The Reformation era was a time of revival of learning about the ancient world and the ancient Church. Reformers such as Oecolampadius, and humanists like Erasmus busied themselves with the publication of the writings of the early centuries of the Church. Erasmus produced the first printed version of the Greek New Testament. The Hebrew Old Testament was printed. Along with the publication of the Scriptures, there was a steady flow of editions of the Fathers. Although some of the Latin Fathers were known during the preceding centuries (such as Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, and Ambrose), the Reformation era brought a great expansion in knowledge of both the Greek and Latin writers of the second through the fifth centuries. Erasmus, for example, produced an edition of Chrysostom's works in 1530. Needless to say, this was not a detached antiquarian interest. Rather, on all sides, Papist, Lutheran, and Reformed, the Fathers were studied and cited to prove the antiquity and correctness of the views held by each party. The controversies of the day, especially the conflicts over the Lord's Supper, pitted not only Protestants against Papists, but Lutherans against the Reformed. It was in this context of conflict both with Rome and Wittenberg that Calvin endeavored to develop his eucharistic theology as a via media, a middle way.

It may be helpful as we begin our study to sketch briefly Calvin's eucharistic doctrine. Calvin believed that since Christ had accomplished salvation for us in his human flesh, it was necessary to have communion with Christ in his humanity in order to have communion with Christ in the benefits of the salvation he procured for us in his incarnation, death and resurrection. The central soteriological category for Calvin was union, communion or participation in Christ. The communion with Christ was a bond of faith, and of the Holy Spirit. From the divine perspective, it was the Holy Spirit who alone joined and united the believer to Christ. From the human perspective this bond was nothing other than faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, Calvin viewed union and communion with Christ as effected through the Holy Spirit and faith. This participation in Christ characterized the entire life of the Christian. The Sacred Supper, as Calvin was fond of calling it, was the sign and seal of this communion. The Supper did not give something new, but confirmed and strengthened what was already was, namely, participation in Christ. But since that participation was by faith, the Supper could be said to strengthen faith.

Calvin further believed that Christ in his full humanity ascended to the Father's right hand, and so, as far as his human nature was concerned, a great distance intervened between believers on earth and Christ in heaven. Following the Chalcedonian formula, and based on his exegesis of the ascension passages in the New Testament, Calvin rejected any notion that the literal body of Christ took on attributes foreign to created bodies after the resurrection. Christ's flesh was indeed glorified, but it was still flesh and not spirit. It could not be, therefore, in more than one place at one time, nor be eaten and yet never consumed. Since Christ in his human flesh was in heaven, it could not be the case that believers had participation in that flesh through some local presence of his body in the Supper. Christ's only locale was heaven as far as his human body was concerned. And since Christ was not bodily present in the Supper, the true eating of his body and blood could not be by the mouth, but rather by faith. Yet, since God never lies, what he promised, he also gave. Therefore the believer in truth ate of Christ's body and drank his blood, that is, the believer fed upon the body and blood of Christ. This is what the words of institution promised. For Calvin it was the Word that made the elements to be the sacrament. However, the manner of this feeding was a mystery. It was accomplished by the Holy Spirit. In a mysterious way the Spirit lifted up the believers to heaven (as implied in the Sursum Corda) so that they feed upon Christ crucified, and became partakers of all his benefits. The elements combined with the words of institution created the sacrament as a kind of visible word.

Since for Calvin the essence of the sacrament was this spiritual feeding upon the humanity of Christ, it was essential that all the people partake. The Supper, precisely because it was a participation in the body of Christ, bound together those who partook as one body in Christ. And finally, since the believer partook of Christ through faith and the secret power of the Holy Spirit (and not through a local, bodily presence), there could be no talk of the unbeliever partaking of Christ in the Supper. The medieval notion of a rat eating a crumb of Christ's body that had fallen from the altar was nonsense for Calvin. Without faith there was nothing but bread, wine, and the wrath of God. With faith there was a true and real communion with the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, with the incarnate Christ in his death and resurrection. Calvin's rejection of a local bodily presence put him in conflict with Luther and his followers. Wendel summarizes the conflict.

The whole conflict upon this point can be summed up thus: union between Christ and the Eucharistic elements meant, according to the Lutherans, that there was a real contact between the body and blood on the one hand, and the bread and wine on the other: according to Calvin, it meant only that the believer received the body of Christ when he consumed the bread.

On the other hand, Calvin's insistence on a true and real communion with the body and blood of Christ put him in conflict with Zwingli. Zwingli in his earlier writings had allowed no place for a participation in Christ's body and blood other than by a remembering of his death in faith. This for Calvin was even worse than Luther's view.

Calvin concluded his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord and Only Saviour Jesus Christ (1540) with a critique both of Luther and of Zwingli. Calvin could not accept Luther's insistence that Christ is bodily present in the Supper. He found Luther's doctrines of ubiquity and consubstantiation an offense against the true humanity of Jesus Christ. But neither could he accede to what he regards as Zwingli's reduction of the sacrament to a bare symbol. Zwingli's view seemed to make void the promise of the Word of God as Calvin saw it. So then, Calvin found himself in opposition to three other viewpoints: the Papist doctrines of transubstantiation and the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, the Lutheran view of consubstantiation (especially as it was articulated by Wesphal), and the Zwinglian idea of the sacrament as a bare symbol. Calvin regarded his view of the Supper, not only as the biblically correct view, but as the view most consistent with the genius of the Ancient Fathers. Especially in the 1559 edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, he appeals to and quotes the Ancient Fathers extensively to show that his eucharistic doctrine is a faithful development of the Ancient Church. Likewise, he seeks to demonstrate that the Papist, Lutheran, and Zwinglian doctrines are in conflict with the faith of the Ancient Fathers. In other words, Calvin's use of the Fathers was not that of a detached historian, but of a polemicist. (Of course, so was everyone else's use of the Fathers in that era.) With this in mind, we turn to a consideration of Calvin's use of the Fathers in constructing and defending his eucharistic doctrine.

Calvin's Citations of the Fathers

Calvin's use of the Fathers includes exact quotations, paraphrases, and summaries. He sometimes quotes a Father verbatim. He may quote only a phrase or several sentences. Sometimes he identifies the quote merely by the name of the Father, and other times he gives the book title and chapter number. It appears that the shorter quotes are from memory (and hence the absence of an exact reference). The longer quotes probably had to be looked up and so they often include the book title and chapter number. He quotes the Latin fathers in Latin, but the Greek Fathers are sometimes quoted by translation into the Latin, and sometimes in the original Greek (especially if the quote is only a word or brief phrase). Calvin also cites the Fathers by paraphrasing them. This too is probably from memory. Finally, Calvin provides generalized summaries of the views and linguistic usages of the Fathers.

Calvin quotes or refers to the Ancient Fathers by name and or as a class at least fifty times in his three chapters on the nature of the sacraments, on the Lord's Supper, and on the Papal Mass in the 1559 edition of the Institutes. He seeks at almost every point to find an ancient precedent for his views. Of all the Fathers, Augustine is by far the most frequently quoted or referenced. Calvin cites or references Augustine thirty four times in these three chapters of the Institutes. In the Short Treatise on the Holy Supper and the Summary of Doctrine concerning the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, only Augustine is referenced by name. Returning to the 1559 edition of the Institutes, the second most frequently mentioned Father is Chrysostom, who is quoted or referenced seven times. Tertullian is mentioned three times. Other Fathers mentioned by name include Ambrose, Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, and Jerome. Most of these references are not to texts explicitly dealing with the sacraments, but to general theological doctrines from which Calvin draws sacramental implications. The quotations from Tertullian are from his Against Marcion, and are citations pertaining to the true human body of Christ. Besides these specific references, the Fathers in general are referenced a number of times using such formulas as "the consensus of the ancient Church," "the holy fathers," "all the Greek and Latin writers," and "the ancient writers." There are also references to the ancient canons and the councils of Nicea, Antioch, and Toledo.

From this summary it is evident that Calvin read extensively many of the ancient writers. His citations and references to the Fathers, whether by name, or in summary, include both appeals to them to buttress his positions, and criticisms of them. In general, Calvin regarded the Fathers as faithful witnesses to the gospel, and to the true nature of the sacrament. Calvin appeals to the "consensus of the ancient Church." He argues that the Papists "lack the support of antiquity." The following quotation reflects Calvin's sense of continuity with the Fathers.

In the same way are we to judge concerning the participation, which they do not recognize unless they swallow Christ's flesh under the bread. Yet a serious wrong is done to the Holy Spirit, unless we believe that it is through his incomprehensible power that we partake of Christ's flesh and blood. Indeed, if the power of the mystery as it is taught by us, and was known to the ancient Church, had been esteemed as it deserves for the past four hundred years, it was more that enough to satisfy us. [emphasis added]

Preserving the Mystery

In the above quotation Calvin argues that the doctrine of transubstantiation is an affront to the Holy Spirit. Participation in Christ's body and blood is a mystery accomplished by the incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit. To attempt to explain this mystery by the theory of transubstantiation destroys the mystery. For Calvin this is a departure both from Scripture, and from the ancient Church. Calvin believes that the Fathers as a whole refused to explain how the bread and wine were the communion of the body and blood of Christ. The ancient Church preserved this mystery.

In particular, Calvin believed that the ancient Fathers preserved the mystery because they distinguished between the thing signified and the sign. The Fathers at times called the sign by the thing signified, that is, they called the bread and wine by the names "body" and "blood." However, they also continued to refer to the consecrated elements as bread and wine. The Papists on the other hand transformed the sign into the substance of the thing signified. Therefore, for Calvin the Papist doctrine meant that the sign disappeared, and only the thing signified remained. The bread became the body of Christ only by ceasing to be bread. Calvin insisted that the bread must remain bread in order to be the sign of Christ's body. Otherwise the essential analogy of the Supper is lost. That essential analogy is that just as bread feeds our mortal body to earthly life, so Christ's body and blood feed our souls to eternal life.

Calvin denied emphatically that the bread was changed into substance into the body of Christ. This was a part of the critique of the Papists' position. But Calvin also insisted over against the Lutherans that communion is not by any sort of local presence of the body of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. For Calvin the manner in which the believer received the body and blood of Christ must remain a mystery accomplished by the incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit. As to his human flesh, Christ was in heaven and not on the earth. The believer fed upon Christ's flesh, not by the outward eating of the mouth and a bodily presence of Christ in the Supper, but by faith and through the secret ministration of the Holy Spirit. Any local, bodily presence of Christ violates the Chalcedonian Christology of two natures unmixed. Calvin believed that the Fathers never violated this mystery with any notion like transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Rather, Calvin perceived in the Fathers a consistent recognition that in the sacrament there were two things, earthly signs and heavenly grace.

I therefore say (what has always been accepted in the church and is today taught by all of sound opinion) that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists in two things: physical signs, which, thrust before our eyes, represent to us, according to our feeble capacity, things invisible; and spiritual truth, which is at the same time represented and displayed through the symbols themselves.

Calvin's interpretation, however,was confronted with a serious objection raised by the Papists. As was widely known "some of the old writers used the term conversion." Calvin, although he gave no specific reference, apparently had in mind Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose. Cyril speaks of Jesus changing the water into wine at the wedding of Cana as an analogy to the Lord's Supper. He says, "Once at Cana in Galilee He changed the water into wine by his sovereign will; is it not credible, then, that he changed wine into blood?" In his next lecture, Cyril again speaks in this way.

Next, after sanctifying ourselves by these spiritual songs, we implore the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the offering to make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ. For whatever the Holy Spirit touches is hallowed and changed.

We find in Ambrose very similar language when he writes,

For that sacrament which you receive, is effected by the words of Christ. But if the words of Elias had such power to call down fire from heaven, will not the words of Christ have power enough to change the nature of the elements?

Taken by themselves, such quotations would seem to be damning to Calvin's position. And since in these texts Cyril and Ambrose are discussing the sacrament per se, it is unlikely that such texts would have escaped the notice of Calvin's opponents. But Calvin insisted that the Fathers did not mean by this term "conversion" (or "change" in the English translation cited above) what the Papists meant. Rather he understood from the consistent pattern in the Fathers of referring to sacred symbols as bread and wine that they did not hold to change in substance of the bread into the body of Christ and of the wine into the blood of Christ. Calvin writes:

But they all everywhere clearly proclaim that the Sacred Supper consists of two parts, the earthly and the heavenly; and they interpret the earthly part to be indisputably bread and wine. . . . There is not one of the ancient writers who does not admit in clear words that the sacred symbols of the Supper are bread and wine, even though, as has been said, they sometimes distinguish them with various titles to enhance the dignity of the mystery. For because they say that in consecration a secret conversion takes place, so that there is now something other than bread and wine, as I have just observed, they do not mean by this that the elements have been annihilated, but rather that they now have to be considered of a different class from common foods intended solely to feed the stomach, since in them is set forth the spiritual food and drink of the soul.

Interestingly, we find that both in Cyril and Ambrose, the point Calvin is making refers to texts that immediately follow the texts quoted above. In the paragraph following the comment about the wedding at Cana, Cyril says,

With perfect confidence, then we partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the figure of bread His Body is given to you, and in the figure of wine His Blood, that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ you may become one body and blood with him.

Cyril not only calls the consecrated elements "bread and wine," but he says that in the figure of the bread Christ's body is given to believers. This is crucial for Calvin. Such language indicated to him that the Fathers could not have embraced a change in substance either in the Papist way of transubstantiation, or the Lutheran idea of consubstantiation. In contrast to transubstantiation, Calvin read in the Fathers that bread remained bread. In contrast to the Lutherans, Calvin read in the Fathers that the body was given to believers, not with the bread and wine, but in the figure of the bread and wine. Yet in regard to Zwingli, it was clear that the Fathers taught that the body and blood were truly given to believers.

Ambrose further described the change that takes place in consecration, as a change not in substance, but in signification.

"The Lord Jesus himself declares: 'This is my body.' Before the benediction of the heavenly words another species is mentioned; after the consecration the body is signified."

Ambrose's language suggests that what has changed is the signification of the element, not the substance of the element. Before the consecration there is only ordinary bread. After the consecration there is another species, but this species is "the body signified." Calvin read this as denial of any change in substance. A little later Ambrose says that the food eaten by the believer is not corporeal but spiritual.

So the food is not corporeal but spiritual. Therefore the Apostle also says of its type: 'Our fathers ate the spiritual food and drank the spiritual drink,' for the body of God is a spiritual body; the body of Christ is the body of the Divine Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ as we read: 'The Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord.'

Whatever the change is that takes place at consecration, that change does not consist in what is called transubstantiation. For Cyril after the consecration there remains the figure of bread. For Ambrose the body is signified rather than being locally present. Ambrose goes so far as to say that "the food is not corporeal but spiritual." Thus Calvin insists that a careful reading of the Fathers, as we have illustrated with Cyril and Ambrose, shows that the Fathers did not conceive of change of substance of the bread into the body of Christ as the medieval theologians had postulated and as it was defined by the Fourth Lateran Council.

For however much the more shameless among our adversaries try to gloss this over, it is very certain that the whole of antiquity is against them, as we have previously demonstrated in other matters [referring to our current topic], and it may be more surely ascertained by an assiduous reading of the ancient writers.

Calvin was convinced that there was not in the Fathers any change in substance as in transubstantiation. However, he felt that the Fathers had been unwise in using the language of conversion. Because of his assiduous reading, Calvin felt he could properly explain the language of conversion that he found in the Fathers. But he did not approve of such terminology. Rather Calvin criticizes the Fathers for using exaggerated words which the Papists had taken in a wrong sense.

Perhaps those immoderate praises of the sacraments which are read in the ancient writers concerning our signs have deceived these miserable Sophists.

Moreover, we must be aware lest we be led into a similar error through what was written a little too extravagantly by the ancients to enhance the dignity of the sacraments.

For Calvin the Fathers erred, not in their essential witness, but by the use of immoderate and exaggerated language. Calvin saw himself as continuing in the spirit of the Fathers, but also as improving upon their formulations and explanations.

The Mass as Sacrifice

Calvin takes the same tack in his discussion of the Mass as a sacrifice. Here also he argues that the Fathers are essentially on his side, but that they have used inappropriate language that can easily be misunderstood. In his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord and Only Saviour Jesus Christ (1540), Calvin offers this critique of the language of sacrifice used by the Fathers in their discussions of the Holy Supper.

Since, then, this view of the Supper held by some, that it is a sacrifice for procuring the remission of sins, derogates from the true view, it must be condemned as pernicious. Now that it does so derogate is notorious. For how can we reconcile these two things, that Jesus Christ in dying has offered a sacrifice to his Father by which he has once for all procured remission and pardon for all our faults, and that it is necessary every day to sacrifice in order to obtain that which we ought to seek in his death alone? This error was not from the beginning so extreme; but little by little has increased, until it came to what it is. It appears that the ancient Fathers called the Supper a sacrifice. But they offered the reason that the death of Jesus Christ is there represented. Hence what they say is this, that this name is attributed to it solely because it is a memorial of the unique sacrifice, at which we ought to stop short. Yet I cannot quite excuse the custom of the ancient Church. For by gestures and manner of acting, they outlined a kind of sacrifice, as if it were the same ceremony as there was in the Old Testament, except that in place of the animal bread was used for victim. Because this approaches too near Judaism, I do not approve it. For in the Old Testament, in the time of symbols, the Lord had ordained such ceremonies, until this sacrifice was made in the flesh which is its fulfillment. Since it has been perfected, there remains nothing but for us to receive its communication. Hence it is superfluous to symbolize it any longer. This is the significance of the order which Jesus Christ left us, not that we offer or immolate, but that we take and eat that which has been offered and immolated. [emphasis added]

Calvin admits that he finds sacrificial language in his earliest sources. He considers this as an error, that is, a departure from the institution of the Supper as recorded in Scripture. He has noticed that sacrificial language and gesture have developed and increased as he moved from the earlier Fathers to the later Fathers. As Calvin put it, "This error was not from the beginning so extreme; but little by little has increased, until it came to what it is." As early as Ignatius of Antioch we find the table is called an altar. LeFevre had produced an edition of Ignatius in Basel in 1520 though it included many spurious documents. Calvin took a dim view of this edition, but therefore, he was certainly aware of works attributed to Ignatius.

The following quotations from Ambrose illustrates both the use of sacrificial language among the Fathers and the apparent intention that such language be understood as memorial and not as renewed sacrifice.

Do you wish to know how it is consecrated with heavenly words? Accept what the words are. The priest speaks. He says: 'Perform for us this oblation written, reasonable, acceptable, which is a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. On the day before He suffered He took bread in His holy hands, looked toward heaven, toward you, holy Father omnipotent, eternal God, giving thanks, blessed, broke, and having broken it gave it to the Apostles and His disciples, saying : "Take and eat of this, all of you; for this is my body, which shall be broken for many".' [emphasis added]

And the priest says: 'Therefore, mindful of His most glorious passion and resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven, we offer you this immaculate victim, a reasonable sacrifice, an unbloody victim, this holy bread, and chalice of eternal life. And we ask and pray that you accept this offering upon your sublime altar through the hands of your angels, just as you deigned to accept the gifts of your just son Abel and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham and what the highest priest Melchizedek offered you.' [emphasis added]

So, as often as you receive, what does the Apostle say to you? As often as we receive, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If death, we proclaim the remission of sins. If, as often as blood is shed, it is shed for the remission of sins, I ought always to accept Him, that He may always dismiss my sins. I, who always sin, should always have a remedy. [emphasis added]

When Calvin read the final paragraph quoted above, he must have understood it as the true sense behind the language of sacrifice in the early paragraphs. Ambrose was not teaching another, or a renewed expiatory sacrifice, but a liturgical sacrifice that proclaimed the once for all death of Christ. From this death flowed the remission of sins. So Calvin concluded that what the Fathers meant by sacrifice was an application of the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross to the believer.

Nonetheless, Calvin is uncomfortable with the language of "sacrifice" applied to the Supper, and with liturgical gestures that symbolized sacrifice. He can explain it from other parts of the writings of the Fathers as consistent with his understanding of sacrifice of Christ as full and complete at the cross. However, he does not approve of the phraseology of the Fathers. Instead, Calvin sees in such language a temptation to regard the Supper as a propitiatory sacrifice. Yet Calvin contends that the Fathers most certainly did not intend to teach that the Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice as the Papists taught. Calvin says of the Papists:

I am here contending against the opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have infected the whole world: namely, that the Mass is a work by which the priest offers up Christ, and the others who participate in the oblation, merit God's favor, or it is an expiatory victim, by which they reconcile God to themselves.

Calvin wars against this idea of the Supper as a propitiatory sacrifice first of all by appeal to Scripture. In this section of the Institutes (pp. 1429-1437) he does not cite or reference any of the Fathers. Only after he has exposed the error of the Mass as an expiatory sacrifice and refuted the idea from the testimony of Scripture, does he turn his attention to the Fathers. Calvin is well aware that there are many passages in the Fathers that can be cited in defense of the idea of sacrifice. But he regards these as quotes taken out of their proper context and so misused by the Papists. Calvin says of the Fathers in general:

"Indeed, they use the word "sacrifice"; but at the same time they explain that they mean nothing else than the remembrance of that one true sacrifice..."

Calvin then proceeds to confirm his interpretation of the Fathers with several citations from Augustine, Fulgentius, and Chrysostom. At this point, however, Calvin criticizes the Fathers more severely than he had done when he discussed the question of transubstantiation. There he was content to say that the Fathers used immoderate and extravagant language. The implication is that Calvin did not think the Fathers were mistaken, but merely incautious in their language. However, at this juncture, Calvin accuses the Fathers of misunderstanding the Scriptures.

But I observe that the ancient Fathers also misinterpreted this memorial in a way not consonant with the Lord's institution, because their Supper displayed some appearance of repeated or at least renewed sacrifice. [emphasis added]

Calvin suggested that bad liturgical practices gave rise to a false interpretation. Calvin, however, did not think that Augustine had fallen into this misinterpretation. He says, "Augustine in many passages interprets it as nothing but a sacrifice of praise." Ambrose in The Mysteries interprets the sacrament only as food for the soul, and not as an expiation offered to the Father. Calvin follows this emphasis that the Supper is essentially a meal of spiritual food for eternal life. However, Ambrose in The Sacraments does use sacrificial language as we noted above. For Calvin this must have seemed a great inconsistency.

Calvin also had Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom in mind in his accusation of misinterpreting the memorial. We find in Chrysostom's On the Priesthood what Calvin would certainly call immoderate language. Chrysostom writes of the glory of the priesthood that, "When you see the Lord sacrificed and lying before you, and the High Priest standing over the sacrifice and praying, and all who partake being tinctured with his blood, can you think that you are still among men and still standing on the earth?" Cyril of Jerusalem calls the Supper a sacrifice of propitiation.

Next, when the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship has been completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we beseech God for the public peace of the Churches . . . [emphasis added]

Such language was wrong-headed as far as Calvin was concerned. Yet he did not conclude that Cyril meant by such language what the Papists meant. The justification for that distinction can also be seen in the above quotation. The "spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship has been completed" was nothing other than the offering of thanks in the eucharistic prayers. The immediately preceding section in Cyril was a commentary on the anaphora prayer. Therefore, Calvin saw in Cyril, not the papist doctrine of sacrifice, but only "some appearance of repeated or at least renewed sacrifice. " Likewise, Calvin saw in Chrysostom what we today might call poetic license. Calvin did not approve of such immoderate language in Chrysostom. But he was not willing to take it in the crass sense of the Papists. In part this was because one of Calvin's key ideas had been taken from Chrysostom. François Wendel explains,

It was in a sermon Erasmus had attributed to St. John Chrysostom and had included with the edition of his works published at Basel in 1530, that Calvin found the idea that the Holy Spirit is the bond of our union with Christ.

According to Wendel, until reading that sermon Calvin had assigned the function of being a bond of union to the "spirit" of Christ, that is, to his divine nature. But in his later thought he always considered the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, to be the bond of the believer's union with Christ. So Calvin was deeply indebted to Chrysostom for a core idea in his eucharistic theology. This indebtedness is even more pronounced when we turn our attention to Augustine.

Calvin and Augustine

Augustine is the Ancient Father that Calvin esteems most highly. He is quoted more often that all the other Fathers combined. When Calvin discusses the superiority of the New Covenant and its sacraments over the Old Covenant, he appeals to Augustine and lauds him.

And this is what the same Augustine meant (whom we quote often as the best and most reliable witness of antiquity) in teaching that when Christ was revealed, sacraments were instituted, fewer in number, more majestic in signification, more excellent in power. [emphasis added]

Thus for Calvin, Augustine is the best and most reliable witness. In part this is because Calvin finds in Augustine the same conception of sin, election, and grace that is the foundation of Calvin's own theology. Calvin appeals not only to Augustine's sacramental theology, but also to general themes in Augustine's theology in which Calvin sees implications for sacramental theology. This stands in contrast to other of the Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers. Calvin does not disguise his disappoint with the Greek Fathers, especially with Chrysostom, as to the themes of sin, election and grace. On the other hand, Calvin esteems Chrysostom very highly as an exegete. But as a theologian, Augustine is to be preferred to the Greek Fathers including Chrysostom. Calvin, following Augustine, interprets the sacraments in the light of his doctrines of sin, election and grace. With Augustine, Calvin believes that "in the elect alone the sacraments effect what they represent."

Calvin in his eucharistic theology follows closely the interpretation of Augustine in his comments on John 6:41ff. To begin with, Augustine distinguishes between the sacrament and the efficacy of the sacrament.

For we, too, today receive visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, the efficacy of the sacrament another.

This is a crucial distinction for Calvin. Calvin refuses to tie the efficacy of the Supper to its visible elements of bread and wine. Calvin is tenacious in resisting any interpretation that places the power of the sacrament in the elements themselves whether by transubstantiation or by consubstantiation. The bread and wine remain earthly elements. But by the Word of Christ they become sacred signs that promise and exhibit what they represent, namely, the body and blood of Christ. Therefore, the efficacy of the sacrament resides in the Word of God and not in some conversion of the elements. The sacrament is one thing for Calvin, and its efficacy another.

Augustine develops his distinction between the sacrament and the efficacy of the sacrament by indicating that this distinction implies that a true eating of the sacrament is inward by the heart, and not outward by the mouth. Here too Calvin closely follows Augustine.

But as pertains to the efficacy of the sacrament, not as pertains to the visible sacrament: he who eats within, not without; he who eats with his heart, not he who crushes with his teeth.

Calvin develops this thought extensively. Linguistically he prefers to speak of eating by faith, not eating with the heart. But he understands Augustine to mean "faith" by the phrase "he who eats within." Though these refer to the same thing, Calvin's desire is to make clear and plain what he considers as somewhat obscure in Augustine. Calvin fiercely criticized both Lutherans and Papists for insisting that eating is by the mouth. Those who come to the sacrament with faith receive the body and blood of Christ. But those who come in unbelief receive nothing but the judgment of God. It is not that Christ's body and blood are not objectively offered to all who are present. It is rather that without faith a person cannot receive the efficacy of the sacrament, but only the visible elements. Again, Calvin is closely following Augustine who says,

"But the reality of which it is the sacrament is for every man for life, for no man for destruction, whoever shall have been a sharer in it.

As this quotation indicates, the distinction between the sign and the thing signified is basic to both Augustine and to Calvin. As we said earlier, the core of Calvin's sacramental theology is built upon the distinction between the visible sign and the invisible grace. This distinction he finds in many of the Fathers, but especially in Augustine. Calvin finds support in Augustine for this distinction in many places. Calvin begins his chapter on the nature of sacrament by giving two complementary definitions of a sacrament. But then he immediately appeals to Augustine as also teaching the same thing.

Whichever of these definitions you may choose, it does not differ in meaning from that of Augustine, who teaches that a sacrament is "a visible sign of a sacred thing," or "a visible form of an invisible grace."

The reader at this point might well assume that Calvin is appealing to a major text of Augustine on the sacraments. In fact the citation is from a small work, First Catechetical Instruction, 26 (50), and the topic Augustine is discussing is the sacrament of salt, that is, the ceremony of initiating a person into the catechumenate with salt.

As to the sacrament of salt which he receives, when it has been well explained to him that the symbols of the divine things are, it is true visible, but that the invisible things are therein honored, and that the species (of salt), when sanctified by the words of blessing, is not to be regarded as it is in every-day use... [emphasis added]

Calvin, of course, has no use for the any other sacraments but Baptism and the Sacred Supper. He did not continue the practice of Augustine of initiating catechumens with salt. But he sees in this passage a conception of sacrament that he regards as fundamental. So as we saw with the Father's in general, Calvin distinguishes between what is essential in Augustine, and what is secondary. What is essential is the distinction between the visible sign and the invisible grace. What is secondary is the practice of giving salt to the catechumen.

This passage gives us insight into how Calvin regarded the Fathers. He certainly esteemed them highly for he took pains to study them at length. He read even the more obscure portions of Augustine. And Calvin found in the Fathers a witness to the truth he himself believed. But he also found much with which to take issue. In other words, the Fathers were witnesses to the truth, but they were not the canon of the truth. Only Scripture is canon (rule, standard) for Calvin.

Calvin saw himself as holding to the essential truth which was witnessed to by the Fathers. He endeavored to elaborate it with more clarity and precision, and to purge it of errors and confusion found in the Fathers. On the other hand, he thought that the Papists had taken what was immoderate, exaggerated and in error among the Fathers, and fallen headlong into the pit of falsehood and sophistry. What Calvin said of Augustine we can regard as true for the Fathers in general.

For since there is something obscure in his brevity, in which many of the less educated are deceived, I have decided to give a fuller statement, using more words to dispel all doubt.

Calvin neither blindly followed all that he read in the Fathers, Augustine included, nor rejected them out of hand. Rather, he read them with sensitivity and care. He discovered in them what he regarded as essential truths of Scripture. And so to use his own language, he joined them in their witness to the truth. We may presume that Calvin would have wanted to be read in the same way by later generations.

Primary Sources:

Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, translated by Roy J. Deferrari, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Volume 64, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1963.

Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 11-27, translated by John W. Rettig, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1988.

John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Volume 1, translated by John Pringle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1948.

John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Volume 1, translated by John Pringle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1948.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford Lewis Battles in Library of Christian Classics, Volume XXI, edited by John T. McNeil, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, MCMLX.

John Calvin, Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated by J.K.S. Reid, in Library of Christian Classics, Volume XXII, pp. 140-166, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, MCMLIV.

John Calvin, Summaryof Doctrine concerning the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, translated by J.K.S. Reid, in Library of Christian Classics, Volume XXII, pp. 170-177, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, MCMLIV.

Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, translated by Graham Neville, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1984.

Chrysostom, Commentary on St. John the Apostle and Evangelist, Homilies 1-47, translated by Sister Thomas Aquinas Goggin, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Catholic University of America, New York, 1957.

Cyril, The Works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Volume 2, translated by Leo P. McCauley and Anthony A. Stephenson, in The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Volume 64, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1970.

Secondary Sources:

Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship, Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1975.

Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, Oliver and Boyd Ltd., Edinburgh, 1953.