Irena Backus

Leibniz saw the question of the eucharist as a crucial stumbling block to the agreement between Lutherans and Calvinists. Mandated together with Daniel Ernst Jablonsky to prepare working documents for the negotiations between Hanover and Brandenburg in 1697, Leibniz carefully read through the Calvinist Confessions of faith and the works of Calvin in their 1671 edition. He made an extensive collection of excerpts from the Confessions of faith and from Calvin's Institutes all intended to show that Calvinists admitted the substantial presence of Christ's body in the eucharist. (This collection of excerpts is analysed here for the first time and compared with another little-known document, the Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken). L. had argued previously in 1691/92 that, contrary to the assertions of Pellisson-Fontanier, his own conception of substance and of Christ's presence in the eucharist was completely different from Calvin's. However, by 1697, it was clear to Leibniz that Calvin's concept of substance, which was broadly speaking Aristotelian, was never defined clearly by the reformer, and could be made to coincide with Leibniz's own notion of substance as force rather than substance in its dimensional sense. At the same time L. dissociated Ubiquitarianism (doctrine characteristic of late sixteenth century Lutheranism, which defended the dimensional presence of Christ's body in heaven and in the eucharist, by arguing that Christ in his divine nature could cause his physical body to be present in several places at the same time) from Lutheranism. He also drove a wedge between the doctrines of Zwingli and Calvin. L. thus attempted to find religious union on a common ontology and he might well have succeeded if it were not for complex political circumstances, which ultimately caused the failure of the negotiations

This 1000-page English-language reference work has been produced with the collaboration of 23 scholars from Europe and North America and is intended as a guide to some of the most important developments in the history of the reception of the Church Fathers in the West, from the Carolingians to the Maurists. Particular emphasis is placed on the history of patristic scholarship which, unlike classical scholarship, has tended to be neglected by historians. However, the reception of patristic doctrines and ideas is also included and patristic scholarship is placed in its doctrinal and cultural context. Articles do not confine themselves to summarising what has been done on a particular topic, but also suggest new approaches and areas of research to be opened up. In order to make this volume useful to graduate students and scholars from non-theological disciplines, full relevant bibliographical information is provided._The volume addresses the following general questions: what is meant by the "Fathers"; the problems of patristic as opposed to Scriptural authority; the types of patristic material available and the problems of attribution and misattribution; the uses made of the Fathers in constituting a theological doctrine and in response to a doctrinal difference; the abuses made of the Fathers, i.e. overly tendentious or polemical uses; the value of the Greek and Latin Fathers; the use made of the Fathers in defining heresy and orthodoxy. The volume is intended to open up a field of studies and is the first-ever work of its kind. This publication has also been published in paperback, please click here_ for details.

Découvert en Occident seulement au XVIe s., ce traité fut traduit quatre fois avec des intentions différentes : unité entre Grecs et Latins , Contre-Réforme , opposition à la renaissance du manichéisme en Dalmatie . Seule la traduction et l'édition grecque simultanée de 1575 est dépourvue d'intention doctrinale ou polémique; le problème de la paternité de cette traduction pose un problème, Hopper étant mort en 1564. . Les quatre éditions et/ou traductions sont apparentées à l'actuel ms. Florence, Laur. 4, 12