His whole theory of the sacraments led him to the adoption of Carlstadt's view; and what with repugnance he saw himself forced to revere as Scriptural, possessed in his system no internal consistency. With the same urgency should Luther's opinion, that the foundations of the Church had been shaken, since it had fallen into essential errors, have led him to dispute the true presence of the Lord in the sacrament. For it was, doubtless, inconsistent to admit, on the one hand, a real, and therefore efficacious, presence of Christ in the Church ; and, on the other hand, to assert, that she had fallen away from Him, or rather, He had withdrawn from her, and, in matters of such vast moment, had suffered her to walk her own way.

If we be justified, perhaps, in assuming, that Luther's, and, more especially, Melancthon's, general exposition of the sacraments, had prepared the way for the original Helvetic view of the Lord's Supper (for the conclusions, which Luther himself was so disposed to draw, pressed not less urgently on the minds of others); so, on a nearer consideration, we may discover, in this exposition, the source whence emanated the rejection of all the sacraments, or, at least, that indifference for them, to which, in the first period of the Reformation, we discern so strong a propensity, as, for instance, in Carlstadt and Schwenkfeld. Luther, and especially Melancthon, had more than once asserted, that he, who held fast in faith to the Divine promise, did not even need the sacraments.* Hence, against the doctrine,

* Melancthon loc. theol. p. 142. "Sine signo restitui Ezechias potuit, si nudæ promissioni credere voluisset: vel sine signo Gideon victurus erat, si credidisset. Ita sine signo justificari potes, modo credas." Luther de captivit. Babylon. 1. c. fol. 280: "Neque enim Deus aliter cum hominibus egit aut agit, quam verbo promissionis.

that sacraments are the pledges of the forgiveness of sins, Carlstadt observes: "he who hath the right remembrance of Christ, is sure of his redemption, and hath peace in God through Christ,-not through the sacrament. If Christ be our peace and our assurance, then creatures without soul cannot tranquillize us and make us secure."* It was only when Luther heard his own thoughts uttered from the lips of others, that he found them dangerous and untrue. Hence, in his larger catechism, he suffers not a word to escape him, whereby the sacraments could be represented as anywise superfluous; nay, with all earnestness, and the greatest urgency, he exalts their power and efficacy.†

XXXI.-Zwinglius and Calvin on the sacraments.

Zuinglius formed the worst and most miserable conception of the sacraments, that it is possible to imagine; yet, in doing so, as we have said, he merely followed out the hints given him by Luther and Melancthon.

He considers the sacraments only as ceremonies whereby a man professes himself a member of the Church, and a follower of Christ. He accordingly very much approves of the Lutherans throwing aside the belief that the sacraments contribute aught towards justification; but he laments the more that they should still regard them as pledges of the Divine mercy

#

Rursus nec nos cum Deo unquam aliter agere possumus, quam fide in verbum promissionis ejus. Opera ille nihil curat, nec eis indiget, quibus potius erga homines et cum hominibus et nobis ipsis agimus." Fol. 286, b: "Qui eis credit, is implet ea, etiamsi nihil operetur." * See the extracts from Carlstadt's writing, in the above-cited work of Plank, p. 218.

† Catech. maj. p. 510.

VOL. I.

20

and favour; since he, whose faith needs such a confirmation, actually possesses none. In this respect, he says, the reception of the sacraments rather affords the Church an assurance that her followers believe, than that they themselves become thereby more sure and steadfast in their faith.*

If, contrary to the clearest teaching of Holy Writ, and the testimony of all Christian ages, Luther and Melancthon had degraded the sacraments into mere tokens of covenant between God and men; so Zuinglius advanced a step further, and represented them as

* De verâ et falsâ religione Commentar. Op. tom. xi. fol. 197-9. He thus concludes: "Sunt ergo sacramenta signa vel ceremoniæ, pace tamen omnium dicam, sive neoticorum sive veterum, quibus se homo ecclesiæ probat aut candidatum aut militem esse Christi, redduntque ecclesiam totam potius certiorem de tuâ fide, quam te. Si enim fides tua non aliter fuerit absoluta, quam ut signo ceremoniali ad confirmationem egeat, fides non est." De peccato originali declarat. 1. c. fol. 122: "Signa igitur nihil quam externæ res sunt, quibus nihil in conscientiâ efficitur. Fides autem sola est quâ beamur...... Symbola igitur sunt externa ista rerum spiritualium, et ipsa minime sunt spiritualia, nec quidquam spirituale in nobis perficiunt: sed sunt eorum, qui spirituales sunt, quasi tessera." Elsewhere he expresses himself, however, in a somewhat milder strain; for instance, in his Fidei Ecclesiastica Expositio, 1. c. p. 551: "Docemus ergo, sacramenta coli debere, velut res sacras, ut quæ res sacratissimas significent, tam eas, quæ gestæ sunt, tam eas quæ nos agere et exprimere debemus. Ut baptismus significat et Christum nos sanguine suo abluisse, et quod nos illum, ut Paulus docet, induere debemus, hoc est ad ejus formulam vivere; sic Eucharistia quoque significat cum omnia, quæ nobis divinâ liberalitate per Christum donata sunt, tum quod grati debemus eâ charitate fratris amplecti, quâ Christus nos suscepit, curavit, ac beatos reddidit." Here, accordingly, the sacrament signifies something for the receiver, not for the Church only. But this writing of Zwinglius was his swan-like song, as Bullinger in the preface to it asserts, p. 550: "Nescio quid cygneum vicinâ morte cantavit." A very high strain of song truly! Yet in his work, De verâ et falsâ religione, p. 108, he had already expressed himself in a similar way.

signs of covenant between man and man. Who could now connect any sense with the words of Christ: "He who believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved"? And how powerless and unmeaning must the passage of Paul appear, wherein he calls baptism "the laver of regeneration, and of the newness of the Holy Spirit"? But the uncertainty of belief, which Zuinglius exhibits at the beginning of his treatise on the sacraments, is worthy of notice. He begs pardon, if he offends the opinions of others, and he declares that, with the exception of Eck and Emser, he is at peace with every one, and in return claims the indulgence of others for himself. He speaks as if the question turned on mere human opinions-on things of a doubtful nature; just as if the Christian Church were such a wretched, mismanaged body, that she did not even know, and could not know, with certainty, what it was which she daily practised, and practised at the command of Christ, and must through all centuries continue to practise. When once the firm ground, and sure and eternal footing, is abandoned, then all must indeed vacillate, and all doctrines be abandoned to mere conjecture.

It was quite in the opposite sense that Calvin taught. His doctrine, with the exception of one point, differs not at all from that of the Lutheran formularies. Calvin carefully points out all the parts of what is understood by a sacrament, and recommends, with much urgency, its use.†

* De verâ et falsâ relig. lib. i. p. 197.

† Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. § 3, fol. 471. "Ut exigua est et imbecillis nostra fides, nisi undique fulciatur, ac modis omnibus sustentetur, statim concutitur, fluctuatur, vacillat adeoque labescit. Atque ita quidem hic se captui nostro pro immensâ suâ indulgentiâ attemperat misericors Dominus, ut quando animales sumus, qui humi semper adrepentes et in carne hærentes nihil spirituale cogitamus, ac ne concipi

The point in which he deviates from the Catholic and the Lutheran doctrine, consists especially herein, that he will have the sanctifying grace distinct and separate from the sacrament, as the sensible sign. The former, according to him, is not conjoined with the material element and hence to every Christian is this element tendered, but not so the divine nourishment.* The necessity of this doctrine, in the system of Calvin, is evident; for as it is only to the elect that the Divine grace is imparted, and the rest are passed over by God, so grace must by no means be connected with the visible sign.

Nay,

mus quidem, elementis etiam istis terrenis nos ad se deducere non gravetur, atque in carne proponere spiritualium bonorum speculum," etc. Helvet. 1, cap. xix. p. 65: "Prædicationi verbi sui adjunxit Deus mox ab initio in ecclesiâ suâ sacramenta vel signa sacramentalia. Sunt autem sacramenta symbola mystica, vel ritus sancti aut sacræ actiones, à Deo ipso institutæ, constantes verbo suo, signis, et rebus significatis, quibus in ecclesiâ summa sua beneficia homini exhibita retinet in memoriâ, et subinde renovat, quibus item promissiones suas obsignat, et quæ ipse nobis interius præstat, exterius representat, ac veluti oculis contemplanda subjicit, adeoque fidem nostram, spiritû Dei in cordibus nostris operante, roborat et auget, quibus denique nos ab omnibus aliis populis et religionibus separat, sibique soli consecrat et obligat, et quid a nobis requirat significat."

* Loc. cit. § 9, fol. 474. "Cæterum munere suo tunc ritè demum perfunguntur (sacramenta) ubi interior illi magister spiritus accesserit: cujus unius virtute et corda penetrantur, et affectus permoventur, et sacramentis in animas nostras aditus patet. Si desit ille, nihil sacramenta plus præstare mentibus nostris possunt, quam si vel solis splendor cœcis oculis affulgeat, vel surdis auribus vox insonet. Itaque sic inter spiritum sacramentaque partior, ut penes illum agendi virtus resideat, his ministerium duntaxat relinquatur; idque sine spiritûs actione manet frivolum, illo vero intus agente, vimque suam exercente, multæ energiæ refertum."

† Loc. cit. § 17, fol. 477. "Spiritus Sanctus (quem non omnibus promiscue sacramenta advehunt, sed quem peculiariter suis confert) is est, qui Dei gratias secum affert, qui dat sacramentis in nobis locum,