224 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

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

225 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

I

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

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

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

226 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

earliest of Zwingli's confessions, the Sixty-Seven Articles of 1523,3
is terse, vigorous and in tone polemical-a kind of Swiss Ninety-Five Theses. It
does not contain a full or careful presentation on the Lord's Supper.
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
offered himself up once and for all as an abiding satisfaction for sins. It
follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration (widergedächtnüss)
of the sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross and a pledge (sicherung) of
the redemption made manifest by Christ (Art. XVIII).

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

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

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

227 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

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

228 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

229 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

II

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

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

230 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

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

231 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

232 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

III

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

Of the Swiss Confessions the First Helvetic Confession of 1536, a
team-product of the Reformed theologians, deserves to be mentioned first.25
It shows plainly that What I have labeled the "Calvinistic type" of eucharistic
theology is older than Calvin himself. The sacraments are signs, but not "mere
empty signs" (Art. XX). They consist in "signs and essential things." (Latin:
"They consist of signs and things at the same time.") In other Words, the thing
signified is inseparably bound up With the sacramental sign. In the Lord's
Supper the thing signified is the communion (Lat. Communi-catio) of the Body and
Blood, the salvation won on the cross, and forgiveness of sins, which are
received in faith as the signs are received corporeally. It is, indeed, through
the signs that the Lord offers his Body and Blood-that is, himself-to his people
(Art. XXII). The signs convey and offer the spiritual things which they signify.
As with Calvin, so in the First Helvetic Confession the echoes of Zwinglian
ideas are unmistakable. But at the decisive point Zwingli is left behind. The
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper does not only symbolize, commemorate, move us to
joyful thanksgiving, and bind us in loyalty to the Head and members of the
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
Confession26
of the same year (1536) and find an explanation of the Lord's Supper that does
not move beyond Zwingli. No doubt, it could be interpreted Calvinistically, but
its language does not require such an interpretation. The sacraments represent,
but it is not said that they give. It is hard to believe that Calvin even
approved the statement, let alone Wrote it, and it is significant that the
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
(German); S III, 211-231 (German and Latin). With the First Helvetic Confession
may be compared the Tetrapolitan Confession (1530) and the Basel Confession
(1534). See M 72, 20 and 97, 22. All three of these confessions think of the
Eucharist as an actual giving of the Body and Blood, not simply a representation
of the Body once given.
26 C. R. XXXVII,
693-700.

233 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

By the time Bullinger wrote the Second Helvetic Confession (probably in 1561)
the Zurich Consensus had already closed the gap between the two eucharistic
theologies. Schaff's description of the Second Helvetic Confession as "the last
and the best of the Zwinglian family" needs some qualification.28
In the Zurich Consensus29
the favorite Zwinglian terminology was liberally employed, and Calvin trod
softly in the introduction of non-Zwinglian ideas.30
The Consensus did not say all Calvin liked to say about the Sacraments, only
what he was not prepared to omit. But enough was said to put it beyond all doubt
that Bullinger had moved beyond his teacher. God truly offers (praestat) what
the sacraments symbolize (Art. VIII). The reality is not separated from the
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
accommodation with Geneva, is proved by the use of similar language in the
Second Helvetic Confession,31
in which he taught a sacramental union of sign and reality (Art. XIX). And yet
in some passages (Art. XXI) Bullinger seems to be thinking in terms of a

27 M 153-159
(German; extracts only). It was Luther's Short Confession (1545) that
finally provoked Bullinger to make response. The Rhaetian Confession (1552) also
does not seem to advance beyond the old Zwinglian ideas (M 163-170).
28 Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I (sixth edn., New York,
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
medieval sacramenta conferunt gratiam is denied (Arts. XII, XIII, XVII).
But this is said, not to denude the sacraments, but to reserve tile agendi
facultas for God, who uses them in freedom (ubi visum est!) as His
instruments (Art. XIII).
31 M 170-221.

234 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

symbolic parallelism: outwardly we eat the bread, inwardly at the same time
we also feed upon Christ"s Body. (In Latin, the connection is denoted by the
words intus interim: "Meanwhile, inside.")32
This, of course, does take us beyond Zwingli, whose characteristic tense is the
past, not the present. In Zwingli's view, the elements call to mind something
that has happened: Christ's Body was broken, we have turned to him in
faith.33
And yet Bullinger's parallelism is not Calvin's position either, for it lacks
the use of instrumental expressions; the outward event does not convey or cause
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
type of Eucharistic theology is not adequate for classifying the Reformed
Confessions. Is there, in fact, also a third type of Reformed Eucharist, of
which Bullinger's second Helvetic Confession serves as the model? I advance this
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
Reformed Confessions that originated outside of Switzerland: the French and
Belgic Confessions and the Heidelberg Catechism. The French Confession of 1559,
though not from Calvin's own hand, is for the most part a faithful summary of
his theology, especially his sacramental theology.34
The two sacraments are not empty signs, nor yet do they possess any intrinsic
power: they are instruments employed by God to strengthen faith (Art. XXXIV) and
to give us Jesus Christ (Art. XXXVII). God signifies nothing to us in vain (Art.
XXXIV). In both sacraments He gives us really an efficaciously (Lat.
efficaciter) what He there represents to us, and with the sign is joined the
true possession of what is signified (Art. XXXVII).

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

235 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

236 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

V

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

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

237 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

If the hesitance of the Westminster Confession is surprising, even more
surprising is the fact that the teaching of the two Westminster
Catechisms43
does not fully coincide With that of the Confession. Perhaps the difference may
be traced to the catechetical structure, which treats Word and sacraments as
answers to the question "what are the outward means by which Christ communicates
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
by means of which the benefits are communicated to us 154). Hence When the
Catechisms speak of feeding upon the Body of Christ, they must surely mean a
spiritual feeding which is effected

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

238 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

44 On the other
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
questionable arrangement. And perhaps both Catechisms say too much about
Christ's "benefits," although this is not intended to distract attention from
his Person. Cf. L. C., Qq. 165, 170, 176.

239 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

VI

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

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

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

240 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

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

241 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

52 Ibid.,
113, 118.

242 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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

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

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

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

243 - The Lord's Supper In the
Reformed Confessions

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