might, and by repeated applications, to have him committed to the flames, as a noted leader of heretics. This was refused by the Doge and Senate of Venice; who, when he was at length condemned, freed him from the punishment of the fire by an express decree. It was the will of God that he should bear his testimony to the truth for so long a time; and that, like one affixed to a cross, he should, as from an eminence, proclaim to all the world the restoration of Christianity, and the revelation of Antichrist. At last, this pious and excellent man, whom neither threatenings nor promises could move, sealed his doctrine by an undaunted martyrdom; and exchanged the filth and protracted tortures of a prison, for a watery grave."

There is good reason to think that many others, whose names have not come down to us, suffered the same death at Venice; besides those who perished by diseases contracted during a tedious and unwholesome imprisonment. Among the latter was Jeronimo Galateo, who evinced his constancy in the faith by enduring a rigorous confinement of ten years. Everywhere throughout Italy, during this period, those suspected of favouring the new opinions were sought out with as much keenness, and treated with as much cruelty, as in the Venetian territories. As the archives of the Inquisition are locked up, we are left, in general, to judge of its proceedings from collateral circumstances and incidental notices. From the number of those who escaped, we may form some idea of the far greater numbers who must have been caught in the fangs of that vigilant and insatiable tribunal. There was not a city of any note in Italy, from which there were not refugees in some part of Protestant Europe. The execution done by the Inquisition at Cremona may be inferred from the strong terms of approbation in which it is noticed by the Popish historians. A single fact is sufficient to prove the unrelenting severity practised in the duchy of Mantua. A person allied to the Duke being seized by the

Inquisition, on suspicion of heresy, His Highness begged the Chief Inquisitor to set him at liberty. This request was refused by the haughty Monk; who replied, that he acknowledged the Duke as his Lord; but that the Pope, for whom he acted in this cause, possessed a power superior to that of any temporal Prince. Some days after, the Duke sent a second message, pressing his former request. The Inquisitor repeated his refusal; and, showing the keys of the prison, told the messengers, that if they chose to release the pri soner by force, they would do it at their peril.

At Faenza, a nobleman revered for his high birth and distinguished virtues fell under the suspicion of the Inquisitors, as being a Lutheran. After being long detained in a foul prison, he was put to the torture: not being able to extort from him what they wished, the Inquisitors ordered the operation to be repeated; and their victim expired in their hands. The report of this barbarous deed spreading through the city, created a tumult, in which the house of the Inquisition was attacked, its altars and images torn down, and some of the Priests trodden to death by the incensed multitude.

In the territory of Milan, the most cruel methods were used to extirpate heresy. Galeazzo Trezio, a nobleman, while attending the University of Pavia, had imbibed the Reformed doctrines from Maynardi, an Augustinian Preacher; and was confirmed in them by Celio Secundo Curio. Having fallen into the hands of the Inquisition, in 1551, and having retracted some concessions which he had been induced to make at his first apprehension, he was sentenced to be burned alive,-a punishment which he bore with the greatest fortitude.

In 1558 two persons were committed alive to the flames. One of them, a Monk, being forced by an attending Priest into a pulpit erected beside the stake, for the purpose of making his recantation, confessed the truth with great boldness, and was driven into the fire with blows

more con

I know it was once positively denied, in the earlier writings of the school, that they held to the doctrine of inherent righteousness. Then it sounded too much like Rome. They have lost the fear of such a sound. Romish sympathies are rather to be boasted, at present, than denied. The identity of their doctrine with that of Trent, in this particular, is now no cealed. The only veil they were ever able to use, while as yet reserve was convenient, was an old scholastic invention which the Decrees of Trent allowed to remain unadopted and uncondemned,-the alleged difference between a righteousness within, but not in, us; indwelling, but not inwrought; indwelling as an inhabitant, but not inherent as a quality, of the man. The invention was too subtle to serve any purpose.

Take it, then, brethren, as a matter confessed, that the whole foundation on which this system directs the sinner to trust for justification before God is a righteousness within him, his own, as his soul is his own; implanted by the Holy Spirit, and that only in baptism, but brightened in the eucharist; good works also increasing it, venial sin diminishing it, mortal sin effacing it.

Need I say a word to make you sensible of the awful perversion of the Gospel which is contained in this? Sad is the state of any mind, when such a doctrine can pass before it as a mere matter of opinion, or, at most, as a subordinate subject of condemnation! Low, indeed, is the spiritual condition of our Church, if controversies from without, as to matters of order, can seem to bear comparison, in the sight of her Clergy, with this within, as to our hope, our life, our all. It was precisely for the same doctrine that Hooker charged the Church of Rome with "overthrowing the foundations of the faith." Brethren, it is no light thing to take away from the contrite sinner that cornerstone, elect, precious, which God hath laid in Zion for his sure hope and refuge. That refuge is "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of

offence." The self-righteousness of the Jew stumbled over it. The wisdom of the Greek despised it. The whole Babel-tower of Romish invention has fallen upon it, to crush it. Let us beware! It is "the foundation of God," and "standeth sure," sealed with the King's signet, precious to them that believe. Whoever falleth on that stone shall be broken." "Wood, hay, and stubble" cannot fight with a' rock. No system of faith can escape entire destruction and shame, sooner or later, that is not built on that corner-stone.

Hence, brethren, you may estimate the character of this system in regard to that other great division of the substance of the faith,-sanctification. What can you expect of holy fruits, when the only tree on which the Scriptures bid us look for them is cut up by the roots? All the holiness of the Christian life is ascribed, in the word of God, to the operation of justifying faith. But the whole existence, as well as cperation, of such faith is destroyed, when you have not only removed the foundation of its trust, but substituted another of precisely an opposite character. In the Gospel plan, justifying faith is a trusting of the heart in Christ. In this, it is only "the belief and acceptance of certain principles." In the Gospel, faith brings the sinner directly to Christ: in this system, faith only brings him to the Church and its sacraments. It needs not know any thing explicitly of Christ. In the Gospel, two things are continually united, as those which make for our peace, Christ's righteousness, and faith embracing it, putting it on, taking refuge therein, and drawing therefrom the Spirit of God, to carry on the work of God in the heart. These are always in the foreground. In this system they are utterly excluded; and the substitute is a righteousness in the sinner, and faith coming to baptism to have it implanted, to the eucharist to have it renewed, and to almsgiving and various works and sufferings of man for its increase, the sinner knowing no better refuge for peace with God.

The great motive by which the Gospel acts, and from which faith takes its chief and holiest incitement to obedience, is the love of God as manifested in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The atonement is always in the eye of Gospel faith. But here, to set the atonement in any such prominence is pronounced "unscriptural, uncatholic, unreal,' to which the principle of this system is declared to be "directly opposed, throughout, in tone and spirit, in tendencies and effects, in principles and practices." We are taught, that the doctrine of the atonement should not be brought into "prominent and explicit mention." We are to preach it, we read, as John the Baptist preached it,-by preaching repentance, alluding to the atonement only, as they suppose he did, "secretly, obscurely, and probably only to a few chosen and favoured disciples, to whom it must have been a dark saying." We are to prepare the heart "for receiving the faith in its fulness," "by insisting, first of all, if needs be, on natural piety, the necessity of common honesty; on repentance, judgment to come; by urging such assistances to poverty of spirit as fasting and alms, and the necessity of reverent and habitual prayer." What less could a Platonic philosopher have said? We are to preach men into the acceptance of the Gospel, without a word of Gospel in our preaching; we are to lead men to the cross of Christ, without a word explicitly about Christ and his cross. Yes, they say, “explicit belief in the atonement is not to be expected" in a believer, any more than the explicit teaching of it is to characterize the Preacher. It is "hidden in the sacraments." "We hardly know what we speak of, when we speak of the atonement.' "The true knowledge of it is expressed in such words as these: The salvation of God is nigh unto them that fear him."" The contrast drawn between the manner of exhibiting the atonement in this system, and in that which it opposes, is that, by the latter, it is declared by eloquence of speech;" by the

66

former it is held, not declared,"held in its substance," "after a certain manner of reserve in the sacraments." "He who has embraced the atonement," we are told, "with most affection, will speak of it with most reserve." "Doubtless," they say, "we are saved by faith in Christ alone; but to come to know this in all its power is the very perfection of the Christian.... But as for that assurance and sensible confidence with which it is thought necessary that it should be preached, it would seem as if there was scarcely any thing against the subtle effect of which we are so much guarded in holy Scripture as this."

What, brethren, must we do with our ministry, if this system shall make us its captives? Must we so unlearn all we know of the blessed atonement of our Lord, that we shall feel that we hardly know what we mean when we speak of it? I trust, indeed, you all know now what it is. May God teach you more and more! Must we so preach Christ crucified, that, instead of aiming anxiously to make the poor penitent sinner know, at least, as much about his death, his atonement, his full and perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world as we know, we shall aim at keeping him in utter ignorance; wrapping up, as "a great secret," all that is blessed and comforting in the Gospel; hiding it under veils, instead of declaring it from the house-tops; putting the light of life under the altar-cloth, instead of setting it in the golden candlestick of the sanctuary; coming down from the high and blessed station of ambassadors of Christ, charged with "the word of reconciliation" to preach to every creature, and making the chief value of our office consist in the ministering of sacraments, as curtains to keep out of sight the doctrines of Christ? Is it to be our great consolation, when we come to review our ministry from a death-bed, that, instead of being able to call our people to witness that we have "not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel

of God," we may bid them testify that we have told them nothing about their Saviour more explicitly than they could learn by looking at the unrent veils of sacraments; that we have never alluded to the atonement but "secretly and obscurely" to "a few chosen and favoured disciples" among them, and even then only so as to leave it but "a dark saying" in their minds? Begone, with shame, such impudent grasping at priestly domination over the minds of men, by means of their ignorance, under pretence of Gospel wisdom and truth! The system that carries all this within it, the system that does not necessarily and instinctively revolt at all this as utterly false and vile, deserves itself to be utterly reprobated. No milder language becomes it. We have no right to speak more softly of what must be so abominable in the sight of Him whose last charge was,"Go, preach the Gospel to every

creature."

In the Gospel, the great instrument of sanctification, of awakening and converting the sinner, of leading him to Christ, and promoting the whole work of God's grace within him, is the word of God,the word preached by his "ministry of reconciliation." The Saviour's great prayer on earth, for the sanctification of his people, was, Sanctify them through thy truth." But here, the free circulation and general reading of the Scriptures are discountenanced. Nothing is said in favour of the private reading of the word of God as a means of grace. It is not sacramental: it is private, not priestly. The system, therefore, has nothing to do with it. But an image or sign of the cross is a great means of grace; for it is, they say, "a sacramental sign," "a holy, efficacious emblem." Its use is "half-sacramental." That Bibles should be multiplied far and wide, is no matter of zeal with them; but that crosses should be everywhere, this is their zeal. "Let us multiply the holy, efficacious emblem," their enthusiasm exclaims, " far and wide: there is no saying how many sins its awful form may avert!"

66

By that sign, we are told, the early Christians put devils to flight, and drew to themselves the fuller blessings of Him who died on the cross."

As for the preaching of the word, they grant "it may be necessary in a weak and languishing state; but, to say the least, Scripture has never much recommended it as a mode of doing good." "The great tendency to sermons, since the Reformation, indicates a low and decayed state." "Such passionate appeals to the feelings, as they often are, would not be so objectionable in themselves, if they were given outside the church, and not allowed to occupy the place of religious worship." Then, for countenance in this low estimate of preaching, they turn to heathen moralists, especially Pytha goras and Socrates; "the former," they tell us, "being remarkable for his mysterious discipline, and the silence he inspired; the latter, for a mode of questioning which may be considered as entirely an instance of the kind of reserve in teaching" which is advocated in the Tracts.

In short, brethren, the direct presentation to the mind, and conscience, and heart, of the simple truth of God, as revealed in, and peculiar to, the Gospel, by means either of private reading or public preaching of the word; the direct, immediate contact of revealed truth, concerning the faith of Christ, with the sinner's understanding and affec tions, for his conviction, conversion, sanctification; is not in the least a feature of this system. On the contrary, the knowledge of Gospel doc trine, concerning Christ in his person and offices, is represented as lying at the end, rather than at the beginning, of a Christian life. The explicit knowledge of such matters has no connexion with the setting up of the kingdom of God in our hearts. It is enough to know them implicitly; that is, to know the Church, and to believe that the Church knows and holds whatever is true. A sinner becomes a Christian under the preaching of "natural piety," " of common honesty, repentance, judgment to come,