←1775
←1775
Zuingle’s views of the sacrament were far short of the truth. He speaks of them as ‘signs by which the receiver gives to the Church a pledge of his faith’ (Fol. Works ii. 198; also 202, 204. See Bishop Hall’s judgment of his doctrine. Christian Moderation, Book ii. Rule viii.) Calvin’s systematic statement goes further, but not far enough,—‘testimonies of Divine favour to us, confirmed by outward signs, combined with the pledge of our piety to him.’ (Instit. iv. 14.1.) In his free and later communications with his friends, however, he rises to a more full and enlarged view. He speaks of ‘agreeing with Luther, that the sacraments are not empty signs—that in baptism the power of the Spirit is present to wash and regenerate us; and that the sacred supper is a spiritual feast in which we truly feed on the flesh and blood of Christ.’ Epist. p. 82. Bucer’s views of baptism appear to have been generally sound. (On Matt. 19.et De vi baptismi in his ‘Scripta Anglicana.’) On the Lord’s Supper he exhibits spiritual apprehensions (‘We are taught,’ he says, ‘that the body and blood of Christ are received by faith.’ Tetrapol. Confess.), though his mind was greatly clouded by Lutheran dogma. Bullinger’s Sermons on the Sacraments lately edited from his Decades by the Norrisian Professor at Cambridge, have the general imprimatur of the Anglican Church. Luther’s views on Baptism are full, though of course their weight is somewhat weakened by his Mystical and unscriptural theory of the other Sacrament. See on Gal. 3.27.