The Reformers on Holy Communion: Purpose, Practice, and Participation
26 September 2024
It is widely known that the Holy Communion played a pivotal role during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. One of the hallmark features of the Reformation was of course the rejection of the Roman Catholic view of Holy Communion, particularly the doctrine of transubstantiation, which asserts that the elements of bread and wine are transformed literally into the body and blood of Jesus during the celebration. In contrast, Calvinists emphasised that Christ is not physically present in these elements but is present in a special way through His Spirit when the congregation partakes in Communion. The Lutheran Reformers, however, advocated a different doctrine known as consubstantiation, where Christ is uniquely present in the bread and wine without the elements themselves changing into His body and blood.
The earliest dispute among the reformers stemmed from a disagreement between Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) and Martin Luther (1483–1546) concerning Holy Communion. Opposed to Luther's consubstantiation, Zwingli advocated a purely symbolic understanding of Communion, viewing it merely as a meal of remembrance. Interestingly, neither of these two perspectives were later accepted by the Reformed Churches. In Article 35 of the Belgic Confession, the Reformed Churches confess, in contrast to Zwingli, that they receive the "true body and true blood of Christ," but also, contrary to Luther, that they do not receive it through the elements themselves but “by the Spirit through faith.” The French Calvinist Reformer Theodore Beza (1519–1605) therefore described Communion, and particularly the presence of Christ within it, as a “mystery” that cannot be perceived by the senses or comprehended by reason. Beza emphasised that this sacrament and its spiritual benefits for believers can only be received through faith. The elements themselves are indispensable because they act as a lever to elevate us to a heavenly reality. This is necessary because even though Christ is bodily in heaven, through this lever, we can now partake of His body and His blood.1
Interestingly, John Calvin (1509–1564) was of the opinion that Communion should ideally be celebrated weekly during the worship service. Calvin understood from Acts 2:42 that the early church celebrated Communion every time they gathered and therefore believed that weekly celebration would be ideal. He based this on his conviction that the administration of Communion was as integral to the worship service for the early church as the preaching of the Word itself.2 In contrast, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) believed that the decision on how frequently Communion should be celebrated should rest with the local congregation. He considered it permissible to celebrate it every Sunday but also deemed it acceptable to celebrate only a few times a year at specific intervals.3
Regarding the fencing of the table, all the Reformers agreed that only church members who have demonstrated genuine faith in both doctrine and practice should have access to the sacrament. Calvin believed that church members' doctrine and lives should be continuously examined to confirm that they are worthy and remain worthy to partake in the sacrament, and not provoke God's wrath through improper use of it. A church council that fails to conduct thorough and ongoing investigations regarding the doctrine and lives of its members neglects its duty.4 In Calvin's Geneva, there were two levels of discipline that the church council could impose on sinners who persisted in their sins. It was this first level of discipline that involved denying access to the Communion table. Individuals in such cases would still remain members of the congregation and could participate in all other activities of the church. This form of discipline was often lifted after a few months to a year if repentance became evident. With regard to the second level of discipline, historical records indicate it was applied in only 2-3% of cases in Geneva, specifically when individuals repeatedly stole money, committed adultery or rape, or persisted in openly and unrepentantly teaching false doctrine. This more severe form of discipline involved not only temporary exclusion from the Communion table but complete excommunication from the congregation.5 These practices in Geneva clearly indicate that access to the Communion table was restricted to only those members of the Body of Christ whose doctrine and lives testified to their genuine faith.
As a rule, the Reformers only admitted to the table church members who had already completed their catechism course and made a public profession of faith. During the Synod of 1581 in Middelburg in the Netherlands, one of the earliest synods of the Reformed Churches in that country, it was confirmed that only those who had made a public profession of their faith and submitted themselves to the supervision and discipline of the church council could be granted access to the Communion table. If someone strayed in doctrine and life, the church council was to deny that person access to the Communion table.6 This was the standard practice in both Lutheran and Reformed Churches.7 The sole exception to this rule was the German Reformer Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), who was also a theological professor at the Reformed theological school in the Swiss city of Bern. In his Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae (1560), he based his argument for Paedocommunion in the Old Testament Passover and, unlike most other Reformers, believed that because children also participated in the Passover meal, it should serve as a guideline for Communion. He also believed that children, from a young age, are capable of self-examination.8 Notably, Musculus, like the other Reformers, was convinced that the Communion table should be closed to those who do not profess and practise pure religion. In this regard, there was therefore unanimity among the Reformers. In light of this agreement, Article 61 of the Church Order of Dort of 1619 also stipulated that only those who profess and live according to the Reformed faith should be admitted to the Communion table.
The Protestant Reformers understood the sacrament of Holy Communion as an indispensable means by which God strengthens the faith of His children and confirms our unity with Christ and one another. It is clear that the Reformers' sacramentology was not merely characterized by theoretical speculations about the nature of Communion and its elements, but a deliberate effort to practically celebrate the sacrament to the glory of God and in line with the divine revelation in Scripture. This was always done with the aim of strengthening the community of believers. Without exception, the Reformers were convinced that the sacrament of Holy Communion occupies a central place in the life of the church as a holy celebration pointing to the redemptive work of Christ and genuinely strengthening the bond of unity and love among believers.
The emphasis the Reformers placed on the requirements for participation in Communion, as well as the rigor with which they fenced the table through church discipline, reveals how important they deemed it that the lives members of Christ's Church should always bear witness to a genuine faith by means of a public profession of faith accompanied by good works.9
1. Beza, Quaestiones Eucharisticae De praesentia & communione Christi in S. Coena (Basel 1589), 13—14.
2. See Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.17.44-46.
3. See Bullinger's Decades 5.
4. Calvin, “Calvini Opera, vol.10” in G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss, eds., Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 38 (Brunswick, 1871), 258.
5. Manetsch, S.M. 2013. Calvin’s Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536—1609 (New York: Oxford University Press), 193—194.
6. Rutgers, Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden der Zestiende Eeuw (Den Haag, 1889), 20.
7. Venema, Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009), 22.
8. Musculus, Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae, 757.
9. This article is my translation of an Afrikaans-language article that I originally published in the Die Boodskapper.