THE PROVENANCE OF JOHN CALVIN'S EMPHASIS ON THE ...

for Calvin, the spiritual nourishment availed of believers in the Supper—that is, the
communication of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament—is not "unreal," as in a
mere figment or illusion, but "true"—even "real," as he is inclined to put it in 1546—
because of the "secret and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit" who effects the
communication of Christ's body and blood as food for the soul. Thus for Calvin, this
communication in the supper is not "corporeal," or "bodily," as Luther would have it, 732
but neither is it "fictional," "imaginary," or "unreal," as a crude accounting of Zwingli's
view has it.
Calvin, it seems, shares with Luther aspects of Luther's exegesis of John 6 and
his understanding of "spiritual eating," even as he, Calvin, encountered the views of
Zwingli and his followers of the same. Calvin shares with Luther an emphasis on the
salvific significance of Christ's flesh and its very communication to believers. 733 So it
may well be asked, to what extent was Calvin striving to ameliorate the radical
730 So in his Fidei ratio, submitted to Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Zwingli
declares, following on an account of his reading of the church fathers: ". . . from these facts it becomes
very evident that the ancients always spoke figuratively when they attributed so much to the eating of the
body of Christ in the Supper; meaning, not that sacramental eating could cleanse the soul but faith in God
through Jesus Christ, which is spiritual eating, whereof this external eating is but symbol and shadow"
("An Account of the Faith of Huldreich Zwingli," LWZ 3:55). In secondary literature, see, e.g., Lane,
"Was Calvin a Cyrpto-Zwinglian?" 24; Locher, "Discord among Guests," 318-19.
731 See, e.g., The Gospel according to St. John 1-10, CNTC 4:166; Institutio 1539, as in Inst.
1559 LCC 4.17.5.
732 Lienhard, Luther: Witness, 210.
733 Cf. Lienhard, Luther: Witness, 222, and Calvin, Institutio 1539 as in Inst. 1559 LCC 4.17.7-9.
Calvin's discussion begins in this telling way: "I am not satisfied with those persons who, recognizing that
we have some communion with Christ, when they would show what it is, make us partakers of the Spirit
only, omitting mention of flesh and blood. As though all these tings were said in vain: that his flesh is
truly food, that his blood is truly drink; that none have life except those who eat his flesh and drink his
blood; and other passages pertaining to the same thing! Therefore, if it is certain that an integral
communion of Christ reaches beyond their too narrow description of it, I shall proceed to deal with it
briefly. . . ." (Inst. 1559 LCC 4.17.7).
226