even of Luther, he uses, occasionally at least, a coarseness and profaneness of language, which, upon such a subject, must work incalculable evil, but of which one naturally can give no instances. Some of this offensive language was perpetuated in his school. Besides this there is the fixed and universal tendency of negative principles in religion. They spread, and that downwards.
The two Sacraments are indissolubly connected. An individual or an age may for a while be inconsistent, since of inconsistencies there is happily no end. This variance, however, becomes gradually effaced. Unless by some guidance of God, men are brought back to higher views of the one Sacrament, their estimation of the other will imperceptibly sink. An hereditary awe of that of their Saviour's Body and Blood will for a time continue to raise their reverence for it even above their own theory; but the doctrines are in principle the same; and so will men's veneration, thankfulness, honour, delight in both, at length be. Either they will see in both their Saviour, or in both (I speak of Churches, or Sects, not necessarily of the period of individual life, although very frequently in this also) they will see but an empty symbol.
In the above statement of Zuingli's views, the Lord's Supper is most frequently instanced as being the subject of the controversy; but the principles relate to Baptism also. As to this Sacrament also, Zuingli fixed his theory after an interval of doubt; in this instance, as to the efficacy or propriety of Infant Baptism. "If[1] Sacraments were signs, and signs for the confirmation of faith, how can they confirm the faith of infants, since it is certain that as yet they have none? Wherefore I also, (to own the truth ingenuously) some years ago, deceived by this error, thought it better that children should not be baptized, until they had arrived at a mature age." This difficulty, arising from the first error, that Sacraments were only signs, required a further modification of his views. Zuingli accordingly sums up thus his views on Baptism[2]. "No element
