Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 2.djvu/303

Rh power to set the conscience free." In like manner he argues elsewhere from its theological use, "A Sacrament is a sign of "a sacred thing," "but if they are signs, then they cannot be that whereof they are signs. For if they were the things, then they could not be called the signs. For one and the same thing cannot be the thing, and the sign which signifies the thing." And with such shallow show of common-sense argumentation as this, the whole doctrine of the Sacraments is dispatched: and Zuingli concludes: "On which account Baptism is a sign, which binds and initiates us into . The Eucharist indicates (innuit) that died for us, and was put to a dreadful death. Of these most holy things  willed that these Sacraments should be the outward signs." As if the sign might not also be the instrument, whereby that which is signified is conveyed; or as if this dry arguing from the definition of words, could lead to any truth in things spiritual! Zuingli was so much engaged in arguing against those who extolled the outward signs unduly, or whom he held so to do, and was so intent thereon, that the general impression from his works would be that the Sacraments were simply "outward signs of a Christian man's profession," and unconnected with any spiritual grace. His apologist, Hospinian, is compelled to admit that the opinion that the body of was in some way locally included in the Eucharistic bread, being (through the different views of the Papists and of Luther) very deeply rooted in men's minds, Zuingli "applied the whole force of his mind to eradicate it: and this in such wise, that he seemed rather to hold that the  was absent than present in the Holy Supper; and that symbols, rather than the Body and Blood of , were then imparted." This is of great moment; for a man's belief is not what he abstractedly holds, or what he would, if questioned, ultimately fall back upon; but his practical belief is just so much of his system as is habitually interwoven in his mind and