Richard Gaffin, Jr., the New Perspective on Paul, and Union with Christ

Dr. Richard Gaffin, Jr.

From this perceptive, the antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself.  It is not a theological ultimate.  Rather, that antithesis enters not by virtue of creation but as a consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer [emphasis Cunha].  (38)  [Direct quote from Richard Gaffin's book, By Faith, Not By Sight].

Where there is smoke there is fire. Camden Bucey and Gaffin both admit that his work has been accused of the NPP view. And Gaffin admits that he was influenced by N. T. Wright and that he wrote his book in response to the New Perspective on Paul. Further, in this discussion, both Bucey and Gaffin downplay justification by faith and emphasize union with Christ. Justification by faith, according to Gaffin, is a redundancy. They both dance all around to explain away Gaffin's errors. But also in the talk, Gaffin mentions that John Murray was his instructor and Murray was a supporter of Norman Shepherd. What Gaffin does not mention in the discussion is that Norman Shepherd was his supervisor when he did his Ph. D. at Westminster Seminary.

I got this audio from the Reformed Forum, hosted by Camden Bucey.  Click here to listen.  To see the original webpage click here.

For an opposing opinion, you can click here to read Dr. Paul Elliott's criticism of Gaffin's views on Paul:  Richard Gaffin's New Perspective on Paul.  Also, there is a book by Stephen Cunha called, The Emperor Has No Clothes:  Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.'s Doctrine of Justification.  And the God's Hammer blog has articles on Gaffin's departure from confessional orthodoxy as well:  Richard Gaffin, Jr.:  Missing the Mark.   Note also that Gaffin is an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Horton and Tipton Talk: Justification and Union with Christ - Reformed Forum

This is a further discussion on the issue of justification by faith alone as the focus of the Gospel, versus the doctrine of union with Christ as the focus of Reformed theology as Tipton contends. However, Tipton overlooks the fact that union with Christ is by the means or instrument of faith, which faith is a living faith by which imputed justification is applied by God Himself to His elect. Dr. Horton participates by phone in this program.

Click here to see the Reformed Forum site and hear the episode: Justification and Union with Christ - Reformed Forum

John Calvin on the Law/Gospel Distinction

 

For when the conscience feels anxious as to how it may have the favor of God, as to the answer it could give, and the confidence it would feel, if brought to his judgment-seat, in such a case the requirements of the law are not to be brought forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of the law, is alone to be held forth for righteousness.  --John Calvin

The neo-legalists at Westminster Theological Seminary, including Richard Gaffin and Lane Tipton, insist that the assurance of salvation is not in justification by faith alone or in the Gospel of Jesus Christ but in the "mystical union" with Christ.  By this they mean some combination of faith, justification and sanctification together.  They wish then to downplay justification by faith alone so that they can now emphasize holiness and sanctification instead.  But is this the emphasis of John Calvin?  According to the neo-legalists the law/gospel distinction is a Lutheran doctrine and not the doctrine of the Reformed view.  But this idea is wrong on several points.   (Romans 3:20-28; Romans 7:7; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 1:7; Galatians 2:16, 21).

First of all, to assume that the law/gospel distinction is only a Lutheran doctrine and not the Reformed view assumes that the term "Reformed" is concrete or reified.  Such is not the case since obviously the Zwinglian side of the Reformed camp was not in agreement with the Genevan camp on several points, which in turn necessitated a clarification of the doctrine of union with Christ and how the sacraments fit with the Scriptures in light of faith and being united with Christ by and through the means of faith. 

Since Calvin was the primary author of the Consensus of Tigerinus, it follows that Calvin's doctrine of union with Christ can reasonably be understood from that document.  Calvin clearly does not emphasize holiness above justification by faith alone in the Tigerinus but rather he continually appeals to union with Christ "by faith" which is the reality for which the signs stand.  Calvin says,

Article 10. The Promise Principally to Be Looked To in the Sacraments.

And it is proper to look not to the bare signs, but rather to the promise thereto annexed. As far, therefore, as our faith in the promise there offered prevails, so far will that virtue and efficacy of which we speak display itself. Thus the substance of water, bread, and wine, by no means offers Christ to us, nor makes us capable of his spiritual gifts. The promise rather is to be looked to, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the direct way of faith, faith which makes us partakers of Christ.   (Consensus of Tigerinus).

"2. Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of obtaining justification by it. For while the law, as has already been demonstrated ( [supra] , chap. 17, sec. 1), leaves not one man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. Still it cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to good, although it is not recognized by their consciences before the judgment-seat of God. The two things are very different, and should be well and carefully distinguished. The whole lives of Christians ought to be a kind of aspiration after piety, seeing they are called unto holiness ( [Eph. 1:4] ; [1 Thess. 4:5] ). The office of the law is to excite them to the study of purity and holiness, by reminding them of their duty. For when the conscience feels anxious as to how it may have the favor of God, as to the answer it could give, and the confidence it would feel, if brought to his judgment-seat, in such a case the requirements of the law are not to be brought forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of the law, is alone to be held forth for righteousness." Institutes Book 3:19:2

--

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Union with Christ - ReformedForum.org

Lane Tipton sneaks in renovation through the back door. He says that "union with Christ" is "primary", implying that it is both logically and temporally first in the Reformed ordo salutis.


Oddly enough, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin said that election is first in the ordo salutis. That is, election is unconditionally given! Therefore, salvation itself is rooted in God's sovereignty, mercy, and justification as a declared righteousness. Salvation is not dependent on union with Christ as a union of sanctification and renovation with justification. Justification by faith alone points to what is outside of the believer, namely the cross of Jesus Christ. Galatians 6:14-16 clearly says that our basis for assurance is the cross.

I would also point out that Tipton conflates several traditions in the Lutheran tradition and overgeneralizes all Lutherans as sneaking in renovation through the back door. The Wisconsin Synod resists the false pietism of Spener and the semi-Armininianism of Melanchthon. (See The Pietism of the New Evangelicals: A Confusion of
Justification and Sanctification Ironically, Tipton himself is sneaking transformation in the back door. Instead of basing our salvation on justification as an imputed righteousness, Tipton links salvation to Christ as a "person" as the "cause of our justification". Unfortunately, this is mysticism and not the propositional truths of the Bible! Who is Christ? What did Christ teach? One cannot accept the person of Christ while at the same time rejecting the body of teachings/doctrines which Christ taught in Scripture. And by way of inference, that would include the doctrines of the Pauline epistles, which are revealed to the Apostle Paul by Christ himself. So Tipton's clever sidestep is itself an emphasis on transformation/renovation rather than on the objective fact of God's election, the cross of Christ, and the resurrection. Either salvation is a gift of God or it is merited by our transformation and renovation. There can be no mixture of these contradictory positions. Tipton's theology of paradox has him confused and self-contradictory. Progress in sanctification is the basis of our justification? Say it ain't so! To confuse temporal categories with logical necessity is unconscionable.

To make justification and sanctification simultaneous temporally does not trump the fact that logically our justification is now and forever a forensic declaration. To make justification and sanctification "inseparable" in a temporal sense negates the logical necessity of justification as absolutely forensic and not transformative. While sanctification does follow justification, sanctification does not contribute to justification whatsoever! That's clear in Articles XI and XII of the Thirty-nine Articles:

Article XI
Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.




Article XII
Of Good Works

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Tipton's assertion that Lutherans are semi-pelagian is a broad brush that cannot be substantiated for "all" Lutherans. And ironically, Tipton's own premise that the "simultaneous" temporal linking of justification with sanctification at regeneration and conversion is semi-pelagian. Definitive sanctification is declared, not progressive! Thus, definitive sanctification is an aspect of forensic justification. We are set apart to Christ by the cross and baptism! But progressive sanctification is transformative and for that reason alone can never be a basis for our union with Christ. Our union with Christ is based on faith alone! Believing is all that is necessary for salvation! Any other contention is in essence semi-pelagianism and conditional election! (Romans 10:9-11). See also: R C Sproul on Saving Faith, by John Robbins.

Lane Tipton and Camden Bucey are hopelessly confused here.  On the one hand they say we are justified by faith alone and salvation does not depend on renovation.  They then say that our ground for salvation is based on union with Christ and that salvation is based on BOTH justification AND sanctification.  This is nothing short of the Roman Catholic position that justification is infused.  Tipton also says that Arminians and Remonstrandts are saved and that the Reformed have never said other wise.  "Remonstrandt Arminians go to heaven....  Wesleyan Arminians go to heaven."  One can never say this and uphold the Gospel.  "You cannot say that if you get justification wrong you cannot do so without divesting Arminians of salvation," Tipton says.  So for Tipton the Gospel is NOT necessary for salvation.  Tipton does not want to choose between the Gospel and neo-nomianism.   He wants both to be true--which it goes without saying IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Tipton's contention that Mike Horton's view is more Lutheran than Calvinist provoked a huge belly laugh on my part.  Tipton truly is amusing.


To hear the discussion at Reformed Forum click here: Union with Christ - ReformedForum.org

The Consensus Tigurinus

 

The following confession of faith is an agreement made by the churches of the Swiss Reformation in Zurich, representing the Zwinglians, and Geneva, representing the Calvinists. James I. Packer has said that Cranmer and the other English Reformers of this period were not unaware of this agreement and probably had it in mind when formulating their own theology of the sacrament. Packer says,

 

Dix in reply (Cranmer Dixit et non timuit: Church Quarterly Review, April 1948, pp. 145ff.; July 1948, pp. 44ff., and published separately) tried to drive a wedge between Cranmer and Bucer, arguing that Cranmer's view of the eucharistic reception of Christ was (a) in harmony with that of the contemporary Swiss school, people like Hooper and Bullinger, and (b) out of line with Bucer's. He was more convincing on (a) than on (b), though he was wrong to think that by proving (a) he confirmed his thesis that Cranmer was a Zwinglian: Swiss doctrine had advanced well beyond memorialism by the 1540's. (Dix never noticed the Consensus Tigurinus, let alone saw its significance.) After this, Dr. C.C. Richardson (Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist: Cranmer Dixit et Contradicixit, Evanston, 1949) maintained that it was nominalist philosophy which moved Cranmer and Zwingli to reject the real presence and corporal feeding on Christ, and Dr. Mascall would evidently like to agree (op. cit. pp. 117-21). But with Cranmer, at any rate, the motives prompting this rejection were not philosophical and rationalistic, but biblical and Christological: he was seeking to do justice to the view of the eucharist forced on him by the Bible and its patristic expositors, that it is a means whereby God makes present to our faith and savingly imparts to our souls (not a part of Christ, but) 'whole Christ', God, man, and Mediator, in all the power of His incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension; so that it is a means of grace in a far richer sense than expositors of the real presence ever suspected. (James I. Packer, "Cranmer in Some Recent Writing," The Work of Thomas Cranmer. Vol. 2. Ed. G.E. Duffield. (Berkshire: Sutton Courtney Press, 1964). Pp. xl-xli.

Clearly then, even the Anglo-Catholic theologian Dom Gregory Dix thought that Cranmer was a Zwinglian. Of course this means that Dix would never try to say that Cranmer taught or believed in real presence in the elements themselves. James I. Packer thought Dix was wrong but affirmed that Cranmer did not teach real presence and that Zwinglianism itself did not teach a bare memorial in the 1540's. The Consensus Tigurinus is proof enough that the distinctions between the Calvinist view, the Cranmerian view, and the Zwinglian view were not insurmountable and were in actuality closer than Anglo-Catholics are willing to admit.

 

The Consensus Tigurinus

 

John Calvin (1549) translated by Henry Beveridge

 
Mutual Consent in Regard to the Sacraments Between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva. Now published by those who framed it.


Article 1. The Whole Spiritual Government of the Church Leads us to Christ.


Seeing that Christ is the end of the law, and the knowledge of him comprehends in itself the whole sum of the gospel, there is no doubt that the object of the whole spiritual government of the Church is to lead us to Christ, as it is by him alone we come to God, who is the final end of a happy life. Whosoever deviates from this in the slightest degree, can never speak duly or appositely of any ordinances of God.

Article 2. A True Knowledge of the Sacraments from the Knowledge of Christ.

As the sacraments are appendages of the gospel, he only can discourse aptly and usefully of their nature, virtue, office, and benefit, who begins with Christ: and that not by adverting cursorily to the name of Christ, but by truly holding for what end he was given us by the Father, and what blessings he has conferred upon us.

Article 3. Nature of the Knowledge of Christ.

We must hold therefore that Christ, being the eternal Son of God, and of the same essence and glory with the Father, assumed our flesh, to communicate to us by right of adoption that which he possessed by nature, namely, to make us sons of God. This is done when ingrafted by faith into the body of Christ, and that by the agency of the Holy Spirit we are first counted righteous by a free imputation of righteousness, and then regenerated to a new life: whereby being formed again in the image of our heavenly Father, we renounce the old man.

Article 4. Christ a Priest and King.

Thus Christ, in his human nature, is to be considered as our priest, who expiated our sins by the one sacrifice of his death, put away all our transgressions by his obedience, provided a perfect righteousness for us, and now intercedes for us, that we may have access to God. He is to be considered as a repairer, who, by the agency of his Spirit, reforms whatever is vicious in us, that we may cease to live to the world and the flesh, and God himself may live in us. He is to be considered as a king, who enriches us with all kinds of blessings, governs and defends us by his power, provides us with spiritual weapons, delivers us from all harm, and rules and guides us by the sceptre of his mouth. And he is to be so considered, that he may raise us to himself, the true God, and to the Father, until the fulfilment of what is finally to take place, viz., God be all in all.

Article 5. How Christ Communicates Himself to Us.

Moreover, that Christ may thus exhibit himself to us and produce these effects in us, he must be made one with us, and we must be ingrafted into his body. He does not infuse his life into us unless he is our head, and from him the whole body, fitly joined together through every joint of supply, according to his working, maketh increase of the body in the proportion of each member.

Article 6. Spiritual Communion. Institution of the Sacraments.

The spiritual communion which we have with the Son of God takes place when he, dwelling in us by his Spirit, makes all who believe capable of all the blessings which reside in him. In order to testify this, both the preaching of the gospel was appointed, and the use of the sacraments committed to us, namely, the sacraments of holy Baptism and the holy Supper.

Article 7. The Ends of the Sacraments

The ends of the sacraments are to be marks and badges of Christian profession and fellowship or fraternity, to be incitements to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly life; in short, to be contracts binding us to this. But among other ends the principal one is, that God may, by means of them, testify, represent, and seal his grace to us. For although they signify nothing else than is announced to us by the Word itself, yet it is a great matter, first, that there is submitted to our eye a kind of living images which make a deeper impression on the senses, by bringing the object in a manner directly before them, while they bring the death of Christ and all his benefits to our remembrance, that faith may be the better exercised; and, secondly, that what the mouth of God had announced is, as it were, confirmed and ratified by seals.

Article 8. Gratitude.

Now, seeing that these things which the Lord has given as testimonies and seals of his grace are true, he undoubtedly truly performs inwardly by his Spirit that which the sacraments figure to our eyes and other senses; in other words, we obtain possession of Christ as the fountain of all blessings, both in order that we may be reconciled to God by means of his death, be renewed by his Spirit to holiness of life, in short, obtain righteousness and salvation; and also in order that we may give thanks for the blessings which were once exhibited on the cross, and which we daily receive by faith.

Article 9. The Signs and the Things Signified Not Disjoined but Distinct.

Wherefore, though we distinguish, as we ought, between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the reality from the signs, but acknowledge that all who in faith embrace the promises there offered receive Christ spiritually, with his spiritual gifts, while those who had long been made partakers of Christ continue and renew that communion.

Article 10. The Promise Principally to Be Looked To in the Sacraments.

And it is proper to look not to the bare signs, but rather to the promise thereto annexed. As far, therefore, as our faith in the promise there offered prevails, so far will that virtue and efficacy of which we speak display itself. Thus the substance of water, bread, and wine, by no means offers Christ to us, nor makes us capable of his spiritual gifts. The promise rather is to be looked to, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the direct way of faith, faith which makes us partakers of Christ.

Article 11. We Are Not to Stand Gazing on the Elements.

This refutes the error of those who stand gazing on the elements, and attach their confidence of salvation to them; seeing that the sacraments separated from Christ are but empty shows, and a voice is distinctly heard throughout proclaiming that we must adhere to none but Christ alone, and seek the gift of salvation from none but him.

Article 12. The Sacraments Effect Nothing by Themselves.

Besides, if any good is conferred upon us by the sacraments, it is not owing to any proper virtue in them, even though in this you should include the promise by which they are distinguished. For it is God alone who acts by his Spirit. When he uses the instrumentality of the sacraments, he neither infuses his own virtue into them nor derogates in any respect from the effectual working of his Spirit, but, in adaptation to our weakness, uses them as helps; in such manner, however, that the whole power of acting remains with him alone.

Article 13. God Uses the Instrument, but All the Virtue Is His.

Wherefore, as Paul reminds us, that neither he that planteth nor he that watereth is any thing, but God alone that giveth the increase; so also it is to be said of the sacraments that they are nothing, because they will profit nothing, unless God in all things make them effectual. They are indeed instruments by which God acts efficaciously when he pleases, yet so that the whole work of our salvation must be ascribed to him alone.

Article 14. The Whole Accomplished by Christ.

We conclude, then, that it is Christ alone who in truth baptizes inwardly, who in the Supper makes us partakers of himself, who, in short, fulfils what the sacraments figure, and uses their aid in such manner that the whole effect resides in his Spirit.

Article 15. How the Sacraments Confirm.

Thus the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are said to nourish, confirm, and advance faith, and yet the Spirit alone is properly the seal, and also the beginner and finisher of faith. For all these attributes of the sacraments sink down to a lower place, so that not even the smallest portion of our salvation is transferred to creatures or elements.

Article 16. All Who Partake of the Sacraments Do Not Partake of the Reality.

Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom he hath foreordained to life, so by the secret agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer.

Article 17. The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.

By this doctrine is overthrown that fiction of the sophists which teaches that the sacraments confer grace on all who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For besides that in the sacraments nothing is received except by faith, we must also hold that the grace of God is by no means so annexed to them that whoso receives the sign also gains possession of the thing. For the signs are administered alike to reprobate and elect, but the reality reaches the latter only.

Article 18. The Gifts Offered to All, but Received by Believers Only.


It is true indeed that Christ with his gifts is offered to all in common, and that the unbelief of man not overthrowing the truth of God, the sacraments always retain their efficacy; but all are not capable of receiving Christ and his gifts. Wherefore nothing is changed on the part of God, but in regard to man each receives according to the measure of his faith.

Article 19. Believers Before, and Without the Use of the Sacraments, Communicate with Christ.

As the use of the sacraments will confer nothing more on unbelievers than if they had abstained from it, nay, is only destructive to them, so without their use believers receive the reality which is there figured. Thus the sins of Paul were washed away by baptism, though they had been previously washed away. So likewise baptism was the laver of regeneration to Cornelius, though he had already received the Holy Spirit. So in the Supper Christ communicates himself to us, though he had previously imparted himself, and perpetually remains in us. For seeing that each is enjoined to examine himself, it follows that faith is required of each before coming to the sacrament. Faith is not without Christ; but inasmuch as faith is confirmed and increased by the sacraments, the gifts of God are confirmed in us, and thus Christ in a manner grows in us and we in him.

Article 20. The Benefit Not Always Received in the Act of Communicating.

The advantage which we receive from the sacraments ought by no means to be restricted to the time at which they are administered to us, just as if the visible sign, at the moment when it is brought forward, brought the grace of God along with it. For those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age. Thus the utility of baptism is open to the whole period of life, because the promise contained in it is perpetually in force. And it may sometimes happen that the use of the holy Supper, which, from thoughtlessness or slowness of heart does little good at the time, afterward bears its fruit.

Article 21. No Local Presence Must Be Imagined.

We must guard particularly against the idea of any local presence. For while the signs are present in this world, are seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, regarded as man, must be sought nowhere else than in Heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and eye of faith. Wherefore it is a perverse and impious superstition to enclose him under the elements of this world.

Article 22. Explanation of the Words "This Is My Body."

Those who insist that the formal words of the Supper, "This is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken in what they call the precisely literal sense, we repudiate as preposterous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that they are to be taken figuratively, the bread and wine receiving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name of things figured by metonymy [modern spelling: metonymy] to the sign, as similar modes of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient and most approved writers of the Church.

Article 23. Of the Eating of the Body.

When it is said that Christ, by our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, which are here figured, feeds our souls through faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we are not to understand it as if any mingling or transfusion of substance took place, but that we draw life from the flesh once offered in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation.

Article 24. Transubstantiation and Other Follies.

In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body.

Article 25. The Body of Christ Locally in Heaven.

And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth.

Article 26. Christ Not to Be Adored in the Bread.

If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship him in the bread. For although the bread is held forth to us as a symbol and pledge of the communion which we have with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping Christ, make an idol of it.

Addendum:  See also, Wikipedia, Consensus Tigurinus.  Note that the document was published in 1549, well within Archbishop Cranmer's time frame.  Cranmer would have been aware of it and Wikipedia says it was received well in England.


See also,  Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII:  Modern Chrisitanity:  The Swiss Reformation, § 132. The Eucharistic Controversies. Calvin and Westphal. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

This version of the Consensus of Tigurinus was originally posted at the Westminster Seminary, California website.  It is now posted at the Heidelblog:  Consensus of Tigurinus