From: Subject: Theology Today - Vol 23, No. 2 - July 1966 - ARTICLE - The Lord's Supper In the Reformed Confessions Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:10:05 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C7F620.8C703A20" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C7F620.8C703A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1966/v23-2-article6.htm Theology Today - Vol 23, No. 2 - July 1966 - ARTICLE = - The Lord's Supper In the Reformed Confessions
224 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

The Lord's Supper In the Reformed=20 Confessions
By B. A. Gerrish

"Schaff's Judgment, that Calvin's eucharistic teaching 'must = be=20 regarded as the orthodox Reformed doctrine,' oversimplifies the = evidence. In=20 actual fact, Zwingli's view continued to find its way into the = confessions=20 even after Calvin's emergence as foremost leader of the Reformed = Church,=20 Moreover, Bullinger's Second Helvetic Confession (156113) exhibits a = third=20 eucharistic type. There seem to be, then, three doctrines of the = Eucharist=20 in the Reformed confessions, which we may label 'symbolic = memorialism,'=20 'symbolic parallelism,' and 'symbolic=20 instrumentalism.'"

CURRENT interest in the Reformed confessions raises afresh an old = question:=20 do the historic Reformed confessions, despite their varied authorship, = present a=20 uniform "system of doctrine"? As a step toward an answer, my purpose is = to take=20 a test case, the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and to inquire what the=20 confessions say about it. The Lord's Supper is a particularly = appropriate choice=20 at the present time, since the ecumenical dialogue has given special = prominence=20 to the doctrines of the ministry and the sacraments. The opening of=20 conversations with the Lutherans (not to mention the Roman Catholics) = obliges=20 Presbyterians to reconsider their traditional eucharistic theology; and = it=20 becomes a matter of great importance to determine the "official" = Reformed=20 position, if there is one, as defined by the historic confessions.

It would be no great surprise if the classical Reformed confessions = of the=20 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were found to contain a variety of=20 eucharistic theologies. The confessions are both numer-

 225 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

ous and in origin diverse,1=20 and it is common knowledge that the Reformed theologians of Switzerland = were at=20 first divided among themselves on the meaning of the Lord's Supper. Two = types of=20 eucharistic theology developed in the Reformed Church, with Zwingli and = Calvin=20 furnishing the respective models. What one might expect, in view of the = mixed=20 parentage of the Reformed Church, is the coexistence of two independent=20 eucharistic traditions, or a merging of the two, or, it may be, the = eventual=20 triumph of one over the other. In actual fact, the evidence is not so = simple: it=20 seems to call for the distinguishing of yet a third eucharistic type, of = which=20 Bullinger's Second Helvetic Confession may serve as the model. It is not = claimed=20 that these three types need be mutually exclusive, nor that each = coincides=20 completely with the thought of the Reformer who provides the = confessional model.=20 A full historical enquiry, which would take into account the = non-confessional=20 writings of the Reformers and the eucharistic controversy as a whole, is = not=20 here attempted. It is suggested only that careful analysis of the = confessions=20 themselves invites the triple distinction. What this may mean for the = Reformed=20 platform in ecumenical discussions is explored in the final section.

I

The assumption still lingers, in the minds of friends and foes alike, = that=20 the differences between Zwingli's and Calvin's views on the Lord's = Supper are=20 not fundamental. Certainly, Calvin did share a number of Zwingli's = eucharistic=20 ideas. Nevertheless, the fact is that they represent two different types = of=20 eucharistic theology.

A number of Zwingli's writings may be considered confessional or=20 quasi-confessional in character.2=20 Without attempting, for the moment, to define the notion of a = "confession," I=20 shall simply take account of the documents from Zwingli's hand that are = included=20 in one or more of the major collections of Reformed confessions. The

1 = The most=20 comprehensive collection of Reformed confessions is: E. F. Karl = M=FCller, ed.,=20 Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, Leipzig, 1903. = Other=20 important collections are: H. A. Niemeyer, ed., Collectio = confessionum in=20 ecclesiis reformatis publicatarum, Leipzig, 1840; Philip Schaff, = The=20 Creeds of Christendom, Vol. III, 4th revised edn., New York, 1919; = Wilhelm=20 Niesel, ed., Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nach Gottes = Wort=20 reformierten Kirche, M=FCnchen, 1938. I abbreviate these four works, = respectively, as "M," "N," "S," and "Ns." Where a satisfactory text is = available=20 in M, I do not give duplicate references to the other editions, though I = have=20 checked them for variants.
2 They are as = follows:=20 the Sixty-Seven Articles, 1523 (given by N, S, and M); Short = and=20 Christian Introduction, 1523 (M only); Fidei Ratio, 1530 (N, = M);=20 Fidei Expositio, 1531 (N only). Of these four, only the second = was ever=20 published with official-i.e., "symbolic"-authority. Zwingli also had a = hand in=20 revising the Ten Theses of Bern, 1528 (N, S, and M), but the = draft was by=20 Haller and Kolb.

 226 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

earliest of Zwingli's confessions, the Sixty-Seven Articles of = 1523,3=20 is terse, vigorous and in tone polemical-a kind of Swiss Ninety-Five = Theses. It=20 does not contain a full or careful presentation on the Lord's Supper.=20 Nonetheless, two basic notions are already present in this, the earliest = Reformed confession: the Lord's Supper is both a memorial and a pledge. = Christ=20 offered himself up once and for all as an abiding satisfaction for sins. = It=20 follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration = (widerged=E4chtn=FCss)=20 of the sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross and a pledge = (sicherung) of=20 the redemption made manifest by Christ (Art. XVIII).

In the Short and Christian Introduction4=20 of the same year Zwingli again assails the sacrifice of the Roman mass = and=20 insists that Christ's ordinance" is rather a commemoration and preaching = of his=20 one sacrifice upon the Cross. Not the breaking of the bread, but his = death was=20 his sacrifice. All a man can now offer to God is himself, not Christ. He = cannot=20 sacrifice Christ, but he can commemorate the sacrifice of Christ. For = Christ has=20 left us "a certain visible sign of his flesh and blood." Hence Christ = called the=20 Supper, not a sacrifice or mass, but a testament and memorial. = Nevertheless,=20 Zwingli freely uses the traditional terms "sacrament" and "food of the=20 soul"5;=20 and he even speaks of "feeding believers with the Body and Blood of = Christ" and=20 "eating and drinking (niessen) the Body and Blood."6=20 Apparently, his motives are pedagogic: he is plainly anxious to avoid = offence to=20 tender consciences, and his argument seems to be that the people have = always=20 believed the right thing about the Lord's Supper -that it is the food of = their=20 souls-despite the efforts of the priests to deceive them with the = doctrine of=20 the sacrificial mass.

Any possibility of interpreting this language in a "Lutheran" sense = is ruled=20 out in the Fidei Ratio7=20 of 1530, Zwingli's "Augsburg Confession," addressed to the Emperor = Charles V.=20 Here Zwingli bluntly repudiates the entire notion of the means of grace. = The=20 grace or pardon of God is given solely by the Spirit, who needs no = vehicle. The=20 sacraments merely testify in public that grace has been received in = private.=20 Thus in Baptism testimony is given to the Church8=20 that

3 = M, pp. 1-6=20 (German).
4 M, pp. 7-29 = (German).
5 M 29 7; 26, 25; 28, 15. (References in this form = are to page=20 and line.)
6 M 29, 10; 29, 14. Presumably = the=20 statement that the mass has another purpose than eating and drinking the = Body=20 and Blood of Christ (M 26, 19) refers to the Roman mass.
7 M, pp. 79-94 (Latin).
8 The Eng.=20 trans. in The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, II, 47 (ed. by = John=20 Hinke, Philadelphia, 1922) has ". . . the Church certifies that grace = has been=20 given. But the Latin text (M 87, 12) reads Ecclesiae = testatur.

 227 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

grace has been exercised on him to whom the sacrament is given. A = sacrament,=20 in short, is a sign of past grace, of pardon consummated: it is factae = gratiae=20 signum. More precisely, it is a kind of picture or image (figura, = exemplum) of=20 the invisible grace Which God has given, a similitude (analogia) of what = has=20 been done through the Holy Spirit. Hence the washing of Baptism = signifies that=20 by God's goodness we have been gathered into the fellowship of the = Church, which=20 worships its Lord by purity of life.9=20 The sacraments visibly associate with the Church those who have = previously been=20 received into it invisibly.

It is no surprise, then, that When Zwingli turns to the Lord's Supper = (or=20 "Eucharist," as he prefers to say) he uses realistic language in a = consciously=20 figurative sense, for by his definition of a sacrament he has already = ruled out=20 any possibility of treating the signs as a vehicle by which Christ's = Body might=20 be communicated (Art. VIII). That the true Body of Christ is present to = faith=20 (fidei contemplatione) means that, while the worshippers thank God for = His=20 benefits in His Son, everything Christ did in the flesh becomes as if = (velut)=20 present to them. A plain "No" is therefore addressed to the Papists and = "certain=20 who look back to the fleshpots of Egypt": the natural Body of Christ is = not=20 present in the Supper essentially and really, nor masticated with the = mouth and=20 teeth.

Obviously, then, despite his liberal use of the high sacramental = terminology,=20 Zwingli has not moved beyond the position of the Sixty-Seven Articles. = It is=20 made plain that realistic-sounding language about Christ's Body is to be = considered figurative or metonymous. To "distribute the Body and Blood = in the=20 Supper," for example, means to distribute the elements, which are signs = of the=20 Body and Blood.10<= /A>=20 The key notion remains that of a memorial. The idea of a "pledge," on = the other=20 hand, recedes into the background.11<= /A>=20 But a third idea is added, that of a public confession which identifies = a man=20 with the Christian community. Aside from this third factor, the main=20 contribution of the Fidei Ratio is to make more explicit Zwingli's = understanding=20 of sacramental language, and he believes

9 = This does not=20 really fit too well with Zwingli's point of view, since holy living in = the=20 Church strictly lies in the future for the baptismal = candidate.
10 Art. X (M 92, 19).
11 What=20 confirms and certifies is rather God's gift of His Son (M 91, 25). = Sacramental=20 eating is but a symbol of faith in Christ. Nevertheless, in his = Letter to the=20 Princes (1530), in which he defends himself against Eck, Zwingli = comes=20 surprisingly close to Luther and Calvin, arguing that the sacraments do = in fact=20 arouse, support, and restore faith. Latin Works, II, 113 and=20 116.

 228 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

that he derives his understanding from the Fathers. The teaching of = the=20 Fathers was "not that sacramental eating could cleanse the soul, but = faith in=20 God through Jesus Christ, the spiritual eating, of which the external = (eating)=20 is a symbol and figure (symbolum et adumbratio)." Zwingli displays a = tendency=20 which becomes universal in Reformed thinking to elaborate the symbolism = of the=20 sacramental elements and actions. "Just as bread sustains the body and = wine=20 enlivens and exhilarates it, so the fact that God gave us His Son = confirms the=20 soul and makes it certain of His mercy; and it revives the mind that the = sins=20 which consumed it have been extinguished by Christ's blood." We may say, = then,=20 that this fondness for symbolism is a fourth aspect of Zwingli's = confessional=20 writings on the Lord's Supper. But it is not just an ingredient like the = other=20 three: it is the overarching theory of sacramental language. The three = basic=20 ingredients are thankful recollection, the reassurance of faith, and = union with=20 the Church. And where in the world, asks Zwingli, can that be better = found than=20 in the celebration of the sacraments? This is what the elements "say" to = Zwingli=20 (his own expression). They proclaim that salvation is from God, they = exercise=20 our faith, and they draw us together in a common confession. In other = words,=20 they have to do with our threefold relationship to God, self and=20 neighbor.12<= /A>

In general, the Fidei Expositio (1531)13<= /A>=20 moves along the same lines. Zwingli's symbolic interpretation of the = Sacrament=20 is developed in the direction of a kind of parallelism. In the Lord's = Supper the=20 spiritual feeding upon Christ by faith is symbolized by an outward = eating of the=20 bread. "You do inwardly what you enact outwardly." An inward spiritual=20 occurrence is symbolically represented by a parallel outward and = physical=20 occurrence. The relation between the two occurrences is not causal, as = though=20 the outward eating gave rise to the inward. Zwingli has nothing more to = say=20 about it than simply that the outward represents the inward.14<= /A>

12 = The most=20 important passage for Zwingli's idea of symbolism (from which the = quotation is=20 taken) occurs in his discussion of the Fathers (M 91, 18 ff.). The three = "ingredients" within this symbolic framework are explicitly brought = together in=20 Zwingli's Letter to the Princes: Latin Works, II, 116-17. He adds = that=20 strictly it is the Spirit who works all these things in us; and, if He = so=20 chooses, He can do so without the external instruments.
13 N, pp. 36-77 (Latin).
14 See=20 the entire section entitled "Praesentia corporis Christi in Coena" (N, = pp.=20 44-50). Zwingli distinguishes three ways of eating the Body of Christ: = naturally=20 (which he rejects), spiritually (which he identifies with faith), and=20 sacramentally (which is spiritual eating adiuncto sacramento). = Zwingli=20 denies, of course, that the sacraments can give faith, save the = sub-Christian=20 sense of fides historica, but he admits that they may--and = especially=20 the

 229 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

The Fidei Expositio also heightens the emphasis on the corporate = aspect of=20 the Sacrament by giving an ecclesiological interpretation to the "Body = of=20 Christ."15<= /A>=20 In the Eucharist we have to do with the ecclesiological, not only the = natural,=20 Body of Christ. This is an aspect of Zwingli's eucharistic thinking that = has=20 been strongly emphasized of late (notably by Julius Schweizer and = Jacques=20 Courvoisier).16<= /A>=20 I have no doubt about its theological importance, but its role in = Zwingli's=20 confessional writings is not especially prominent. The discussions on = the Lord's=20 Supper arc mainly interested-though possibly for polemical reasons-in = Christ's=20 natural Body. And even where Zwingli interprets "not discerning the = Body"=20 ecclesiologically, he interprets it Christologically also in the = self-same=20 sentence.17<= /A>

At neither of these points-"parallelism" and the "ecclesiological = body"-does=20 the Fidel Expositio add anything substantially new to the Fidei Ratio. = It=20 develops and undergirds what we have already noted in the earlier work. = To be=20 precise, it develops our fourth aspect (Zwingli's symbolism) and = undergirds the=20 third (identification with the Christian community through a public=20 testimony).

II

The editors of the Corpus Reformatorum included ten writings under = the=20 heading "confessions" in their edition of Calvin's works.18<= /A>=20 But the only one of the ten which has established a place among the = Reformed=20 confessions is the French Confession, of which Calvin was not strictly = the=20 author. Some of the astonishing omissions from the standard collections = can=20 perhaps be explained.19<= /A>=20 But the neglect of

Eucharist-help faith by engaging the attention of all = five=20 senses. See the section entitled "Quae sacramentorum virtus" (N, pp.=20 50-53).
15 This appears in two separate = contexts:=20 on the condemnation of the unworthy (the unbeliever dishonors the Church = because=20 his participation in the Sacrament is a false testimony to faith); and = on the=20 sacramental symbolism (which has a secondary "analogy," besides the idea = of=20 nourishment, in the fact that the one loaf is made up of many grains). = See N 48,=20 67; 73, 171 (from the Z=FCrich order of service), 51, 78; 52-53, 82. = (The second=20 figure in each reference is to the section, not the line.) In the last = of these=20 passages the thought of dishonoring (failing to "discern"!) the Body is = linked=20 with the interpretation of a sacramentum as an oath of allegiance: the=20 unbeliever who participates in the Sacrament is a traitor = (perfidus).
16 Julius Schweizer, Reformierte = Abendmahlsgestaltung in=20 der Schau Zwinglis (Basel, 1954); Jacques Courvoisier, Zwingli: A = Reformed Theologian (Richmond, Virginia, 1963), pp. 74 = ff.
17 N 53, 82.
18 C. R. = XXXVII=20 (Calvini Opera IX), cols. 693-778. The list could be extended. It = omits=20 the Brief Confession translated in Tracts and Treatises (Grand = Rapids,=20 Michigan, 1958), II, 130 ff., and the Geneva Consensus of 1552 (on=20 predestination), which is included in Niemeyer's collection, pp.=20 218-310.
19 Of the ten confessions in C. = R., all=20 the four major collections give the French Confession and M=FCller adds = the Geneva=20 Confession and Lausanne Articles (both 1536). Of the remainder, four are = restricted to a particular doctrine (the Trinity [1537], the Eucharist = [1537],=20 predestination [undated], and the ministry [undated]) and two form a=20 family-group with the French Confession (namely, the Paris Confession = [1557] and=20 the Scholars' Confession [1559]).

 230 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

one of Calvin's confessions remains (to me) a mystery: the excellent=20 Confession of Faith which he wrote in his closing years (1562) for the = Reformed=20 Christians of France. I shall make occasional reference to this = confession; but=20 I shall use as my main Calvin-source the Geneva Catechism. Though the = Catechism=20 does not appear among the ten confessions in the Corpus Reformatorum, it = is=20 selected as Calvin's chief contribution in three major editions of = Reformed=20 symbols.20<= /A>

The resemblance of Calvin's sacramental ideas to those of Zwingli is=20 striking, and it is not surprising that the two positions have beer, = judged=20 substantially the same. What I have disentangled as the three = ingredients of=20 Zwingli's position all reappear in Calvin. In general, Calvin views the=20 sacraments as pledges of God's goodwill toward us, which represent His = spiritual=20 benefits (Q. 310). This is their primary function. They also serve, = secondly, as=20 "badges of our profession," by which we identify ourselves with the = Christian=20 Church (Q. 362). Here, then, are two of the fundamental Zwinglian ideas. = Least=20 in evidence is the notion of the Supper as a commemoration; but this = also is=20 perhaps implicit in the affirmation that the Lord's Supper "sends us = back to his=20 Death" (Q. 349). Finally, like Zwingli, Calvin has a fondness for = elaborating=20 the details of sacramental symbolism. The pouring of water pictures both = cleansing from sin and the drowning of the old Adam (Qq. 325-326). = Eating and=20 drinking picture the sustenance and exhilaration we receive from = Christ's Body=20 and Blood (Q. 341).

What, then, justifies us in speaking of two types of eucharistic = theology?=20 The answer lies in the fact that Zwingli and Calvin held two totally = different=20 views of religious symbolism. Because the nature of the symbolical is = not simply=20 a fourth ingredient, but the total context of sacramental theology, it = follows=20 that even the verbal agreements of Zwingli and Calvin are totally = qualified, and=20 may conceal actual disagreement. Hence, though both can detect the same=20 "analogies" in Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the disagreement between = the two=20 men is more fundamental than their agreements, and puts Calvin on = Luther's side=20 of the line, not Zwingli's. For in Calvin's view it is the nature of the = sacraments to cause and communicate (apporter et communiquer) what they=20 signify.21<= /A>=20 On Bap-

20 = I refer to=20 the Catechism by question-number ("Q" in parenthesis). My translations = are from=20 the Latin text (M 117-153), but I have compared the Latin with the = French text=20 (Ns 3-41), from which I have derived the numbering of the = questions.
21 C. R. XXXVII, 764. Cf. the Scholastic formula = efficiunt=20 quod figurant.

 231 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

tism Calvin says: "It is a figure in such fashion that the truth is = joined=20 with it (simul annexa; Fr. conioincte avec). God does not deceive us = when He=20 promises us His gifts. It is certain, therefore, that forgiveness of = sins and=20 newness of life are offered us in Baptism and received by us" (Q. 328).=20 Similarly, in the Lord's Supper the benefits of Christ are not just = signified,=20 but given (Fr. donn=E9es), so that he makes us participate in his = substance (Q.=20 353). The Confession of 1562 is just as strongly worded: "Through the = signs of=20 the bread and wine our Lord Jesus presents to us his Body and Blood." = The Supper=20 is addressed both to the wicked and to the good, "to offer Jesus Christ = to all=20 without discrimination." The Lord Jesus "vivifies us with the proper = substance=20 of his Body." "He does not fail to make us partakers of the substance of = his=20 Body and Blood."22<= /A>=20 And so on.

Such passages make it obvious why Calvin, without dismissing it, = cannot make=20 much out of Zwingli's favorite notion of commemoration: the focal point = of his=20 sacramental theology lies elsewhere-in the notion of the means of grace, = a=20 notion which Zwingli had rejected. The two Reformers were both careful = to make a=20 distinction between sign and thing signified, and for the same reason: = to avoid=20 the virtual identity of sign and reality in Roman Catholicism and = Lutheranism.=20 But this cannot obscure their complete disagreement over the nature of = religious=20 symbols. For Zwingli symbolism is what enables him to use realistic = language=20 without meaning it realistically. For Calvin symbolism is what assures = him that=20 he receives the Body of Christ without believing in a localized presence = of the=20 Body in the elements. No one, Zwingli tells us, can speak so grandly of = the=20 sacraments as to give him offence, provided the symbolical is taken for = what it=20 is, and no more. Let signs be signs! "If (the sacraments) bestowed the = thing or=20 were the thing, they would be things and not a sacrament or = sign."23<= /A>=20 Calvin agrees that the sacraments cannot be both signs and the things = signified.=20 But his position is still, in effect, the exact opposite of Zwingli's: = because a=20 sacrament is a sign, therefore it bestows what it signifies. More = correctly,=20 because sacraments are divinely appointed signs, and God does not lie, = therefore=20 the Spirit uses them to confer what they symbolize.24<= /A>

22 Ibid.,=20 768, 769, 770-771.
23 This interpretation = of=20 Zwingli gathers together his arguments against Eck: Latin Works, = II, 117,=20 118, 122, 124.
24 See esp. the Geneva = Catechism,=20 Qq. 312, 328, and 353.

 232 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

III

In the next three sections it is not the intention to subject the = Reformed=20 confessions to detailed examination, but to ask of the major confessions = Which=20 eucharistic type they seem to follow. And the point of division is = whether their=20 central thought on the Lord's Supper is commemoration or = communication.

Of the Swiss Confessions the First Helvetic Confession of 1536, a=20 team-product of the Reformed theologians, deserves to be mentioned = first.25<= /A>=20 It shows plainly that What I have labeled the "Calvinistic type" of = eucharistic=20 theology is older than Calvin himself. The sacraments are signs, but not = "mere=20 empty signs" (Art. XX). They consist in "signs and essential things." = (Latin:=20 "They consist of signs and things at the same time.") In other Words, = the thing=20 signified is inseparably bound up With the sacramental sign. In the = Lord's=20 Supper the thing signified is the communion (Lat. Communi-catio) of the = Body and=20 Blood, the salvation won on the cross, and forgiveness of sins, which = are=20 received in faith as the signs are received corporeally. It is, indeed, = through=20 the signs that the Lord offers his Body and Blood-that is, himself-to = his people=20 (Art. XXII). The signs convey and offer the spiritual things which they = signify.=20 As with Calvin, so in the First Helvetic Confession the echoes of = Zwinglian=20 ideas are unmistakable. But at the decisive point Zwingli is left = behind. The=20 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper does not only symbolize, commemorate, = move us to=20 joyful thanksgiving, and bind us in loyalty to the Head and members of = the=20 Church: it also is the means by Which God gives What He promises,

It comes, then, as something of a surprise to turn to the Geneva=20 Confession26<= /A>=20 of the same year (1536) and find an explanation of the Lord's Supper = that does=20 not move beyond Zwingli. No doubt, it could be interpreted = Calvinistically, but=20 its language does not require such an interpretation. The sacraments = represent,=20 but it is not said that they give. It is hard to believe that Calvin = even=20 approved the statement, let alone Wrote it, and it is significant that = the=20 latest research is inclined to attribute the Geneva Confession to Farel. = Nevertheless, Calvin did not disapprove of the Confession, and it

25 = M 101 109=20 (German); S III, 211-231 (German and Latin). With the First Helvetic = Confession=20 may be compared the Tetrapolitan Confession (1530) and the Basel = Confession=20 (1534). See M 72, 20 and 97, 22. All three of these confessions think of = the=20 Eucharist as an actual giving of the Body and Blood, not simply a = representation=20 of the Body once given.
26 C. R. XXXVII,=20 693-700.

 233 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

was his desire that the Genevan citizens should be herded into the = Cathedral=20 of St. Pierre, lined up by the police, and obliged to confess under oath = that=20 this was their faith (July, 1537).

Heinrich Bullinger demonstrated in 1545 that Zwinglianism was still = very much=20 alive. His Zurich Confession,27<= /A>=20 provoked by renewed Lutheran attacks on the Swiss, defiantly asserts = that=20 remembering is the "real chief part and purpose" of the Supper. He who = believes=20 has eaten Christ's Body, for eating is believing. The believer therefore = brings=20 Christ to the Supper in his heart. He does not receive him lit the = Supper. Of=20 course, it is possible that an unbeliever may be present at the Supper; = and he=20 may certainly receive Christ there, that is, may become a believer. But = the=20 saving events themselves are present only in the believing imagination=20 (Eynbildung).

By the time Bullinger wrote the Second Helvetic Confession (probably = in 1561)=20 the Zurich Consensus had already closed the gap between the two = eucharistic=20 theologies. Schaff's description of the Second Helvetic Confession as = "the last=20 and the best of the Zwinglian family" needs some qualification.28<= /A>=20 In the Zurich Consensus29<= /A>=20 the favorite Zwinglian terminology was liberally employed, and Calvin = trod=20 softly in the introduction of non-Zwinglian ideas.30<= /A>=20 The Consensus did not say all Calvin liked to say about the Sacraments, = only=20 what he was not prepared to omit. But enough was said to put it beyond = all doubt=20 that Bullinger had moved beyond his teacher. God truly offers (praestat) = what=20 the sacraments symbolize (Art. VIII). The reality is not separated from = the=20 signs, but Christ is received with his spiritual gifts (Art. IX). And so = on.

That Bullinger did not consent to such expressions merely for a = political=20 accommodation with Geneva, is proved by the use of similar language in = the=20 Second Helvetic Confession,31<= /A>=20 in which he taught a sacramental union of sign and reality (Art. XIX). = And yet=20 in some passages (Art. XXI) Bullinger seems to be thinking in terms of = a

27 = M 153-159=20 (German; extracts only). It was Luther's Short Confession (1545) = that=20 finally provoked Bullinger to make response. The Rhaetian Confession = (1552) also=20 does not seem to advance beyond the old Zwinglian ideas (M = 163-170).
28 Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I (sixth edn., = New York,=20 1919), p. 390.
29 M 159-163 = (Latin).
30 For example, it is made abundantly clear that the = sacraments have no sacral efficacy in themselves, and for this reason = the=20 medieval sacramenta conferunt gratiam is denied (Arts. XII, XIII, = XVII).=20 But this is said, not to denude the sacraments, but to reserve tile = agendi=20 facultas for God, who uses them in freedom (ubi visum est!) as = His=20 instruments (Art. XIII).
31 M = 170-221.

 234 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

symbolic parallelism: outwardly we eat the bread, inwardly at the = same time=20 we also feed upon Christ"s Body. (In Latin, the connection is denoted by = the=20 words intus interim: "Meanwhile, inside.")32<= /A>=20 This, of course, does take us beyond Zwingli, whose characteristic tense = is the=20 past, not the present. In Zwingli's view, the elements call to mind = something=20 that has happened: Christ's Body was broken, we have turned to him in=20 faith.33<= /A>=20 And yet Bullinger's parallelism is not Calvin's position either, for it = lacks=20 the use of instrumental expressions; the outward event does not convey = or cause=20 or give rise to the inward event, but merely indicates that it is going = on.

Perhaps, then, the original distinction between a Zwinglian and a = Calvinistic=20 type of Eucharistic theology is not adequate for classifying the = Reformed=20 Confessions. Is there, in fact, also a third type of Reformed Eucharist, = of=20 which Bullinger's second Helvetic Confession serves as the model? I = advance this=20 suggestion at this point as a hypothesis, to be tested by other Reformed = confessions.

IV

My hypothesis seems to me to be confirmed by the three main = Continental=20 Reformed Confessions that originated outside of Switzerland: the French = and=20 Belgic Confessions and the Heidelberg Catechism. The French Confession = of 1559,=20 though not from Calvin's own hand, is for the most part a faithful = summary of=20 his theology, especially his sacramental theology.34<= /A>=20 The two sacraments are not empty signs, nor yet do they possess any = intrinsic=20 power: they are instruments employed by God to strengthen faith (Art. = XXXIV) and=20 to give us Jesus Christ (Art. XXXVII). God signifies nothing to us in = vain (Art.=20 XXXIV). In both sacraments He gives us really an efficaciously (Lat.=20 efficaciter) what He there represents to us, and with the sign is joined = the=20 true possession of what is signified (Art. XXXVII).

32 = M 210, 28. A=20 similar passage occurs at M 211, 10, but it uses everyday eating as a = general=20 analogy to spiritual eating and has no specific reference to the Lord's = Supper=20 (cf. John 6).
33 In characterizing = parallelism as=20 Buffinger's typical contribution, I do not, of course, overlook the fact = that=20 Zwingli in some passages seems to anticipate him, apparently = transcending his=20 customary retrospective direction. Moreover, my concern here is only = with the=20 confessional sources.
34 M 221-232 = (French); N=20 329-339 (Latin). The French Confession needs to be read as a whole. = Certain=20 passages, if taken in isolation, could be given a parallelistic = interpretation.=20 A particular difficulty appears in Art. XXVII, which seems to say that = the thing=20 signified in the Lord's Supper is not the Body or communion with the = Body, but=20 the fact that tile Body nourishes the soul. How, then, does God = give us=20 really and efficaciously what He signifies?

 235 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

The Belgic Confession (1561) was closely modeled on the French = Confession,=20 which, in some articles it simply amplifies. On the sacraments, however, = I would=20 classify it as only semi-Calvinist. The statement on the sacraments in = general=20 (Art. XXXIII) seems to follow the French Confession; but the Article on = Baptism=20 looks rather to Zwingli and Bullinger; and the Article on the Lord's = Supper then=20 reverts to Calvinism.35<= /A>=20 If this is a correct reading of the Belgic Confession, then we have to = make a=20 further observation on the sacramental theology of the Reformed = confessions: not=20 only are different theological types represented in the corpus = confessionum as a=20 whole, but there may also be strange combinations within a single = confession.=20 However, on the Lord's Supper itself the Belgic Confession does not seem = to=20 differ from the French model: "This feast is a spiritual meal in which = Christ=20 communicates himself to us . . . nourishing our poor souls by the eating = of his=20 flesh" (Art. XXXV).

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)36<= /A>=20 shows a subtle variation from Calvin's Geneva Catechism at the very = beginning of=20 the presentation on the sacraments. It asks, not how does Christ = communicate=20 himself to us (cf. Geneva Cat., Q. 309)? but how do we obtain faith = (Heidelberg=20 Cat., Q. 65)? This is not, I think, a trivial distinction, but a quite=20 fundamental one; for the Heidelberg Catechism is apparently shy about = the notion=20 of sacramental means. Despite the contrary judgments of Schaff and = M=FCller, it=20 does not seem to me that the Catechism teaches a full Calvinistic = doctrine of=20 the sacraments.37<= /A>=20 The treatment is highly didactic and intellectualistic. The sacraments = confirm=20 faith, seal the promise, help us to understand, point us to the Cross, = remind=20 and assure us, testify to us, and so on. The characteristic formula is = "so=20 gewiss . . . so gewiss": as certainly as I am washed with water and eat = the=20 bread, so certain can I be that Christ's Blood cleanses me from sin and = his Body=20 nourishes my soul.

35 = I have used=20 the French version in S III, 383-436, in preference to the later Latin = version=20 (M 233-249). Even the general Article on the sacraments (XXXIII) does = not say=20 unambiguously that God gives what He represents: it could be read to = mean that=20 by tile sacraments God works faith. This would go further than Zwingli, = but=20 stops short of Calvin. One can only speculate why Baptism is interpreted = in=20 terms of enlistment and parallelistic representation (Art. XXXIV). = Perhaps the=20 hint is to be sought in the statement (Art. XXXV) that the Word of the = Gospel is=20 the instrument of regeneration-therefore (may one add?) Baptism cannot = be. It=20 may also be pointed out that one section of the Article on the Lord's = Supper=20 could, if taken out of context, be interpreted parallelistically: the = phrase=20 "aussi v=E9ritablement . . . aussi vraiment" is echoed by the = Heidelberg=20 Catechism's "so gewiss =85 so gewiss."
36 M=20 682-719 (German). My exposition uses the entire section on the = sacraments (Qq.=20 65-85).
37 Schaff, op. cit., I, = 543; M=FCller,=20 op. cit., p. lii.

 236 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

Of course, the sacraments do not merely inform us that forgiveness is = like=20 washing, believing like eating: they also assure us that we really are = washed=20 from our sins and united with Christ's Body. The broken bread of the = Lord's=20 Supper does not only point back to the Body broken on the Cross, but = means also,=20 that by the same broken Body I am continually fed. The signs are also = pledges.=20 The Catechism explicitly teaches a communion with the Body of Christ = and, like=20 Calvin, makes the Holy Spirit the bond of union between Christ's Body in = Heaven=20 and ourselves on earth. But the elements do not convey this union: they = remind=20 us that we have it independently of the sacraments. Hence those who = should come=20 to the table are those who trust that their sins are (already!) = forgiven, and=20 desire to strengthen their faith and improve their life. The overall = verdict on=20 the Catechism must be, then, that its sacramental theology owes more to = Zwingli=20 and particularly to Bullinger than to Calvin.

V

Finally, I would wish to argue along the same lines in interpreting = the=20 British Reformed Confessions: if my triple distinction is used as the = measure=20 the results are again very mixed. Whether or not the Anglican = Thirty-Nine=20 Articles (1563/71)38<= /A>=20 belong among the Reformed confessions, I would classify their teaching = on the=20 Lord's Supper as cautiously Calvinistic. Zwinglianism is plainly ruled = out, and=20 the focal point is the communicatio corporis: the Body of Christ is = "given,=20 taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual = mariner"=20 (Art. XXVIII). This could, of course, be read as parallelism: it is at = least=20 ambiguous, and neither on the sacraments in general nor on the other = sacrament=20 do the Articles say unambiguously that through the signs God gives what = they=20 signify.39<= /A>=20 The definition of a sacrament in the Anglican Catechism (1662),40<= /A>=20 on the other hand, expresses Calvin's intention exactly: a sacrament is = "an=20 outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to

38 = M 505-522=20 (Latin); S III, 487-516 (Latin and English).
39=20 Art. XXV does not make clear what God works through the = sacraments, but=20 the answer seems to be that He strengthens faith. Art. XXVI speaks of = four=20 effects brought about through the instrumentality of Baptism, but = regeneration=20 (of which Baptism is the sign) is not among them, unless regeneration is = taken=20 ecclesiologically as engrafting into the Church.
40=20 The Catechism dates from 1549, but underwent several changes before its=20 definitive form of 1662. The section on the sacraments was added by = Bishop=20 Overall in response to a request made by the Puritans at the Hampton = Court=20 Conference (1604). At the Savoy Conference (1661) the Puritans objected = in vain=20 to the first three questions, which touch on Baptism. The idea that = sponsors=20 can, make vicarious vows and promises reappears in the questions devoted = directly to Baptism. M 522-525.

 237 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the = same, and a=20 pledge to assure us thereof." Taken in conjunction with this definition = of a=20 sacrament, the statement on the Lord's Supper must also be judged = faithfully=20 Calvinistic.

Curiously enough, the Westminster Confession's41<= /A>=20 teaching on the sacraments (1647) is not so plainly Calvinistic as the = teaching=20 of the Anglican Catechism; and the confession comes as close to symbolic = parallelism as do the Thirty-Nine Articles. Since the aim of the = Westminster=20 Divines was to produce a more strictly Calvinist confession than the = Thirty-Nine=20 Articles, their lack of clarity in the area of sacramental theology is=20 surprising. The Calvinistic intention of their teaching on the = sacraments has to=20 be gleaned from incidental phrases, Which presuppose the instrumental=20 view.42<= /A>=20 In itself, the Article on the Lord's Supper invites the parallelistic=20 interpretation of the sacramental union: "Worthy receivers, outwardly = partaking=20 of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly . . . = feed upon=20 Christ crucified . . ." (Art. XXIX, sec. vii). Indeed, the statement = that=20 Christ's Body is present "to faith" could be understood in a purely = Zwinglian=20 sense.

If the hesitance of the Westminster Confession is surprising, even = more=20 surprising is the fact that the teaching of the two Westminster=20 Catechisms43<= /A>=20 does not fully coincide With that of the Confession. Perhaps the = difference may=20 be traced to the catechetical structure, which treats Word and = sacraments as=20 answers to the question "what are the outward means by which Christ = communicates=20 to us the benefits of His mediation" (L. C., Q. 154)? The sacraments are = effectual means of salvation (Q. 161), which exhibit Christ's benefits = 162) and=20 by means of which the benefits are communicated to us 154). Hence When = the=20 Catechisms speak of feeding upon the Body of Christ, they must surely = mean a=20 spiritual feeding which is effected

41 = M 542-612=20 (English and Latin). The connecting link between the Thirty-Nine = Articles and=20 Westminster was the Irish Articles (1615) of Archbishop Ussher, which=20 incorporate the predestinarian Lambeth Articles (1595) and yet move away = from=20 Calvin on the sacraments. Irish Art. 89, on Baptism, excludes the = instrumental=20 language of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and Art. 94, on the Lord's Supper, = develops the sacramental symbolism into a parallelism of two "parts," = one=20 outward and the other inward. Texts in M 525-526 (the Lambeth Articles = in Latin)=20 and 526-539 (the Irish Articles in English).
42=20 The expression "grace which is exhibited (exhibetur) in or by the = sacraments" (Art. XXVII, sec. iii; cf. sec. v) means more than = "displayed": the=20 word "conferred" seems to be used as a synonym. The Latin commonly means = "to=20 hold forth" or "to present." Note also the expressions "efficacy of = Baptism"=20 (Art. XXVIII, sec. v) and "the grace promised is not only offered, but = really=20 exhibited and conferred" (ibid., sec. vi).
43 Larger Catechism (abbrev. "L. C.") in M 612-643 = (Latin);=20 Thomas Torrance, The School of Faith (London, 1959), pp, 185-234=20 (English). Shorter Catechism (abbrev, "S. C.") in M 643-652=20 (English).

 238 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

through the outward eating of the bread. Although much of what the = Confession=20 says on the Lord's Supper is simply repeated in the Catechisms, they set = it in a=20 clearer light by treating it explicitly under the rubric of the means = whereby=20 Christ communicates himself to his people.

That the idea of Christ's self-communication was the heart of the = matter for=20 the Westminster Divines is demonstrated by comparing the two Catechisms. = The=20 Larger Catechism lists five functions of a sacrament (Q. 162) and four = or five=20 functions of the Lord's Supper (Q. 168). In the interests of brevity, = the=20 Shorter Catechism restricts itself precisely to those functions which go = beyond=20 Zwingli's or Bullinger's eucharistic types; and particularly to the = function of=20 communicating Christ and his benefits (S. C., Qq. 92, 96). The notions = of a=20 testimony to our thankfulness, our engagement to God, and our mutual = fellowship=20 with one another are simply omitted. The point could hardly be more = forcefully=20 made that, although these notions belong to the full presentation of = Reformed=20 teaching on the Eucharist, they lie close to the perimeter and can, if=20 necessary, be cut out. The essential part of the Sacrament is the divine = gift=20 conveyed by it, not the Church's profession of its faith or love, nor = even the=20 Church's "affectionate meditation" upon Calvary (L. C., Q. 174). One is=20 astonished at the effectiveness with which the Shorter Catechism puts to = flight=20 the oppressive, introspective spirit of the Puritan that broods over the = Larger=20 Catechism. In the Larger Catechism generous attention is given to the = inward=20 state of the Christian before (Qq. 171-173), during (Q. 174), and after = (Q. 175)=20 the Sacrament. (Especially formidable is the exhortation to examine = ourselves=20 after, as well as before, the Sacrament: "The duty of Christians after = they have=20 received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is seriously to consider = how they=20 have behaved themselves in it, and With what success . . ." [!].) In the = Shorter=20 Catechism, on the other hand, the objective gift of grace, not the = subjective=20 operations of grace, holds the center.44<= /A>

I close this section by pointing out that the Scottish Church was=20 particularly emphatic in its adherence to the "high Calvinistic" view of = the=20 sacraments. In Scotland the Westminster Standards super-

44 = On the other=20 hand, the Shorter Catechism persists in ranking prayer with the Word and = sacraments as a means of grace, as did the Larger Catechism-a rather=20 questionable arrangement. And perhaps both Catechisms say too much about = Christ's "benefits," although this is not intended to distract attention = from=20 his Person. Cf. L. C., Qq. 165, 170, 176.

 239 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

seded the native Scots Confession (1560),45<= /A>=20 Which affirmed the full Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper in = strikingly=20 realistic language. It has indeed been said that the sacramental = affirmations of=20 the Scots Confession can lay claim to a validity that is = transconfessional: not=20 just reformiert but reformatorisch. "Here in fact," writes Paul Jacobs, = "the=20 Reformed and the Lutheran concerns are woven together in a new=20 affirmation."46<= /A>=20 I do not share that verdict, but find it significant that such a verdict = has=20 been given.47<= /A>

VI

Now some brief concluding remarks: historical, theological and = ecumenical.=20 The historical conclusion to this survey of the Reformed confessions is, = I=20 think, sufficiently plain. Schaff's judgment, that Calvin's eucharistic = teaching=20 "must be regarded as the orthodox Reformed doctrine," oversimplifies the = evidence.48<= /A>=20 In actual fact, Zwingli's view continued to find its way into the = confessions=20 even after Calvin's emergence as foremost leader of the Reformed Church. = Moreover, Bullinger's Second Helvetic Confession (1561/3) exhibits a = third=20 eucharistic type. There seem to be, then, three doctrines of the = Eucharist in=20 the Reformed confessions, which we may label "symbolic memorialism," = "symbolic=20 parallelism," and "symbolic instrumentalism."

Nevertheless, the major Reformed confessions do not display three = equally=20 vigorous and wholly exclusive eucharistic traditions. The characteristic = Zwinglian view is represented only in the minor confessions.(Zwingli's = own great=20 confessional works, the Fidei Ratio and Fidei Expositio, never attained = symbolic=20 authority and ought strictly to be excluded from the corpus = confessionum.) The=20 view contained in Bullinger's Second Helvetic Confession, on the other = hand,=20 appears in several other important statements, including the

45 = I have used=20 the texts in Ns 82-117 (Scots and Latin). M 249-263 gives the Latin=20 only.
46 Das Schottische = Bekenntnis=20 (Witten/Ruhr, 1960), p. 36. The fact that Danish Lutherans and Scottish=20 Presbyterians practice intercommunion lends support to his thesis. But = why speak=20 of "conscious appropriation of Lutheran confessions" to account for = Scottish=20 emphasis on eating the Body? Why not seek the model in the French, or = other=20 Calvinistic, confessions?
47 There is no = space to=20 discuss the interesting Scottish catechisms, which were virtually = superseded by=20 the Westminster Catechisms. I should judge that they cover the entire = spectrum=20 of eucharistic types: from pore Zwinglian (e.g., The Little = Catechism,=20 1556) to high Calvinist (e.g., John Craig's Catechism, 1581). Documents = in=20 Torrance, op. cit.
48 Op. cit., I, = 456.=20 Parallelism does not seem to have been a problem for Schaff, as it is in = contemporary German discussions. That the distinction between = parallelism and=20 instrumentalism was not made a point of controversy within the = confessions=20 themselves, is apparent from the Declaration of Thorn (1645), which uses = both=20 types of language (N, pp. 681-682).

 240 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

most respected of the German-language confessions.49<= /A>=20 And yet it is not so much anti-Calvinistic as timidly Calvinistic. All = the=20 leading confessions place the emphasis on communication rather than=20 commemoration. Some simply reflect a certain shyness toward the idea of = the=20 means of grace. Perhaps this hesitancy did owe something to Zwingli, but = the=20 real division in the Reformed confessions is not Zwingli versus Calvin, = but (so=20 to say) "Franciscan" Calvinists versus "Thomistic" Calvinists. The major = confessions generally insist (against Zwingli) on a sacramental union = between=20 the sign and the thing signified, but they are not agreed on the nature = of the=20 union. Communion With Christ actually takes place in the Lord's Supper, = and is=20 the focal point of interest. But is the communion given simultaneously = with the=20 elements (a kind of "Franciscan" interpretation) or through the element = (a=20 "Thomistic" Interpretation)? The difference is perhaps just a "school"=20 dispute.

Next, some theological conclusions. I have no doubt that confessional = language needs some up-dating. Zwingli remarks that the language of the=20 Eucharist, literally understood, is as repulsive as to speak of eating = one's own=20 children out of love.50<= /A>=20 But can we really save "Capernaitic" language today even by adding that = of=20 course it is intended "spiritually"? I doubt it. Nonetheless, the first=20 essential is to try to grasp the inner significance of confessional = language in=20 its own terms; to interpret with historical impartiality, yet with = conscious=20 sympathy, what the confessions were after. No doubt, that is an easily = abused=20 approach, since we may seat the Reformers in the saddles of our own=20 hobby-horses. But I shall try to say what I think is theologically at = stake in=20 the differences between Zwingli and Calvin.

John Eck must be given the credit for spotting the weakness of = Zwingli's=20 sacramental theology. He laughs at Zwingli's claim to be the hammer of = the=20 Anabaptists, since he was in fact the founder of the sect.51<= /A>=20 "How near is Zwingli now to the Anabaptists whom

49 = Walter=20 Kreck's claim, that the eucharistic teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism = cannot=20 be adequately characterized as a "parallelism of two processes that are = divorced=20 from each other," may of course be granted if the qualifying phrase=20 (voneinander getrennten) means simply "unrelated". see "Das = Ergebnis des=20 Abendmahlsgespr=E4chs in reformierter Sicht," Zur Lehre vont heiligen = Abendmahl (ed. G. Niemeier, M=FCnchen, 1961), p. 43. Cf. also Paul = Jacobs,=20 Theologie reformierter Bekenntnisschriften (Neukirchen, 1959), p. = 112. In=20 a fascinating debate of the mid-nineteenth century, John Nevin dismissed = as=20 absurd Charles Hodge's view that the Heidelberg Catechism was not purely = Calvinistic in its doctrine of the sacraments: "Doctrine of the Reformed = Church=20 on the Lord's Supper," The Mercersburg Review, Vol. II, no. 5 = (Sept.=20 1850), p. 525. But the dividing lines were drawn differently by Hodge = than in=20 our presentation.
50 N 50, 72; 71, = 161.
51 See The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, = II,=20 82-83.

 241 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

nevertheless . . . he torments to death . . . and tortures limb by = limb."=20 This is not merely unfounded maneuvering to implicate Zwingli in the = guilt of=20 the Anabaptists. Zwingli's sacramental theology really does point the = way to the=20 denial of infant baptism and the interpretation of a sacrament as an act = of=20 public confession. Against this, Eck makes the same fundamental claim as = do=20 Luther and Calvin: a sacrament is a sign, not of past grace only, but of = present=20 grace.

It would, I think, be unjust to Zwingli should we explain his = theology as the=20 product of a philosophical bias. That the Spirit needs no vehicle, least = of all=20 a material vehicle, certainly is one of his reasons for rejecting the = old=20 concept of the means of grace. But he was also motivated by what one may = perhaps=20 call anachronistically a "Barthian" dread of putting God at man's = disposal. If=20 grace were bound up with the sacraments, they would profit and renew = whenever=20 they were celebrated. The clergy would then have infallible power to = grant or=20 withhold salvation. Indeed, they would have the fearful power to sell = God at a=20 higher price than even Judas asked. Zwingli is therefore speaking as = reformer=20 and pastor in his protest against abuses in sacramental theology and = practice.=20 Do not buy what you possess already! The Sacrament is simply a public = testimony=20 that you do indeed possess what God has given freely. Zwingli's = sacramental=20 theology sounds persistently the joyful note of possession. The "Image" = of=20 Christ in the Eucharist, like the ring the husband gives to his wife, is = a=20 perpetual reminder to the Church that he is wholly ours in all that he=20 is.52<= /A>

Zwingli is by no means to be under-estimated. He knew what the Gospel = is,=20 just as well as did Luther or Calvin. And he wanted the Evangelical = Eucharist to=20 give cultic expression to the Evangelical Faith. Nevertheless, it does = make a=20 profound difference that for Zwingli the Lord's Supper was an act of=20 thanksgiving for the Gospel, whereas for Luther and Calvin it was a = concrete=20 offer of the Gospel. The twin weaknesses in Zwingli's eucharistic = thought are=20 his fondness for the past tense and his "objectifying" of the = Sacrament's true=20 Subject. The gift of Christ lies for him in the past, as does the gift = of faith;=20 and in the Sacrament we give thanks, we make confession before men. As = long as=20 Christ is the object of the confession, I do not see any sufficient = reason to=20 judge Zwingli un-Evangelical. But it

52 Ibid.,=20 113, 118.

 242 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

still seems to me that Calvin was right to insist that the Living = Christ is=20 the Subject, not merely the Author, of the Sacrament, and that he gives = here and=20 now.

Bullinger's position, as represented in the Second Helvetic = Confession,=20 avoids some of the pitfalls of Zwinglianism. For Bullinger, as for = Calvin,=20 Christ is the one who gives, not only gave; and we are to receive, not = only to=20 remember that he once gave. But there is something arbitrary and = irrational=20 about what I have nicknamed the "Franciscan" way of speaking. Grace, on = this=20 view, bypasses the human understanding: by some mysterious divine = arrangement,=20 grace is given at the same time as the Sacrament is administered=20 (concomitatur!). On the high Calvinistic ("Thomistic") view, God really = works by=20 means of symbols (significando causant!).

Finally, what do I conclude concerning the Presbyterian Church's = ecumenical=20 position? At first glance, it may seem that I have simply made it more = difficult=20 for Presbyterians to decide what their position really is. It can hardly = be=20 doubted that many Presbyterians (perhaps most) are Zwinglians by = default-because=20 they are unaware of their tradition. But if the high Calvinist doctrine, = which I=20 have defended, were accepted as the most representative Reformed = position on the=20 Lord's Supper, what would this do to the traditional opposition between, = let us=20 say, the Lutherans and the Presbyterians? This is by no means a private = problem=20 for Lutherans and Presbyterians, since Congregationalists, Baptists, = Anglicans,=20 and Methodists all have a Calvinist strain in their eucharistic = theologies, The=20 Calvinistic doctrine has always been a live option (though not the only = one) in=20 all of these separate traditions.

It is probably clear enough already what I intend by putting Calvin = and=20 Luther together against Zwingli. I have tried to draw the line at a = different=20 place than the Lutherans have traditionally selected. The test-questions = concerning the manducatio oralis and the manducatio indignorum have been = simply=20 ignored in my presentation. If they are allowed to define the = boundaries, then=20 Calvin stands opposed to both Zwingli and Luther, since he teaches that = the Body=20 of Christ is given to all, but received only by faith. In drawing the = line=20 elsewhere I do not believe that I am simply exercising the theologian's = right to=20 draw lines anywhere he pleases. My line-drawing is historically = conditioned. It=20 is an attempt to answer the question why the Lutherans made the = manducatio=20 indignorum the test-question. Ob-

 243 - The Lord's Supper = In the=20 Reformed Confessions

viously, I must be excused for not dealing with the historical = problem at any=20 length. But it seems to me that what Luther himself was fighting = for-especially=20 in his magnificent work Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525)-was = precisely the=20 gift-character of the Lord's Supper. Luther was shocked at Carlstadt's = view,=20 which, he thought, turned the Blessed Sacrament into a devotional = exercise.=20 Instead of receiving the Crucified and Risen Lord, who offered himself = with the=20 broken bread and poured-out wine, Carlstadt strove to focus his thoughts = upon=20 Jesus of Nazareth suffering on the Cross, As Luther saw it, nothing less = than=20 the Gospel was at stake, as in his controversy over the Roman mass. = Christ gives=20 himself to us in the sacrament; but some presumed to offer him to God, = and=20 others turned to their devotions. Both made the gift of God into a work = of man.=20 Whether these accusations are well founded or not, the heart of Luther's = own=20 position seems clear: the sacrament is a gift, and the Gift is Jesus = Christ. If=20 that is what was dearest to Luther in his reverence for the sacrament, = then the=20 Calvinist confessions can answer, "without horns and without teeth," = that,=20 though there is still much to disagree about, they are on Luther's side = of the=20 line.

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C7F620.8C703A20 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/pts-pagelogo2.GIF R0lGODlhMgAeAMQAAP////f39+3t7ezs7N7e3s7Ozr29vaWlpZmZmZSUlI6OjoyMjIuLi3t7e3R0 dGtra2dnZ2NjY0pKSkJCQj09PSkpKSUlJSEhIRsbGxEREQgICAEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAA MgAeAEAF/yAgjmRpnmiqriKhbTBskBJcjUdsByfn/0AfwDBrQWIagqQAUECGttdG8+ABAgYCScjq OrtgMOHweFUgiYfkUZlCDtpVcM6h6abxg0KkmM4KUjEPPXUsNXc6TF9NiDoNJUBhkpOUlZYqB4Ea RQAFMEwAOTEVnJcAFncaVgAPBp4bgwAud08mdEElbToHshIETgWoNw13EihcKhISRMwFBjVFi8Sw zM0WtSPIlzyLKAGrkIWmIgWg4+follgGCe3tBwVx6SYED0gJIxA3AAlSGgrgxvXREUvEkQ2PROiC sencQSTmDChIIINcIBj4TC1kaCWAMQBt9s3S8THcLW3TIGQadJbg1SBRuwidFEduozEF1ypgeIBq gwGbAbPRPJHDnCw2GiDEUjAoQBsNGiQ0AJeplDYUBi4i2bCnSSwDDBthkCfiKtYKaNOmvdbkSQK1 cNEGNWuJqSW6lbqFmTOvEt6+KkIAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C7F620.8C703A20--