whether you ever believed before. Believe now. This ordinance is peculiarly fitted for you. You say you cannot realize a Saviour; well, here he is set forth plainly in bread and wine: "This is my body, broken for you." You say: But how shall I know he is a Saviour to me! See, here the bread is freely offered: "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." You say: But how do I know he is still offered to me? I answer, "Yet there is room." Here is bread enough and to spare. You say: But may I really close with him? I answer, "Take, eat." O panting soul, come under his wings. "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come." It will be POPISH RELICS. (From Calvin's Inventory of Relics.) THERE is the case of the archangel Michael, and his attendance on the Virgin Mary. thought I am in jest when I speak of the relics of an angel. Comedians and players have laughed at this, but monkish and priestly impostors have not, therefore, ceased to deceive the people in good earnest. For the inhabitants of Carcassone boast that they have relics belonging to him, as do also those of Tours, in their Church of St. Julian. In the great Church of St. Michael, which is frequented by crowds of pilgrims, they show his dagger, which looks very much like the one boye play with. They show also his shield, which in appearance exactly corresponds with the dagger, resembling the brass circles which are put upon horses' harness. Assuredly there is no man and no old woman so dull as not to see how ridiculous those things are. But because the lies are covered with the veil of religion, the iniquity of thus deriding God and angels is not perceived. Some may here object the express declaration of Scripture, that Michael fought with the devil. True; but if the devil were to be vanquished, it behoved to be with a stronger and a sharper sword than that one. Are they so brutish as to imagine that the war which both angels and believers wage with devils is carnal, and carried on with daggers and sharp weapons? But it is just as I have observed before: mankind have richly deserved, by their brutish stupidity, to be so deceived, while with perverse eagerness they have gone about in all directions collecting idols and images, to which they might give worship, instead of giving it to the living God. To proceed in order, we must now consider the case of John the Baptist, who, according to the account given in the Gospel-that is, according to the truth of God-after being beheaded, was buried by his disciples. Theodoret relates that his sepulchre, which was at Sebastia, a town of Syria, was some time afterwards opened by the Heathen, who burned the body, and scattered the ashes to the winds. It is true, indeed, Eusebius adds, that some inhabitants of Jerusalem came and secretly carried off a portion, which they removed to Antioch, and which Athanasius afterwards enclosed within a wall. Sozomen wrote that the head was conveyed to Constantinople by the Emperor Theodosius. The testimony of ancient history, therefore, is, that the whole body was burned, with the exception of the head, and that all the bones and all the ashes were scatter ed, except a very small portion, which was carried off by some hermits of Jerusalem. Now, let us see how much is said to be extant. The people of Amiens But this is not the worst. For the people of Sienns EVANGELISM, RITUALISM, RATIONALISM. that, if inquiry were made, as many more would be discovered, and that fragments of the head also would be found of bulk sufficient to make up the head of an ox. But that nothing might be omitted, they pretend that they have got his ashes also, some of them being at Genoa, and others at Rome, in the Church of Joannes Lateranensis. The historical account is, that they were scattered to the winds. How does this agree with what is said, especially by the Genoese? It now remains to consider certain articles which are a kind of accessaries of the body; for instance, the shoe which is at Paris in the Monastery of the Carthusians. It was stolen some twelve or fifteen years ago, but another forthwith made its appearance; and, indeed, so long as shoemakers exist there will be no want of such relics. They give out that in the Church of Joannes Lateranensis at Rome they have got his girdle. They say they have also in the same place the altar at which he said his prayers in the desert, as if at that time it had been the custom to erect altars in every place, and on every occasion. It is strange they do not also make him perform mass. At Avignon they have the sword with which his head was cut off; and at Acqs, in Germany, the linen cloth which was placed under him in the act of beheading him. How, I would fain know, was there so much kindness and civility in the executioner as to cover the bottom of the dungeon with a carpet at the time he was going to put the Baptist to an ignominious death? I would also like to know how these things happened to come into their hands. Is it probable that the executioner, whether he were a courtier or a common soldier, gave the linen cloth and his sword, that they might be converted into relics? As they wished to make the collection of relics so very perfect, they have blundered sadly in overlooking the knife with which Herodias is said to have wounded him in the eye, and likewise all the blood that must have been spilt, together with his tomb. But perhaps the mistake is in me. It is quite possible that these famous articles are exhibited in places I am not acquainted with. EVANGELISM, RITUALISM, RATIONALISM. (From the Princeton Review.) HISTORY teaches us that Christianity appears under three characteristic forms; which for the sake of distinction may be called the Evangelical, the Ritual, and the Rationalistic. These forms always co-exist in the Church, and are constantly striving for the mastery. At one period, the one, and at another, another gains the ascendency, and gives character to that period. During the apostolic age, the Evangelical system prevailed, though in constant conflict with Ritualism in the form of Judaism. During the next age of the Church we find Rationalism struggling for the ascendency, under the form of Gnosticism and the philosophy of the Platonizing fathers. Ritualism, however, soon gained the mastery, which it maintained almost without a struggle until the time of the Reformation. At that period Evangelical truth gained the ascendency, which it maintained for more than a hundred years, and was succeeded on the continent by Rationalism, and in England, under Archbishop Laud, by Ritualism. This latter system, however, was there pressed beyond endurance, and the measures adopted for promoting it led to a violent reaction. The restora 389 tion of Charles II. commenced the reign of the Rationalistic form of doctrine in England, manifesting itself in low Arminian or Pelagian views, and in general indifference. This continued to characterize the Church in Great Britain until the appearance of Wesley and Whitefield, about a century ago; since which time there has been a constant advance in the prevalence and power of Evangelical truth both in England and Scotland. Within the last ten or fifteen years, however, a new movement has taken place towards Ritualism, which has attracted the attention of the whole Christian world. . . . . The different forms of religion to which reference i has been made have each its peculiar basis, both objective and subjective. The Evangelical form rests on the Scriptures as its objective ground; and its inward or subjective ground is an enlightened conviction of sin. The Ritual system rests outwardly on the authority of the Church, or tradition; inwardly on a vague religious sentiment. The Rationalistic rests on the human understanding; and internally on indifference. The Evangelical system of doctrine starts with the assumption that all men are under the condemnation and power of sin. This is assumed by the sacred writers as a fact of consciousness, and is made the ground of the whole doctrine of redemption. From the guilt of sin there is no method of deliverance but through the righteousness of Christ, and no way in which freedom from its power can be obtained but through the indwelling of his Spirit. No man who is not united to Christ by a living faith is a partaker either of his righteousness or Spirit; and every man who does truly believe is a partaker of both, so as to be both justified and sanctified. This union with Christ by the indwelling of his Spirit is always manifested by the fruits of righteousnessby love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Where these fruits of the Spirit are, there, and not elsewhere, is the Spirit; and where the Spirit is, there is union with Christ; and where union with Christ is, there is membership in his body, which is the Church. True believers, therefore, according to the Scriptures, are the κλητοι, the ἐκλεκτοι, the έκκλησια. ... The theory of the Church, then, which of necessity follows from the Evangelical system of doctrine, is, that all who really believe the Gospel constitute the true Church, and all who profess such faith constitute the visible Church; that in virtue of the profession of this common faith, and of allegiance to the same Lord, they are one body, and in this one body there may rightly be subordinate and more intimate unions of certain parts, for the purposes of combined action, and of mutual oversight and consolation. When it is said, in our Confession of Faith, that out of this visible Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation, it is only saying that there is no salvation without the knowledge and profession of the Gospel; that there is no other name by which we must be saved but the name of Jesus Christ. The proposition, that "out of the Church there is no salvation," is true or false, liberal or illiberal, accor to the latitude given to the word Church. There was, not long since, and probably there is still, in New York, a little society of Sandemanian Baptists, consisting of seven persons, two men and five women, who hold that they constitute the whole Church in America. In their mouths the proposition above stated would indeed be restrictive. In the mouth of a Romanist, it means there is no salvation to any who do not belong to that body which acknowledges the pope as its head. In the mouths of High Churchmen, it means there is no salvation to those who are not in subjection to some prelate who is in communion with the Church catholic. While, in the mouths of Protestants, it means there is no salvation without faith in Jesus Christ. The system which, for the sake of distinction, has been called the Ritual, agrees of course with the Evangelical as to many points of doctrine. It includes the doctrine of the Trinity-of the incarnation of the Son of God-of original sin-of the sacrifice of Christ as a satisfaction to satisfy divine justice-of the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification-of the resurrection of the body—and of an eternal judgment. The great distinction lies in the answer which it gives to the question, What must I do to be saved?-or by what means does the soul become interested in the redemption of Christ? According to the Evangelical system, it is faith. Every sinner who hears the Gospel has unimpeded access to the Son of God, and can, in the exercise of faith and repentance, go immediately to him, and obtain eternal life at his hands. According to the Ritual system, he must go to the priest; the sacraments are the channels of grace and salvation, and the sacraments can only be lawfully or effectively administered by men prelatically ordained. The doctrine of the priestly character of the Christian ministry, therefore, is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Ritual system. A priest is a man, ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices. The very nature of the office supposes that those for whom he acts have not in themselves liberty of access to God; and therefore the Ritual system is founded on the assumption that we have not this liberty of drawing nigh to God. It is only by the ministerial intervention of the Christian priesthood that the sinner can be reconciled and made a partaker of salvation. Here, then, is a broad line of distinction between the two systems of doctrines. This I was one of the three great doctrines rejected by Protestants at the time of the Reformation. They affirmed the priesthood of all believers, asserting that all have access to God through the High Priest of their profession, Jesus, the Son of God; and they denied the official priesthood of the clergy. The second great distinction between the two systems of doctrine, is the place they assign the sacraments. The Evangelical admit them to be efficacious signs of grace; but they ascribe their efficacy not to any virtue in them or in him by whom they are administered, but to the influence of the Spirit in them that do by faith receive them. Ritualists attribute to them an inherent virtue, an opus operatum efficacy, independent of the moral state of the recipient. According to the one system, the sacraments are necessary only as matters of precept; according to the other, they have the necessity of means. According to the one, we are required to receive baptism, just as we are under obligation to keep the Sabbath, or as the Jews were required to be circumcised; and yet we are taught, that if any man kept the law, his uncircumcision should be counted for circumcision. And thus also, if any one truly repents and believes, his want of baptism cannot make the promise of God of none effect. The neglect of such instituted rites may involve more or less sin, or none at all, according to the circumstances. It is necessary only as obedience to any other positive institution is necessary; that is, as a matter of duty, the non-performance of which ignorance or disability may palliate or excuse. According to the latter system, however, we are required to receive baptism, because it is the only appointed means of conveying to us the benefits of redemption. It is of the same necessity as faith. It is a sine qua non. This alters the whole nature of the case, and changes in a great measure the plan of redemption. The theory of the Church connected with the Ritual system of doctrine-that system which makes ministers priests, and the sacraments the only ap pointed channels of communicating to men the benefits of redemption-is implied in the nature of the doctrines themselves. It makes the Church so prominent, that Christ and the truth are eclipsed. This made Dr. Parr call the whole system Churchi anity, in distinction from Christianity. .... The great advantage of the Ritual theory, however, is to be found in its adaptation to the human heart. Most men who live where the Gospel is known desire Bome better foundation for confidence towards God than their own good works. To such men the Church, according to this theory, presents itself as an institute of salvation-venerable for its antiquity, attractive from the number and rank of its disciples, and from the easy terms on which it proffers pardon and eternal life. There are three very comprehensive classes of men to whom this system must commend itself. The first consists of those who are at once ignorant and wicked. The degraded inhabitants of Italy and Portugal have no doubt of their salvation, no matter how wicked they may be, so long as they are in the Church, and submissive to officers and rites. The second includes those who are devout, and at the same time ignorant of the Scriptures. Such men feel the need of religion, of communion with God, and of preparation for heaven; but, knowing nothing of the Gospel, or disliking what they know, a form of religion which is laborious, mystical, and ritual, meets all their necessities, and commands their homage. The third class consists of worldly men, who wish to enjoy this life, and get to heaven with as little trouble as possible. Such men, the world over, are High Churchmen. To them a Church which claims the secure and exclusive custody of the blessings of redemption, and which she professes to grant MEMORIALS OF THE INQUISITION. on the condition of unresisting submission to her authority and rites, is exactly the Church they desire. We need not wonder, therefore, at the long-continued and extensive prevalence of this system. It is too much in accordance with the human heart to fail of its support, or to be effectually resisted by any power short of that by which the heart is changed. It will not be necessary to dwell on that theory of the Church which is connected with Rationalism. ! Its characteristic feature is, that the Church is not a divine institution, with prerogatives and attributes authoritatively determined by its Author, but rather a form of Christian society, to be controlled according to the wisdom of its members. It may be identified with the state, or made dependent on it, or erected into a co-ordinate body with its peculiar officers and ends. It is obvious that a system which sets aside, more or less completely, the authority both of Scripture and tradition, must leave its advocates at liberty to make of the Church just what "the exigency of the times," in their judgment, requires. The philosophical or mystic school of Rationalists have of course a mystical doctrine of the Church, which can be understood only by those who understand the philosophy on which it rests. MEMORIALS OF THE INQUISITION. BY THE REV. W. K. TWEEDie, Edinburgh. CONNECTED with the Holy Office, there was a class of men named Qualificators, to whom much of the misery which the Inquisition inflicted may be traced. Their business was to declare whether the opinions imputed to the accused were heretical; and, as they were often ignorant monks, or scholastic divines, to whom everything but their own narrow dogmas were offensive, they were ready to brand as heretical what was merely unknown to them. Like the kaliph, they had a Koran, and, like him, they reasoned, that if the opinions charged against any prisoner were not according to that standard, burning was the remedy; and not merely a library, but the owners of them in thousands were, on such ignorant maxims, handed over to the bitterness of death. We draw these Memorials to a close by recounting some further illustrations of the fiery tribunal, whose constitution and deeds we have been studying. It has already appeared, that neither age, sex, nor condition was spared. The following cases will exemplify the remark : 391 cast into the prison of Valladolid. The reason was, that he dared to maintain a friendly intercourse with some of his former associates, who had become favourable to the hated Lutheranism; and because he did not denounce them to the Holy Office he was himself imprisoned. He agreed with certain of the cardinals of his time in approximating to the Reformed doctrines, and adopted measures for instructing the Spaniards in religion through means of their native language. To the Holy Office this was intolerable. The archbishop was tried at Rome, and suspended for five years from the exercise of his functions; but scarcely was the sentence pronounced when he sickened and died, having been eighteen years under process, and in a state of confinement.* Eight other bishops, several of whom had assisted at the Council of Trent, and twenty-five doctors of theology, were denounced to the Inquisition about the same time, and compelled either to suffer or retract. Among the laity, again, rank was no defence any more than among the priesthood. Domingo de Roxas, son of the Marquis de Poza, was seized when about to flee from Spain, and was ordered to be tortured; but promised to confess all that he knew, if he might be spared the horror of that appalling ordeal. He was gratified, made some disclosures, and was immediately smitten with compunction. He craved another audience, and made all the reparation which he could to those whom he had accused, and then submitted to his own doom. When he appeared at the Auto, and had been delivered over to the secular judge who pronounced sentence, Domingo had occasion to pass the royal box on the way to execution, and made an appeal to Philip, who was present to enjoy the spectacle, to rescue him from his doom. "Canst thou, Sire, thus witness the torments of thy innocent subjects? Save us from so cruel a death!" was the youth's appeal. No," was the royal bigot's reply; "I would myself carry wood to burn my own son were he such a wretch as thou." De Roxas was about to reply, Philip waived him away, and the brutal gag silenced the martyr's appeal. The mode of his death is differently narrated by Papists and Protestants. The truth appears to be, that he did not receive even the poor mercy of being strangled before he was burned. Sepulveda has recorded that De Roxas was thrown alive into the flames, because he persevered in error. We have already had occasion to refer to several ladies who endured the cruelest treatBartolomé de Caranza y Miranda was arch- ment at the hands of the Holy Office. The bishop of Toledo, a member of the Council of following instances will illustrate the extent Trent, and so high in reputation for orthodoxy, to which false religion can extirpate, not only that he accompanied Philip II. to England, all that is Christian, but all that is humane where he actively aided in bringing Protestants and generous, from civil society, and at the to the stake. He was at last denounced, how-perusal we cannot help exclaiming, where was ever, to the Inquisition; not even the primacy Spanish chivalry when shaveling monks could of Spain could shield him, and Bartolomé was • M'Crie. perpetrate such brutalities? At Seville, for example, the widow of Fernando Nugnez, of Lepe, with three of her daughters and a married sister, were seized by the Familiars. As there was no evidence against them they were put to the torture, but still refused to inform against each other. Force failing, fraud was employed. One of the Inquisitors feigned an affection for one of the daughters, and induced her to unbosom all to him, in the hope he might befriend the persecuted party. She confessed her Lutheran leanings, but the villain Inquisitor had her subsequently tortured by the pulley and the wooden horse, because her public confessions were not so explicit as those which she made in private; and thus there was extorted from her an amount of evidence which led to her own condemnation along with her relatives, as well as to the discovery of others who subsequently perished in the flames. Aught more diabolical never was perpetrated. It is like a glimpse into pandemonium. But all this was for the upholding of Popery, and to preserve it from the taint of Lutheranism. Further: Dona Mercia de Figueroa, wife of Don Piedro Sarmiento de Roxas, and dame of honour to the queen, was sentenced to wear the coat of infamy, and to be imprisoned during her life. Dona Ana Henriquez de Roxas, daughter of the Marquis of Alcagnizes, a lady of great accomplishments, and acquainted with the works of the Reformers, especially of Calvin, was condemned to wear the san-benito, to be separated from her husband, and to end her days in a monastery. Her aunt, Dona Maria de Roxas, escaped from a similar doom only because she was the special favourite of the Queen of Portugal. Dona Silva de Ribera, Dona Constanza de Vibero Cazalla, and Dona Francisca Zunega de Baeza, were, along with others, sentenced to wear the garb of ignominy, and be imprisoned for life. Dona Isabella de Castilla, her niece, Dona Catalina, and three nuns of St. Belen, appeared as penitents in an Auto-de-fe on the 28th of October, 1559; at which another nun, Dona Catalina de Reynoza, daughter of the Baron de Auzillo, and sister of the Bishop of Cordova, was delivered to the secular arm to be destroyed for her religion, when only twenty-one years of age. But the treatment of Dona Marina Guevaro, a nun of St. Belen, illustrates most clearly the sternness of the hateful Tribunal. She confessed that she had leaned to Lutheran opinions, but had never cordially adopted them. Her oath to confess the truth would not allow her to confess what was untruc, and she pled that only to incense her judges. She was connected with Valdes, the Inquisitor-general; but even his interference could not save his relative. Dona Marina persisted in refusing to acknowledge a lie as the truth. She was sentenced, delivered to the secular arm at an Auto, strangled, and burned. Again: an Auto, celebrated at Valladolid in 1559, exhibited other examples of martyrs among the female friends of truth. Dona Isa. bel de Baena allowed Lutherans to meet in her house; she herself must therefore be murdered by the Holy Office, her house razed to the ground, its site sown with salt, and another monument reared on it to proclaim the ferocity of Popery. A similar fate awaited Maria de Bohorques, the natural daughter of a Spanish grandee of the first class. She avowed her faith before the Inquisitors, defended it as the ancient truth of God, and was tortured to induce her to implicate her friends. First two Jesuits, and then two Dominicans, were sent to debate with or ensnare her; but she continued stedfast-her convictions acquired strength, and her views grew clearer during the discussions—and nothing remained for Maria but to form her part in the bloody pageant of an Auto. She there tried to comfort her companions in tribulation, but was gagged. Her sentence was read, the gag removed, and she was asked to recant. "I neither can nor will," was the resolute reply; and she proceeded to the place of execution. After she was bound to the stake, the lighting of the pile was delayed for a little, that another attempt might be made to reclaim her. She was, by the grace of God, immovable still-was strangled, and burned, one of her last employments being to comment on the creed in the Protestant sense. In 1560, no fewer than eight females, of irreproachable character, and some of them distinguished by rank and learning, perished in a similar manner in another Auto at Seville. Maria Gomez, ber three sisters, and her daughter, were of the number. After being sentenced to the flames, the young woman thanked one of her aunts who had taught her the truth; and then, amid many affectionate expressions, accompanied with confidence in Him for whose truth they were dying, they prepared for their fiery doom. After describing the touching scene, Dr. M'Cric informs us, that" so completely had superstition and habit subdued the strongest emotions of the human breast, that not a single expression of sympathy escaped from the multitude at witnessing a scene which, in other circumstances, would have harrowed up the feelings of the spectators, and driven them into mutiny." We know that these details must lacerate the feelings of our readers; but it is needful fully to elucidate the spirit of Popery, where ever it appears full-grown. To complete our abstract, therefore, we must further narrate, that at the same Auto an event took place which gives the Inquisitors a full title to the epithet of Cannibals, which it caused to be applied to them. Dona Juana de Xeres y Bohorques had been apprehended, in consequence of a confes sion extorted from her sister Maria by the rack. Being six months gone in pregnancy, Dona Juana was imprisoned in the public jail till her |
