advocate of Establishments will find it difficult to repel, even though the Essays themselves should pass for mere verbiage, or a sort of opening speech, made only for the purpose of introducing that evidence. But let it be remembered, what has been well observed by a critic in reference to the former Edition, that "nothing short of an inductive reply will meet the real emergency of the case." It is easy for any one to reply to a few points upon any question whatever, and to leave the main matters in dispute altogether unanswered.

Not that we expect to convince any one by the weight of these authorities. We are only fulfilling the Scripture injunction on our part, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. But if men believe not Moses and the prophets, that is, the simple word of God, neither will they be persuaded, though a thousand witnesses should rise from the dead. The truth is, that with most persons the quarrel is not in the head, but in the heart; nor have we a doubt, (indeed, we know it for a certainty,) there are multitudes, who think with us on the main matter in debate, if they could only be prevailed upon to act with us also; that is, to come forth without the camp, bearing His reproach. But it is even now as it was in time past-many believed on him, nevertheless they did not confess him, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. This, namely, the dread of singularity, coupled with considerations of interest, is, we are verily persuaded, the real reason why people do not, or rather will not, sometimes see even a self-evident proposition. Interest blinds

their eyes to all inconvenient truths; and they cannot believe a system to be wrong, which they find to be so exceedingly beneficial. But let such be assured, that, by so doing, they lose their reward, even in this life. For my own part, I can truly affirm, that I never knew what real happiness was, till I took upon me, in some small measure, the reproach of Christ; and I can add, with a like sincerity, that I have scarcely known what disquietude was ever since; even though my mind has been much occupied in what may be called "controverted" subjects; and though I have been myself the object of some not very temperate attacks, and that from quarters from which I least expected them.

But to return to the more immediate subject of these Essays. The attention of the reader is particularly directed to the testimony of Hooker, as illustrated by Neal, on the strict analogy that subsists between the supremacy of the Pope, and the supremacy of the Crown-a testimony which, it is hoped, will be sufficient to silence the cavils of some churchmen at least, and to protect us from the charge of singularity in identifying the latter kind of supremacy with the Second Beast, as the former confessedly belongs to the First. It may be doubted, indeed, whether the whole ceremony of the coronation of the kings of England be not, in itself, a most antichristian practice; and as complete an exemplification, as ever was exhibited at Rome itself, of that scripture in its most literal acceptation, which speaking of the man of sin, says: That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or "reverend," (literally,

x

ti

"a thing to be, or, that is, revered," "sebasma") that is to sayabove both prophet or preacher, and priest. For as they called them gods, to whom the word of the Lord came, and the scripture cannot be broken; so a priest, as every one knows, is a thing called reverend. The passage in question proceeds: "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God," that is upon a throne, or chair of state, elevated on a stage erected for that purpose, within the very walls of the house of God itself-"shewing" or exhibiting himself " that he is God," and being "recognized" as such-homage being done him, as the dispenser of all power, spiritual as well as temporal, even to the power of conferring a right to administer both the Word and the Sacraments. This power, it is well known, not even the Pope claims in his own right, as the kings of England do; but as delegated to him, however preposterous the pretence, by Christ himself through

St. Peter. In this particular, therefore, the kings of England

have exceeded even the Pope himself. They have arrogated to

themselves not only the temporal sword, which of right belongs to them, but the spiritual one also, which is the prerogative of God only. They have assumed to themselves, as it was expressed at the coronation of King Charles the First, not only "Paul's doctrine, but Peter's key of discipline," and that without the x .160. apology even of an Apostolical succession. If any one wishes

x see

to be further satisfied on this most interesting subject, let him consult, if he please, a curious account of the coronation of King Edward the Sixth, among the Illustrations, which may be considered as the grand original of all such superstitious cere

The Statute which constituted the fovereign, Head of the Church, begins thus: "Albeit the Sings Majesty july Bightfully is bought to be the Supreme Head of the Church of dventure dark, why

"and" 26. Hen. VIII. c.l.

a

"Why" is and ought to be"? _ on what authority is that asserted? Is Why peculiar to the king of England alone, among all the Christian Sovereigns in the world? A like Supremacy exists mix no other Christian Country, not even in the adjoining Region of Scotland. The Statute

monies in this Protestant country; and was conducted by
Cranmer himself, albeit he had taken the oath of canonical
obedience to the Pope in the preceeding reign. On this subject,
and with this example before us, we would fain ask his present
successor in the See of Canterbury, how far such obligations
are binding, either on subject, or sovereign?

There is another point, relating to the present inquiry, to which we are anxious to invite a special attention. It has been announced, with sufficient confidence, it must be confessed, on the part of those who have made the announcement, that "the Church of England is the only church in this realm, that has a right to be quite sure, that she has the Lord's body to give to his people." Now if there be any truth in the following interpretation, and it is presumed there is a great deal, it will appear, on the contrary, that the Church of England is the only church in this realm, that has a right to be quite sure that she has not the Lord's body to give to his people; for not only are His people commanded to come out of her, and that with a voice from heaven; but it is a thing utterly impossible, that the same ceremony can represent at once both the body of Christ, and a mark of the beast. That we do not stand alone in this opinion either, singular and even extravagant as it may seem in the eyes of certain parties, will appear from the testimony of no less a person than John Knox himself; who not only denounces the Sacraments, as administered in the Church of England, "with crossings and kneelings annexed," as specific marks of the beast, but does it (in language which, for its decisive tone, we should be proceeds to say that this Heage of the Church was tor •press is extorp all orrows, heresies, & other enormities" - pretty Catowns to be entrusted to such men as Henry VIII, & hir vice-Kagent Cromwell!! — and the Statute of the Six

were

articles is evidence of the excellent manner in which Hewry's Duties, as Head of the Church, discharged. (J. W.)

4.173.

X

x

afraid to adopt at this day perhaps) with this addition moreover,
that he calls them "diabolical inventions, any one jot of which (says
he) will I never counsel any man to use."
The whole passage,
which will be found in the Illustrations of Essay First, is well
worth the perusal of all, especially of all Presbyterians; and
will serve to screen us from a like charge of singularity, we
should hope, on the part of the sister establishment, in respect
of our interpretation of these marks. If we err on either of
these two most important points of the present development,
that is to say, either on the Supremacy, or on the Sacraments,
so called, it is our satisfaction at least, that we err in company
with Hooker and Knox; and with these preliminary observa-
tions, we take leave, for the present, of both those establishments,
to which these two mighty champions respectively belonged.

Newcastle on Tyne,

August, 1838.