Here are some quotations I gleaned from Martin Bucer’s works:
Performative signs & what it means to receive in faith
And therefore, when the faithful, believing theses words and not doubting that they are addressed by the Lord to themselves (that they were in fact spoken only to them is proved by phrases in the context such as, “is given for you, is shed for you, is the new covenant,” which are all entirely alien to those who lack faith), truly eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, there is no reason based on the authority of Scripture which compels us on that account to tie the body of Christ to the bread in a physical manner, and not rather to confess that when Christ is eaten by faith by believers these words are completely fulfilled. The godly man hears that Christ offered bread to his disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body,” and believes that this is spoken to himself as well. Does he not truly eat the body of Christ even though no change occurs in the bread that he eats? A prince hands over to a judge elect a rod as the symbol of judicial authority, adding these words: “Behold, I hearby commit to you the authority of a judge.” The latter, believing his prince and accepting the rod, is at the same time constituted a judge, although the rod in itself remains nothing but a rod. Similarly by the symbol of the keys a person may receive the rights of the household, the keys remaining in their own essence the same as they were before.
Source: Martin Bucer, “The Eucharist: the 1526 Apology,” Martin Bucer, Courtenay Reformation Classics IV, p. 330.
John 6 & the Lord’s Supper
Christ said here, “Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you,” not meaning himself to be eaten except for salvation, which was his invariable objective in everything, having been sent into our midst by the Father for this very purpose. Why therefore should we conceive a different eating of his body from the one that he himself taught [i.e. in John 6] so fully? Nor do I doubt that this is the reason why John does not mention the Supper, which all the other Evangelists so carefully described, becaus of course he alone had given so lengthy an account of what Christ intended to emphasize most of all in the Supper. it is a highly improbable explanation that he failed to record the Supper because it had been described by the others, for on this basis he ought to have omitted a great deal else besides, especially in the narrative of Chrsit’s passion. Nor can the giving of his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk be regarded as one of Christ’s commonplace actions, but obviously ranks with those that john labored most particularly to record. Therefore we have no doubt that the essential significance of Christ’s Supper was unfolded by John in chapter 6, though he counted it sufficient that the use of the signs had been related by the others.
Source: Martin Bucer, “The Eucharist: the 1526 Apology,” Martin Bucer, Courtenay Reformation Classics IV, pp. 327, 328.
Baptism = introduction/initiation into God’s service
I bold-faced a couple of expressions that reminded me of Turrettin’s expressions:
Now the reason why God authorized men to use a rite of this nature, involving immersion or washing or sprinkling with water and received at the hands of the official ministers of religion, as the means of obtaining the washing away of their sins and hence also as the regular mode of initiation to the service of God, is to be found in his purpose to confirm and stimulate to greater vigor in them by this procedure the first and foremost principle of our salvation, namely, faith in the remission of sins, that is, in our unmerited justification. For God himself formed us in such a way that whenever we are seriously promising or conferring invisible realities our natural inclination is to do so by means of signs perceptible to the senses. The same procedure can be observed among all peoples in important transactions of every kind, for it is in this manner that treaties are concluded, kings installed, marriages contracted, and sales executed. Consequently, as far as this use of symbols is concerned, God deals with us in terms of our own practice, as he is accustomed to do in other respects as well. And since the whole of the covenant he has made with us and our entire salvation (which is his primary consideration in all his dealings with us) have their beginning and basis in our persuasion that he pardons our sins, in his wisdom he has willed to confirm and stimulate our faith in this pardon principally by his own symbol, and particularly at the time when men consecrate themselves to his service in a special way. For on that occasion they reflect more closely on their own unworthiness and his goodness, and as a result more fully forsake self and dedicate themselves to him for a life of complete holiness and a true readiness to serve the needs of all men.His purpose, however, to present the remission of sins through the agency of public ministers of religion was not determined solely by the fact that it is appropriate for physical symbols to be conferred at the hands of men. It was also his aim by this means to knit his own more closely together and to each other, and to bind them more securely to submission to religious instruction and admonition in the congregation. This should result from their realizing that the men from whom they received the counsels of salvation and to whom they must cleave as fellow members in the same body are able to shut or to open heaven to them, and to retain or to remit their sins. The Church of God, of course, has always possessed this power, and God has never failed to make use of its exercise for the salvation of his own whenever the Church has languished in spirit and the light of knowledge.
It should now be clear from what we have said why God has required his Church in every age to use baptism and in this manner to introduce men to his service.
Source: Martin Bucer, “Baptism,” Martin Bucer, Courtenay Reformation Classics IV, pp. 287, 288.