It may be helpful here to discuss the differences between transubstantiation, consubstantiation, receptionism and memorialism, but only in so far as debate on the meaning of such terms helps to clarify the question posed in this thread. To attempt to clarify my own definition, I would say that 'memorialism' treats communion is being purely a remembrance of Christ's death, that the bread and wine (or grape juice) do not represent anything (that's why I prefer the term 'memorialism' rather than 'symbolism', despite the fact that I've used that in the OP question, as 'symbolism' implies that the bread and wine do represent something), and that nothing particularly spiritual happens when one receives communion. All the other views to which I've referred I would categorise as 'non-memorialist' (even though they tend to incorporate some elements of remembrance). Now, to the question in the title to this thread: trawling through the historic post-Reformation confessions (39 Arts, Lutheran Augsburg, Westminster Confession, Methodist), these all seem to be pretty non-memorialist in character and wording when it comes to the 'what happens at Communion?' question, and thus reject Zwingli's take on it - heck, even the London Baptist Confession of 1689 is non-memorialist! But most evangelical churches (certainly the free churches and even some Anglican congregations) now seem to be thoroughgoingly memorialist in their approach to communion (more of a 'Real Absence' than a Real Presence preached!). So how and when did this happen?