4.5 Conclusion

4.5 Conclusion

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.

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. 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. 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.”

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.” 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. 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). Further, Stefan Lindholm dedicates a brief section to the extra in his exposition of the scholastic christology of Jerome Zanchi (1516–1590); however, no substantial connection is made between Zanchi and the broader Reformed tradition beyond standard citations of Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism.

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.” 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: “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.” 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.

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 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.

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. 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. 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 Institutes in . 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.

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. 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.

Zacharias Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism further supported the doctrine and defended it against Lutheran attack. 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. 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.” 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. 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 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.” 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.” 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.” These Wittenberg theologians rejected Brenz’s understanding of the communicatio, hypostatic union, and ubiquity, which they accused of Eutychianism. 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.

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. 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.” 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. One response of particular note for this chapter is the Harmony of Confessions published in Geneva in 1581, which Chandieu had a hand in editing. This collection of confessions was one of the first instances of “Ubiquitarianism” being numbered alongside the classical christological heresies. 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.

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. 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. 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.” 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. 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 the encroaching Calvinists. The Formula of Concord would confessionalize the positions of both Brenz and Chemnitz within the Lutheran tradition. 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.

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. This christology further hinges on a rejection of reason in 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.

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.’ ” 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: “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.” 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.

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. 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. Christ’s human nature could be wherever and however the person of Christ willed. This doctrine, thanks to Beza, came to be called “multivolipresence.” 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.

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. 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.” 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.” The genus apotelesmaticum is the reverse: “In this genus the things which are attributed to the person are appropriate to it, not only according to one nature but according to both.” This is the unified predication that can be applied properly to neither nature on its own, but only to the unified person. 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.” 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. 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).” 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. 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. 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.” Despite their divine origin, these gifts are “in themselves created and finite.” 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.

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.” 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. 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. As Chemnitz says, “I bow to [the simile of iron and fire] as a reliable and simple description.” 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.”

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 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).” What exactly Chemnitz understands to be differences between the terms “really,” “truly,” “essentially,” or “naturally” with regard to the communication of attributes is unclear. 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.” 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.

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. 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. 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.” 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.” 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).” 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.

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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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 exercised it rarely or that the use itself was off-limits. 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” Antitheses 8 and 9 seek to guard more fully against charges of comingling the natures by denying that the human 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.

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 our salvation.” 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. Lect tells us only that “he easily gained the goodwill of Calvin and Beza.” 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.

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.

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. Chandieu had a hand in the composition of both these works; however the details are lost to us. 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 II in Protestant hands and both tarnished Chandieu’s reputation and moved the various French factions closer to war.

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). 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. The second work defended the synodical nature of French polity as intended in the original Discipline of 1559 against the attack of Jean Morély.

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. 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. 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 1588. 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.

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. The first work of international note was his Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxii, published in 1578 and subsequently translated into English and French. 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.

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. 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. 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 doctrinal disputes, such as the place of Scripture in theology, purgatory, and the Lord’s Supper.

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. 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.”

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 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.

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. 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.” Sinnema established this through a study of the preface to Chandieu’s De Verbo Dei Scripto (1580). 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).” 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. Scholarship on Reformed scholasticism more broadly has increasingly come to recognize Chandieu’s contribution to the development of this method. I will briefly outline the rationale for and nature of his theological method before turning to his use 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. He produced a second edition of this preface in later editions of his Opera. 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.” 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.” 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 it is contracted into short syllogisms, discussed more subtly and closely.” 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.

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.

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.

The beginning of Chandieu’s method, in accordance with concepts of Aristotelian science, is the identification of the principia. 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. 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.” 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.

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

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. The principia, as axioms derived from Scripture, supply the premises for valid and certain argumentation. 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. 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.

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. 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.” 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?” 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. 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. In the opening 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.

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.

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 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. 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 refutation of a series of distinctions used to support ubiquity. In 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.

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.” Although the fathers and the councils had quenched the flames of christological heresy, the coals remain ready to be fanned into life again. 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 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. 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.

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.

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:

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.

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. 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.” 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 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.

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.

In 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 great a mystery.” 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.”

The first set of principia establishes the veracity of the human nature assumed by the Logos. 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.” 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.

The second set of principia establishes that during his earthly ministry Christ moved from place to place, departing from one area to another, and is said to be absent from events, such as Lazarus’s death. 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. 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. 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.” Because the glorified body remains a true body, it is in a place. Additionally, an eschatological conformity exists between the resurrection bodies of the saints and Christ’s glorified body. 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 today as it did when the angel first spoke the words on Easter morning. 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.” Christ’s body has entered heaven and there resides until the day when he will visibly come again. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.” He continues from this foundation to offer his “destructive demonstration” against ubiquity in which he uses the concept of the finitum non capax infiniti.

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. 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.” 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”—can be accurately maintained with regard to Chandieu. One must inquire, however, how Chandieu understood 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.’ ” 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.

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. 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 “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. 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.” 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. 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.” 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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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.” 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. This medieval understanding is connected to 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. 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.” 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 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. 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.” 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.”

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. Chandieu identifies this charge as the fantasy of his opponents. He calls the communication verbal because “it pertains to words and the explanation of expressions.” 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.

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.” 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 hermeneutic key to christological predication. 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.

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. 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.” 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 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. 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.

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].” 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), 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. 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). 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.

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.” 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. 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. Because of this, such a “real” sharing would result in Eutychianism and a confusion of natures:

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.

Because the divine nature is simple, its properties cannot be shared with the human nature in a piecemeal fashion. 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 and all of 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 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.

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.

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 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 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. 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. 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.”

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 at all. 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?” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” Through these four 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.

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 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. 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.’ ”

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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 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.

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.” 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 that “the communication [sharing] of properties was real, while preserving the special character of both natures.”

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?” 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.

Thus, far from avoiding the contradiction threatened by the doctrine of ubiquity, the per se/κατ’ ἀλλο distinction, as used by Chemnitz, exhibits and perpetuates it: “For to remain finite in the personal union and to become infinite by the personal union is a contradiction.”

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.” The marginal notation of the treatise marks this argument with Distinctio retorquetur. 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.” 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 element of the extra Calvinisticum utilizing the witness of the fathers, the tools of syllogistic logic, and theological distinctions.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 13–27.

; 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); 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).

, 17.

, 107.

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.

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 , 1:248–55.

Stefan Lindholm, Jerome Zanchi (1516–90) and the Analysis of Reformed Scholastic Christology, Reformed Historical Theology 37 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 125–28.

Pierre (Paris: Desclée, 1990), 91.

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.

, 23.

, 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 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; 367–69.

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.

Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 211–16.

“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.

Karl Barth, Learning Jesus Christ through the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. Shirley G. Guthrie Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 77.

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).

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; .

, 143–44.

, 88–90.

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.

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.

Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord,” 57.

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.

For the course of this debate, which I will not outline in detail here, see ; 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; Shifting the Strategy”; 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), 223–27.

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; , REFO500 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 130–78.

Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, 85.

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.

Robert D. Linder, “The French Calvinist Response to the Formula of Concord,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19, no. 1 (Winter 1982): 18–37.

Jean François Salvart, ed., Harmonia Confessionum fidei orthodoxarum et reformatarum Ecclesiarum (Geneva: Petrum Santandreanum, 1581), 98.

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).

, trans. J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971).

, 15.

Dingel, “The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the Formula of Concord,” 55–61.

Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 171–77.

Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 159. See also 165; Von Hagel, “The Genus Maiestaticum-Christology of the ‘Catalog of Testimonies,’ ” 262.

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.” , 434. On Chemnitz’s view of the Supper, see Bjarne W. Teigen, 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.

, 436.

Baur, “Ubiquität,” 227. Ein Überschießendes “ausserhalb” (extra) der Logos kann deshalb nicht eimal “gedacht werden.”

Baur, “Ubiquität,” 236–37.

, 427.

See, for example, , 435–36.

Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 170.

Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 162.

Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 165–67.

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.

, 163.

, 163. For the full discussion of the genus idiomaticum, see 171–213. Also Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 160; , trans. D. W. Simon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1890), 4:199.

, 164.

Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 161; , 4:199.

, 218.

, 268–76; Baur, “Ubiquität,” 232–41; Haga, Was There a Lutheran Metaphysics?, 162–63; , 4:200–202.

, 164.

Baur, “Ubiquität,” 233–35.

, 247–48.

, 248.

, 248.

, 257.

, 256.

, 271–72, 280.

, 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.

, 291.

, 263.

, 310.

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

, 309.

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.

“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.

“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 , 11.

“The Formula of Concord,” 509.

“The Formula of Concord,” 509.

“The Formula of Concord,” 509.

“The Formula of Concord,” 510.

“The Formula of Concord,” 510.

“The Formula of Concord,” 511.

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. 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.

“The Formula of Concord,” 511.

“The Formula of Concord,” 511.

“The Formula of Concord,” 512.

“The Formula of Concord,” 512.

“The Formula of Concord,” 512–13.

“The Formula of Concord,” 513.

“The Formula of Concord,” 513.

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.

“The Formula of Concord,” 513–14.

“The Formula of Concord,” 514.

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).

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 in Later Calvinism International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 22 (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994); Theodore G. Van Raalte, Antoine de Chandieu: The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

, 6.

Calvini benevolentiam facile quaesiit, facile Bezae. Lect, De Vita Anton Sadeelis, 1v.

, 18–19.

, 1–3; , 179–84.

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.

, 66–68; , 62–63, esp. 62n141.

, 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.

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).

, 161–85.

Jean Morély, Traicté de la discipline & police chrestienne (Lyon: Ian de Tournes, 1562).

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).

For an overview of these movements, see , 39–48.

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.

, 45; , 112–13.

, 168; Louis Junod, L’Académie de Lausanne au XVIe siècle: Leges scholae Lausannensis 1547, ed. Louis Junod and Henru Meylan (Lausanne: Ronge, 1947), 24.

Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, Meditationes in Psalmum Xxxiii (Lausanne: François le Preux, 1578). For citations of English and French editions, see , 250, esp n13, n15. For discussion of this work, see 247–56.

;

See , 157–66.

• Sophismata F. Turriani 1577

• Ad repetita F. Turriani 1580

• Responsionis F. Turriani 1581

This work would be expanded upon and republished twice in Geneva and twice more in France. , 256–78, esp. 256n30.

For an overview of these works, see , 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

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.

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.

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.

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).

, 1:112.

, 82–83; Herman Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 232–37; , 1:112, 433–34.

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.

For this history of the editions of the Preface, see , 182–85.

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.

170.

Translation from , 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).

For literature that discusses the use of this analogue in medieval and Renaissance thought, see , 96n52.

Translation from , 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).

Chandieu, Opera, 9. Ego in eorum adolescentum gratiam, qui sunt Theologiae candiati non dubitabo aliquid ea de re leviter adumbrare.

, 187–91; David Ross, Aristotle, 6th ed. (London: Routledge, 1995), 53–54.

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.

Sinnema’s translation. 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).

Sinnema’s translation. 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).

, 1:433.

For a discussion of the relationship between the Reformed orthodox and medieval theologians on this point, see , 1:437–40.

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 ,198–200.

Chandieu, Opera, 10.

Chandieu, Opera, 7.

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.

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).

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).

Chandieu, Opera, 6, 9.

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. , 269–94.

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).

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. , 184–85; , 76n3.

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).

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).

Etiam extincta flamma carbones molestos esse (Chandieu, Opera, 137, my translation).

“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).

Chandieu, Opera, 137.

“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).

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).

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).

Chandieu, Opera, 203–12..

Firma, constantique Christianae religionis veritate (Chandieu, Opera, 153, my translation).

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).

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).

“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.

John 1:14; 1 Tim. 3:16, 2:5; Heb. 2:12, 2:16–17; Luke 2:52.

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).

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).

Acts 10:38; Mark 6:46; John 11:15.

“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).

Matt. 26:11; John 16:28, 17:11; Heb. 4:14, 8:4.

Ergo corpus Christ, etiam glorificiatum, est verum corpus, suisque dimensionibus praeditum (Chandieu, Opera, 142); Luke 24:39.

John 20:17, 14:3; Rev. 14:4.

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).

“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).

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.

Acts 3:21; also cited in this section is Luke 24:51 as a parallel to Acts 1.

Chandieu, Opera, 188–91.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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; 91; 23, 100, 153.

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).

, 100, 153; , 91; Werner Elert, “Über die Herkunft des Satzes ‘Finitum infiniti non capax,’ ” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 16 (1939): 500–504.

Si corpus Christ accepit ab Unione hypostatica ut sit omnipraesens. Ergo finitum capit infinitum.ἀδύνατον (Chandieu, Opera, 146, my translation).

43n1.

Consequentia patet ex natura corporis, et, ex verbo Accipiendi. (Chandieu, Opera, 146).

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).

Chandieu, Opera, 149.

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).

Quicquid est omnipraesens, sive, ubique, est infinitum, increatum, aternum, incomprehesibile; hoc est, uno verbo, est Deus (Chandieu, Opera, 143, my translation).

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).

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).

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).

, 91.

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).

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).

, 149–50.

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).

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 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.

Chandieu, Opera, 149–51.

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).

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)

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).

, 184.

, 309–10; “The Formula of Concord,” 512.

Non quod sit ficta, aut, commentitia, aut, (ut nonnulli loquuntur,) verbo tenus tantum (quod est illorum somnium) (Chandieu, Opera, 150, my translation).

Sed quia pertinet ad verboum et φρασεων expositionem (Chandieu, Opera, 150, my translation).

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).

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 2^nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 150, my translation).

Peto igitur a lectoribus, ut superiorum Theorematum meminerint, quandoquidem intra hos cardines vertetur omnis nostra responsio, et diligenter animaduertant (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation).

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).

According to Chandieu’s usage, the name “Christ” refers to the person according to both natures. Quia Christus est nomen Personae (Chandieu, Opera, 170).

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).

For this distinction in the medieval period, see , 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)

Quae quidem ita dicuntur de toto Christo ut non dicantur de Toto Christi (Chandieu, Opera, 188, my translation).

Chandieu, Opera, 153.

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.

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).

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).

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.” , 242.

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).

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).

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).

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).

Chandieu, Opera, 160–70.

For a discussion of the scholastic technique of retort, see , 259–60.

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.

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.

Etenim si velis unum ab altero distinuere, et utrumque tollis; obsecro te, quidnam distinguis? (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation).

Quia hoc volunt efficere, ut corpus realiter et simul sit finitum et infinitum (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation).

Abhibentur enim distinctiones ut rebus lucem afferant, et ea quae alioqui difficiliora videbantur, reddantur faciliora (Chandieu, Opera, 161, my translation).

Chandieu, Opera, 161.

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).

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).

, 184.

, 184, citing Cyril, De Recta Fide, Basel ed. III, 279.

, 163.

Chandieu, Opera, 161–62.

Chandieu, Opera, 162.

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.

, 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.

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 2^nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 162).

Ut rectum cursum teneamus inter Entychetis et Nestorii scopulos [added in 2nd ed.] (Chandieu, Opera, 162, my translation).

Sic enim illi Realis, inquiunt, proprietatum communicatio facta est, seruata utriusque naturae proprietate (Chandieu, Opera, 163, my translation).

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).

Chandieu, Opera, 163.

Nam permanere finitum in Unione Personali, et fieri infinitum ab Unione Personali, dicuntur ἀντιφατικως (Chandieu, Opera, 163, my translation).

, 260.

Chandieu, Opera, 166.

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).

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

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).

↑ Back to top