^{page 33 note 1} Generally, Calvin's inconsistencies, ambiguities, and contradictions are traceable to four sources: (1) the difficulty of maintaining consistency and focus throughout a corpus of some fifty collected volumes; (2) imprecision or incompleteness within his thought; (3) unawareness of conflicts within his thought or reluctance to face those conflicts; (4) the possibility that Calvin's inconsistencies reflect those of the Bible.

^{page 33 note 2} Henceforth references to Calvin's Institutes will be given by book, chapter, and section in parentheses behind the sentence or block of thought to which they refer.

^{page 33 note 3} Unhappily, Calvin departs from his own dictum in 1.13. But even there he is far more temperate than any of the schoolmen were. And if he has a hidden list of the attributes, he usually keeps them fairly well hidden.

^{page 34 note 1} Note that Calvin uses soul in its spiritual value here and consistently throughout 1.15.

^{page 36 note 1} Calvin's inconsistencies as to the ability of corrupted reason are at least a partial reflection of the Psalmists' fluctuations.

^{page 37 note 1} In II.2.14 Calvin joins grace and necessity in an almost comical juxtaposition. He argues that there is a ‘universal apprehension of understanding and reason by nature implanted in men’. This good is so universal, he then argues, that we ought to recognise in it the grace of God. In one jump he implies that grace is necessary, a contention he would surely deny if pressed. The whole incident really goes to show the primacy of Calvin's emotional stance over his argumentation.

^{page 38 note 1} If we were to be imperious in our criticism and issue an ultimatum, we would ask Calvin either to disallow reason and the other faculties of the soul any portion in the image or to allow that the image was totally destroyed at the fall. Calvin, of course, could not respond to our demands, but many of his successors have already found the meaning of the image in our relationship with God. Perhaps in the future more will try the second tack.

^{page 40 note 1} It is also evident in III.6 and in portions of the commentary to Gen. 1 and 2, but there is no formal development in those sections.

^{page 41 note 1} This is why, to answer a question raised earlier, Adam had to depend on Christ for his life. Since restoration to Christ is so much better to Calvin than restoration to Adam and since Calvin reads Christ into everything in the Old Testament, it is only natural that he makes even the perfect Adam dependent on Christ.

^{page 43 note 1} The lack of mention of the Spirit in the first three chapters of his commentary to Genesis, especially when taken with the profusion of references to Christ and the Spirit throughout Calvin's works, provides excellent circumstantial evidence.

^{page 43 note 2} A case can be made for viewing the Spirit as the chief element of Christ's image, but it is by no means a water-tight case and depends more on argumentation than on clear and compelling passages in Calvin's works. Therefore it has been left out of this paper and relegated to the pile of theories that didn't quite work.

^{page 44 note 1} Calvin was much more astute when in the commentary to Rom. 5.12 he observed that what man gains in Christ is not equal to the restoration of what Adam lost. We might infer logically that the restoration, therefore, was not to creation; but Calvin never made that inference, as the contrast between his more theological work in The Institutes and his more pastoral work in the commentaries clearly indicates.

^{page 44 note 2} This is the same problem we had with that strange juxtaposition inalienable gifts. Calvin's doctrines are very comprehensive and embracing in their generalities (take the awesome structure of The Institutes) but they do not remain so cohesive when applied to details. One almost gets the feeling that Calvin let portions of his well-planned city slip into urban sprawl. In so far as that is true it is because Calvin's writings are built around the small sections. This is especially true in his commentaries, where Calvin contradicts himself or confuses the matter from one verse to the next. Calvin bends different strands of his thought to fit individual verses; he does not bend them to form any overarching inclusive unity. As a result, close comparison of individual sections tends to produce the idea that Calvin's theology is diffuse and incoherent.