idiomatum, 183–​86 Vermigli and finitum noncapax infiniti, 186–​92 Christ’s ascension to local heaven, 192–​202 concilar orthodoxy, 242 introduction, 164–​68 Dingel, Irene, 212–​13 doctrine of ubiquity. See ubiquity, doctrine of Donnelly, John Patrick, 143, 155–​56, 157n.73, 161n.89, 165n.97, 179n.151, 203–​4 Dorner, Isaak, 148    Eck, John, 53–​54, 108n.102 Edmonson, Stephen, 156 Elert, Werner, 249–​50 enhypostatic christology Chandieu, 243, 244, 244n.155, 263 Vermigli, 141–​42, 163–​65, 174–​75, 179–​80, 185–​86, 190–​91,  195 Zwingli, 77–​78, 104–​6, 108–​9, 110–​11, 117, 123, 128–​29 Erasmus, 19–​20,  21–​22 humanism,  45–​46 Zwingli’s break with, 32–​33 est as significat, Zwingli, 41–​42,  89 Estes, James, 146 etiam extra carnem, 2n.2, 2–​3, 6, 18, 243–​44 Eucharistic Controversy 1524-​1531, Zwingli and, 39–​44 Eucharistic Ritual Practice, 282–​85 Black Rubric, 282–​83 Book of Common Prayer, second (1552), 282–​83 fractio panis,  283–​85 Eutychianism, 1 Brenz, 179, 179n.151, 213, 215–​16 Chandieu, rejection, 224–​25, 242, 261–​62,  269 Chemnitz, 215–​16,  220–​21 Exposition of the Sixty-​Seven Articles, The (Zwingli), 40–​41

318 Index extra Calvinisticum. See also specific topics definition, 14 origins and definition, 1–​3 propositions, four, 16 scholarship on, Zwingli, 23–​27 synonyms, 2n.2 extra carnem, 2n.2, 2–​3, 4–​5, 7–​8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 27, 39, 49–​50, 75, 164–​65, 214–​15, 243–​44,  248    Farel, William (Guillaume), 21–​22, 29–​30,  29n.37 Farrago (Westphal), 144 Fidei Expositio (Zwingli), 44, 77, 101, 105,  111–​17 Fideo Ratio (Zwingli), 77, 101–​4, 106–​11,  117 finita dona, 219–​20, 243 finitum non capax infiniti, 5–​8, 12, 60, 186–87, 190–​92, 209–​10, 248, 252–​53 Chandieu, 208–​10, 248, 249–​53 Vermigli, 142, 148, 174–​75,  186–​92 First Helvetic Confession, 101–​2 First National Synod (1559, French), 227–​28 First Zürich Disputation, 21–​22 Formula of Concord, 209–​10, 212–​13, 214–​16, 221, 222n.68, 222–​26, 224n.75, 229, 237–​38,  256–​57 fractio panis,  283–​85 French Confession, 227–​28 Friedrich, Martin, 124–​25 Friendly Exegesis (Zwingli), 50, 53–​74, 75–​ 76, 77, 85–​86, 93–​94, 104, 105–​ 6, 109–​10, 113, 116–​17,  136 alloiosis, communicatio idiomatum and, 61–​74 Extra against ubiquity, 56–​61 introduction, 53–​56 Fulgentius, 93–​94, 100, 151, 179n.154, 193 Füssell, Martin, 284–​85    Gaddis, Michael, 176–​77 Ganoczy, Alexandre, The Young Calvin, 130 genus apotelesmaticum, 218–​19 genus idiomaticum, 218–​19

genus maiestaticum, 266–​67,  279–​80 Chemnitz and voluntary ubiquity, 150n.43, 215–​21,  253 Gisel, Pierre, 187, 208, 248, 249–​50, 252–​53,  272 Gnesio-​Lutherans, 143,  212–​13 Gordon, Bruce, 117–​18 Gordon, James, The Holy One in Our Midst, 9–​10, 285–​86, 287–​88,  289–​90 Götttingen Dogmatics (Barth), 3 Gounelle, André, “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ: Tillich entre l’extra calvinisticum et l’intra lutheranum,” 9–​10 Gunnoe, Charles, 212    Habets, Myk, 285–​86,  288 Haga, Joar, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 24–​25, 72–​73, 147–​48, 150–​216, 218, 225 Hardenberg, Albert, 144–​45 Harmonia confessionum fidei (Chandieu et al.), 216, 229 Heidelberg Catechism, 3–​4, 11, 14, 207–​8, 210–​11, 211n.14 Helm, Paul, John Calvin’s Ideas, 8–​9, 11, 203–​4 Helvidius, 88 Histoire des persecutions et martyrs de l’eglise de Paris (Chandieu), 227, 228 hoc est corpus meum, 39–​40,  98–​99 Hoen, Cornelium, 41–​42 Holder, R. Ward, 136–​37 humanism Erasmus, 19–​20,  45–​46 Zwingli,  19–​23 human nature, Christ’s, 1–​2, 19. See also extra Calvinisticum; Zwingli, Ulrich; specific topics Hus, Jan and Hussite thought, 41–​42 hypostatic union, 1–​2, 5–​6, 15, 18, 211, 274, 277–​78, 286–​87,  288 Brenz, 151, 191–​92,  193 Wittenberg theologians on, 213 Chalcedonian christology and, 175–​83

Index  319 Chandieu, 239, 240–​41, 247, 249–​50, 252, 254–​58, 263, 266–​67, 269–​72,  273 Chemnitz, 216 Chemnitz on Brenz on, 214, 216–​21 Formula of Concord, 223, 224n.75,  224–​25 Junius, 207–​8 Luther, 91 Oecolampadius, 92 Stancaro, 152 Vermigli, 115–​16, 141–​42, 149–​50, 149nn.35–​36, 159–​65, 184–​86, 188, 190–​92, 194–​95,  201–​2 Chalcedonian christology and, 175–​83 voluntary ubiquity, 215–​21 Zwingli, 25–​26, 27, 50, 53, 62, 65, 65n.172, 66, 67, 71, 72, 74, 75–​76 Marburg Colloquy, 100–​1, 104, 106–​ 7, 110, 139

   in abstracto, 254–​55, 258–​59, 261, 268, 271–​72 in concreto/​in abstracto, 254–​55, 258–​59, 261, 268, 271–​72 Institutes of the Christian Religion (Calvin), 14, 19–​20, 30n.39, 78, 125–​31, 203, 210–​11, 227 interadventum, 128–​29, 174–​75, 192, 245–​46    James, Frank, 152–​53 Jerome, 151, 172–​73 Jewel, John, 165–​66 John Elector of Saxony, 78–​79 Jud, Leo, 21–​22, 28, 119 Junius, Franciscus Chalcedonian christology, 278–​79 hypostatic union, 207–​8 theologia unionis,  277–​80 Treatise on the True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, A, 207–​ 8, 231–​32, 276, 277–​79, 279n.15    Karlstadt, Andreas, 42–​43, 51n.111, 52, 54 Kilcrease, Jack, 190 Kim, Jin Heung, 151–​52, 179, 179nn.153–​54

Klempa, William, 156–​58 Köhler, Walter, Das Marburger Religionsgesprsäch, 30–​31,  81 Konx, John, 282–​83 Krusche, Werner, 8–​9    La Confirmation de la discipline (Chandieu), 228 Lausanne Disputation, 126n.162, 126–​27n.164,  130 Lect, Jacques, De Vita Anton Sadeelis et Scritpis, Epistola in Antonii Sadeelis Chandei Nobilissimi Viri Opera Theologica, 226 Lee, Daniel K., The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought, 8–​9,  203–​4 Leijenhorst, Cees, 280–​82 Leipzig Colloquy, 274–​75, 274n.3 Le Ministre Antoine de Chandieu: D’après son journal autographe inédit, 1534-​1591 (Bernus), 226 Leo the Great, 178 Letter to Alber (Zwingli), 32, 41, 42–​43 Letter to Dardanus (Augustine), 93–​94, 126n.162, 170–​71 Letter to Haner (Zwingli), 43–​44,  61–​62 Letter to the Reutingers (Luther), 43–​44 Letter to Wyttenbach (Zwingli), 40–​41 Lienhard, Marc, 107–​8 Lindholm, Stefan, 207–​8 Locher, Gottfried Wilhelm, 21–​22,  74 on Zwingli, 21–​22, 23–​24, 24n.19, 27–​ 28, 38, 64–​65,  73–​74 logos asarkos, 3–​4, 5–​6, 208, 211, 286–​87 logos ensarkos, 5–​6, 149n.35, 208, 279n.15, 286–​87 logos incarnandus et immolandus, 161–​62 Lohse, Bernhard, 83–​84 Lombard, Peter, 6, 10, 21n.8, 151, 174n.138, 198–​99,  258–​59 Lugioyo, Brian, 25 Luther, Martin On the Adoration of the Sacraments,  59–​61 Confession concerning Christ’s Supper, 43–​44 Dass diese Wort Christi, 43–​44 hoc est corpus meum, 39–​40,  98–​99

320 Index Luther, Martin (cont.) Letter to the Reutingers, 43–​44 Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ-​Against the Fanatics, The, 43–​44, 51–​52, 51n.111, 54, 56–​57,  58–​59 Zwingli conflict, 42–​44 Luther, Martin, at Marburg Colloquy (“This is my body”), 274 ascension of Christ’s circumscribed body, 90–​101 politics and parting of ways, 78–​83 scripture and reason, 83–​85, 87–​90 Luther, Martin, doctrine of ubiquity, 2–​3,  2n.4 Zwingli on, 19, 39, 51–​52, 70 Zwingli on, Friendly Exegesis against, 50, 53–​74, 75–​76, 77, 85–​86, 93–​94, 104, 105–​6, 109–​10, 113, 116–​17, 136 (see also Friendly Exegesis (Zwingli)) Lüthy, Christoph, 280–​82 Luy, David, 25–​26    Mackintosh, H.R., The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, 13n.41 Magdeburg League, 78–​79 manducatio corporalis, 87–​88 manducatio impiorum, 274 manducatio spiritualis, 87–​88 Mansiones (Bullinger), 199–​200 Marburg Articles, 81–​83, 275 Marburg Colloquy, 77–​101, 274–​76 ascension of Christ’s circumscribed body, 90–​101 dates, moderator, and delegations, 81–​82 John Elector of Saxony, 78–​79 Lutherian vs. Reformed disagreement, 77–​78 Marburg Articles, 81–​83,  274–​75 Philip of Hesse, 78–​79, 81–​82, 83–​84,  89 politics and parting of ways, 78–​83 potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata, 80–​81 Protestantism wings, growing divergence,  79–​81 scripture and reason, 83–​90 via antiqua vs. via moderna, 80–​81

McCall, Thomas, 285–​86 McGinnis, Andrew Son of God Beyond the Flesh, The, 8, 10–​ 12, 13–​14,  23 on Zwingli, 10, 23 mediator, Christ as. See Christ as mediator Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxii (Chandieu), 229 Meisner, Conrad, 281 Melanchthon, Philip, 81–​82, 117–​18, 129, 130, 143, 146, 167–​68,  212–​13 modes of presence, 96–​98, 128–​29, 136, 138–​39 Monophysitism, 157 Morély, Jean, 227, 228 Tracté de la discipline & police chrestienne, 227, 228 Muller, Richard, 130, 206 on Chandieu, 231–​32 Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins, 207n.5, 207–​8 multivolipresence, 218 Myconius, Oswald, 119    Nestorianism, 1, 175 Bullinger, 122–​23 Chandieu, 224–​25, 252–​53,  269 Vermigli, 162–​64, 175–​76, 179, 182–​83, 187, 190–​91 Zwingli, 24–​26, 27–​28, 36–​37, 38–​ 39, 50, 53, 62, 63–​64, 70–​71, 72, 104 Niceno-​Constantinopolitan Creed, 121 Nischan, Bodo, 284–​85 non capax. See finitum non capax infiniti    Oberman, Heiko, 72, 79–​80 “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” 3, 6–​8, 11 Oecolampadius, Johannes, 21–​22, 52, 55 Benz’s attack, 54 Eck on, 53–​54 On the Genuine Exposition of the Lord’s Words, This Is My Body, 41–​43, 42n.79, 42n.82 Two Replies to Luther’s Book, 43–​44

Index  321 Oecolampadius, Johannes, at Marburg Colloquy ascension of Christ’s circumscribed body, 90–​91, 92, 93–​94, 95–​96,  98–​101 politics and parting of ways, 81–​82 scripture and reason, 84–​90 Olevianus, Caspar, 5, 212 On the Adoration of the Sacraments (Luther),  59–​61 On the Genuine Exposition of the Lord’s Words, This Is My Body (Oecolampadius), 41–​43, 42n.79, 42n.82 On the Lord’s Supper (Zwingli), 25–​26, 43–​52, 74, 75 birth of extra Calvinisticum and, 39–​52 Zwingli and the Eucharistic Controversy 1524-​1531,  39–​44 Orthodox Assertion of the Two Natures of Christ, An (Bullinger), 78, 120–​ 21, 120n.142, 124–​25,  159    Peace of Augsburg (1555), 143, 210–​11 perfect being theology, 286–​87, 289–​90, 290n.49 perichoresis, 220, 220n.60 Perkins, William, 272 per se/​κατ’ ἀλλο (aliud) distinction,  266–​72 person of Christ, 1. See also hypostatic union Chalcedonian articulation, 12–​13 Philip of Hesse, 55, 78–​79 Marburg Colloquy, 78–​79, 81–​82, 83–​84,  89 Philippists, 143, 150, 212–​13 place, concepts of, 94, 177–​78, 280–​81 being in a place, 94, 177–​78, 280–​81 Plutarch, 64 pneumatology Calvin, 8–​9, 12,  129–​30 Calvin, Consensus Tigurinus and, 131,  134–​35 Chandieu, 248n.169 Zwingli, 12 potentia absoluta, 7–​8, 60–​61, 60–​61n.150,  80–​81 potentia ordinata, 60–​61,  80–​81

Potter, George Richard, 82–​83,  101–​2 presence, modes of, 96–​98, 128–​29, 136, 138–​39 Preus, J. A. O., 215–​16 Preus, Robert, 279–​80 Price, Richard, 176–​77 principia, Chandieu, 209–​10, 243–​48, 272, 273, 274, 287–​88 definition,  234–​35 De veritate humanae naturae Iesu Christi, 238–​40, 250, 252–​53,  264–​66 medieval theology, continuity, 235 reason and logic, 236–​37 scripture, 243–​48, 244n.152 principia cognoscendi, 209, 234, 235, 238, 252–​53, 264–​65,  273 principia essendi, 234–​35    ramifications of Extra, beyond 16th-​17th C. christology, 276–​85 “confessional physics,” 280–​82 Eucharistic ritual practice, 282–​85 theologia unionis, 277–​80 “real” communicatio, 209–​10, 220–​21, 224, 239–​40, 253, 260–​63, 264 reception, extra Calvinisticum (1531-​1549),  117–​39 Bullinger and continuation of Zwingli’s christology, 119–​25 Calvin’s Institutes (1536), 78, 125–​31 Consensus Tigurinus, 12–​13, 77, 117–​19,  131–​39 Response a la profession de foy (Chandieu), 229 Responsio ad Bugenhaii (Zwingli), 41–​42 Reublin, Wilhelm, 28 rhetorical theology, 209–​10,  231–​33 Richards, George, 32–​33 Riggs, John, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition, 109 right hand of the Father (God), 138–​39, 275, 288 Bullinger, 120 Calvin,  128–​30 Chandieu, 223–​24, 245–​46,  254–​55 Oecolampadius, 151–​52 Olevanius, 5

322 Index right hand of the Father (God) (cont.) Vermigli, 149, 150, 150n.39, 151n.45, 160–​61, 192–​93, 197, 198–​99,  200–​2 Zwingli, 47–​48, 49–​50, 60–​61, 68–​70, 71, 109, 117 Rilliet, Jean, 29–​30 Rorem, Paul, 136–​37    Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ-​Against the Fanatics, The (Luther), 43–​44, 51–​52, 51n.111, 54, 56–​57,  58–​59 Salnard, Jean, Harmonia confessionum fidei, 229 Sasse, Herman, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, 63–​64,  81 satisfaction, Anselmian logic of, 34, 103–​4,  123–​24 Schmalkaldic League, 117–​18,  131 scholarship, extra Calvinisticum, 3–​13. See also specific topics Aus der Au, Christina, “Das extra calvinisticum: Mehr als ein reformiertes Extra?,” 9–​10 Barth, Karl, 3–​5, 6–​7, 11–​12 (see also Barth, Karl) Gordon, James, The Holy One in Our Midst, 9–​10, 285–​86, 287–​88,  289–​90 Gounelle, André, “Conjonction ou disjonction de Jésus et du Christ: Tillich entre l’extra calvinisticum et l’intra lutheranum,” 9–​10 Helm, Paul, John Calvin’s Ideas, 8–​9, 11 Lee, Daniel K., The Holy Spirit as Bond in Calvin’s Thought, 8–​9 McGinnis, Andrew, The Son of God Beyond the Flesh, 8, 10–​12, 13–​14 Oberman, Heiko, “The ‘Extra’ Dimension in the Theology of Calvin,” 3, 6–​8, 11 Willis, David, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology

(see Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology (Willis)) scholastic distinctions, Chandieu, 263–​72 scholastic theology, 17, 18, 21–​22,  232–​33 Scholia (Cyril of Alexandria), 268–​69,  271–​72 Schwenckfeld, Caspar, 121 Scotus, Duns, 21n.8, 23–​24 Second Eucharistic controversy, 143n.9,  143–​52 Brenz, Johannes and De Personali unione, 145–​52,  164–​65 Consensus Tigurinus fallout, 143–​45 Second Zürich Disputation, 28–​29 Short Christian Instruction (Zwingli), 28–​29 Sigismund, John, 284 Simler, Josiah, 166, 201–​2,  210–​11 Sinnema, Donald, 232–​33 “Antoine De Chandieu’s Call for a Scholastic Reformed Theology,” 231–​32 Sixty-​Seven Articles, The (Zwingli), 40–​41 sola fide,  55–​56 sola Scriptura, 152–​53,  235 Son of God Beyond the Flesh, The (McGinnis), 8, 10–​12, 13–​14,  23 Stancaro, Francesco, 142, 160–​64, 167, 202–​3 Christ as mediator, 154–​55, 155n.66, 156–​58, 156n.71, 157n.73,  159–​60 hypostatic union, 152 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 228–​29 Stephens, W. P., 73–​74, 120 Theology of Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, The, 23–​24 on Zwingli, 23–​24, 27–​28, 38,  73–​74 Stuttgart Synod (1559), 144–​45 Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, The (Zwingli), 41 Sumner, Darren, 250, 289–​90 Swabian Syngramma (Agricola, ed.), 54 Syngramma Suevicum (Brenz), 41–​42, 43–​44, 43n.86, 56–​57, 146 Synod of Pinczów,  156–​57   

Index  323 Tertullian, Against Praxeus, 171–​72 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 172–​73 theologia beatorum, 278–​79 theologia crucis, 19–​20 theologia unionis, 207–​8, 207n.6, 276, 277–​80 theologia viatorum, 278–​79 Thielicke, Helmut, 11 “This is my body.” See Marburg Colloquy Thumm, Theodor, 13–​14 Tillich, Paul, 9–​10 Timann, Johannes, 144–​45 Torgau League, 78–​79 totus Christus/​totum Christi, 258–​60, 263 Tractates on John (Augustine), 68–​69 Tracté de la discipline & police chrestienne (Morély), 227, 228 transubstantiation Bullinger, 120 Chandieu,  240–​41 Consensus Tigurinus, 135–​36 Marburg Colloquy, 82–​83 Vermigli, 153–​54 Zwingli, 32, 39–​41, 82–​83,  116–​17 Treatise on the True Theology with the Life of Franciscus Junius, A (Junius), 207–​8, 231–​32, 276, 277–​79, 279n.15 triplex munus, 133–​34,  156–​57 Turrianus, 229 Two Replies to Luther’s Book (Zwingli & Oecolampadius), 43–​44    ubiquitarianism, 117, 216 ubiquity, doctrine of, 2n.4, 280–​81, 282–​83,  284–​85 Brentzian vs. Chemnitzian, 214, 214n.25 Brenz, 140, 141–​42, 144–​46, 148, 150, 152, 154–​56, 159, 164 Chandieu on, 205, 209–​11, 212, 215–​16, 217, 237–​38, 240–​42, 249, 252–​ 53, 263–​64,  270–​72 Chemnitz, 209–​10,  214–​15 voluntary ubiquity and genus maiestaticum, 150n.43, 215–​21,  253 definition, 2n.4 Vermigli, 167–​68 ubiquity, doctrine of, Luther, 2–​3,  2n.4

Zwingli on, 19, 39, 51–​52, 70 Zwingli on, Friendly Exegesis against, 50, 53–​74, 75–​76, 77, 85–​86, 93–​94, 104, 105–​6, 109–​10, 113, 116–​17, 136 (see also Friendly Exegesis (Zwingli)) ubiquity, voluntary, Chemnitz’s, 150n.43, 215–​21,  253 Ursinus, Zacharius, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 11, 212    van Asselt, Willem J., 207, 260n.207, 264, 279–​80 Van Raalte, Theodore, Antoine de Chandieu: The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate,  231–​32 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 12, 140–​204 Aristotle (see Aristotle, Vermigli and) christology, early, 155–​64 enhypostatic christology, 141–​42, 163–​ 65, 174–​75, 179–​80, 185–​86, 190–​91,  195 finitum non capax infiniti, 186–​92 hypostatic union, 115–​16, 141–​42, 149–​ 50, 149nn.35–​36, 159–​65, 184–​ 86, 188, 190–​92, 194–​95, 201–​2 Chalcedonian christology and, 175–​83 life and significance, 152–​55, 153n.55 McGinnis on, 10 Nestorianism, 162–​64, 175–​76, 179, 182–​83, 187,  190–​91 scholarship on, 140–​41 scholarship on, Brandy’s, 140–​41, 147, 149–​50, 173–​74, 174n.138, 197, 198–​99 Second Eucharistic controversy, 143n.9,  143–​52 Brenz, Johannes and De Personali unione, 145–​52,  164–​65 Consensus Tigurinus fallout, 143–​45 Stancaro, 142, 160–​64, 167, 202–​3 Christ as mediator, 154–​55, 155n.66, 156–​58, 156n.71, 157n.73,  159–​60 transubstantiation, 153–​54 via antiqua, 172–​73, 174 Zwingli’s influence, 22–​23

324 Index Vermigli, Peter Martyr, Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ, 140–​42, 192–​202,  275–​76 bodies, reason, and God’s power, 168–​74 Brenz, doctrine of ubiquity, 140 Chalcedon, hypostatic union, and communicatio idiomatum,  174–​92 Chalcedonian christology and hypostatic union, 175–​83 communicatio idiomatum, 183–​86 Vermigli and finitum noncapax infiniti, 186–​92 Christ’s ascension to local heaven, 140–​ 42, 192–​202 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, on De Personali unione (Brenz), 145–​52,  164–​65 Orothetes, 166, 168–​70 Pantachus, 166, 168–​72, 175–​76, 180n.156, 187–​88, 197, 199–​200,  202 via antiqua Vermigli, 172–​73, 174 vs. via moderna, 80–​81 Zwingli, 20–​21, 21n.8, 106 via moderna, 20–​21, 60–​61,  98 Vermigli vs., 174n.138 vs. via antiqua, 80–​81 Vigilius, Against Eutyches, 182–​83, 184–​85,  193 Viret, Pierre, 144 voluntary ubiquity, Chemnitz, 150n.43, 215–​21,  253    Wandel, Lee Palmer, 89–​90,  100 Webster, John, 285–​86,  289–​90 Westphal, Joachim, 142, 143, 143n.9, 144–​45 Farrago, 144 Willis, David, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology, 4–​8, 9–​ 10, 272. See Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-​Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology (Willis) on Calvin’s influence, 130, 130n.179, 203–​4

on Colloquy of Maulbronn, 212 on finitum non capax infiniti, 208, 249–​50 historical studies, 3 jewel in a ring, 181 natural theology and Barth-​Brunner debate, 287 Son existing beyond human flesh, 13–​14 Willis, George H., 156–​57 Wittenberg Concord, 117–​18, 118n.130, 124–​25, 143, 151–​52, 212–​13,  274n.3 Wittenberger christology, 213–​14, 215–​16 Wittenberg-​Zürich debate, 12 Wright, William, 78–​79 Württemberger christology, 213–​14 Württemberger Lord’s Supper doctrine,  144–​45    Zanchi, Jerome, 207–​8 Zürich Consensus. See Consensus Tigurinus Zürich Disputation First, 21–​22 Second, 28–​29 Zwingli, Ulrich, 2–​3, 12,  19–​76 alloiosis, 25–​26, 43–​44, 53, 56, 61n.154 Anselmian logic of satisfaction, 34, 103–​4,  123–​24 Apologeticus Archteles, 40–​41 Apostles’ Creed, 46–​47, 113 on ascension of Christ (see ascension of Christ, Zwingli on) Christ as mediator, 19, 23–​24, 27–​28, 31–​35, 37–​38,  275–​76 Commentary on True and False Religion, 25–​26, 29–​32, 41, 74 Dass diese Worte, 43–​44 De Canone Missae, 40–​41 doctrine formulation, initiation, 12–​13 education, 20–​21 enhypostatic christology, 77–​78, 104–​6, 108–​9, 110–​11, 117, 123, 128–​29 Eucharistic Controversy 1524-​1531,  39–​44 Exposition of the Sixty-​Seven Articles, The, 40–​41 Fidei Expositio, 44, 77, 101, 105, 111–​17 Fideo Ratio, 77, 101–​4, 106–​11, 117 First Zürich Disputation, 21–​22

Index  325 Friendly Exegesis, 77, 85–​86, 93–​94, 104, 105–​6, 109–​10, 113, 116–​17,  136 Friendly Exegesis, against ubiquity, 50, 53–​74,  75–​76 alloiosis and communicatio idiomatum, 61–​74 Extra against ubiquity, 56–​61 introduction, 53–​56 Haga, Joar, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 24–​25,  72–​73 humanism and via antiqua,  19–​23 influences, early, 21 Letter to Alber, 32, 41, 42–​43 Letter to Haner, 43–​44,  61–​62 Letter to Wyttenbach, 40–​41 life and influence, 19–​27 Locher on, 21–​22, 23–​24, 24n.19, 27–​ 28, 38, 64–​65,  73–​74 On the Lord’s Supper, 25–​26, 43–​44, 74, 75 On the Lord’s Supper, birth of extra Calvinisticum and, 39–​52 text, 44–​52 Zwingli and the Eucharistic Controversy 1524-​1531,  39–​44 Luther conflict, 42–​44 McGinnis on, 10, 23 Nestorian criticism, 24–​26, 27–​28, 36–​37, 38–​39, 50, 53, 62, 63–​64, 70–​71, 72, 104 parish priest, 21 Plutarch, 64 Responsio ad Bugenhaii,  41–​42 scholarship on, 23–​27

Scotus, Duns, 21n.8, 23–​24 Second Zürich Disputation, 28–​29 Short Christian Instruction, 28–​29 Sixty-​Seven Articles, The, 40–​41 Stephens on, 23–​24, 27–​28, 38,  73–​74 Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, The, 41 as third man of Reformation, 19–​20 transubstantiation, 32, 39–​41, 82–​83,  116–​17 Two Replies to Luther’s Book, 43–​44 via antiqua, 20–​21, 21n.8, 106 Zwingli, Ulrich, at Marburg Colloquy Augustine, 83–​84, 90–​91, 93–​94, 97–​98, 100–​1, 111–​12, 123, 130 hypostatic union, 100–​1, 104, 106–​7, 110, 139 Zwingli, Ulrich, at Marburg Colloquy (“This is my body”), 274 ascension of Christ’s circumscribed body, 90–​91, 92, 93–​96,  98–​101 modus tollens argument, 113 politics and parting of ways, 78–​83 scripture and reason, 84–​90 Zwingli, Ulrich, christology Bullinger’s continuation, 37–​39 early (before Eucharistic Controversy),  27–​39 Commentary on True and False Religion, The, 32–​37 historical context and purpose, 28–​32 summary, 37–​39 late, 101–​17