doms of the Heptarchy were all united under one Sovereign, did not he continue the alliance with the church, which, from that period to the prefent, has never been interrupted except for ten or twelve years during the feventeenth century, when the monarchy, the church, and the aristocracy were all overthrown, and the conftitution, both civil and ecclefiaftical, entirely changed?

What will the diffenter and his advocates fay? Do you call the church that was planted in England by Auftin, and flourished under the Saxon, and Danish, and Norman Governments, and to which King John granted, in the great charter, certain privileges and franchifes, the Church of England? To be fure we do. The church of England is not a new church, which arofe, as this author feems to think, at the reformation. At that period, the corruptions. which fhe had contracted from her connexion with the See of Rome, were indeed thrown away; but the ftamina of the church, her faith, and government, and authority derived by the regular fucceffion of her bishops, were preferved entire. The Church of England is a phrafe, which, though legal, is not perfectly accurate; and inattention to the inac curacy, has milled many, and, as it would feem, Mr. Walker among others. The church is the church, not of England, nor of Rome, nor of any other place, but of God, or of Chrift. It is one fociety fpread over the whole Chriftian world, of which a particular branch or fhoot was planted in England by Auftin and his affociates; that branch was in corporated with the fate by the feveral Kings and Legisla. tures of England; but the church herself is here, as every where elfe, built on the foundation of the Apoftles and Prophets, Jefus Chrift himfelf being the chief corner. flone;"" Other foundation than this," the Apoftle him. felf affures us, "that no man can lay," while he admits †," that men may build on this foundation many things which ought not to be built on it,-fuch as "gold, filver, precious ftones, wood, hay, and flubble." Many fuch things were indeed imparted by Auftin himself, and many more were added by his fucceffors; but no attempt was ever made in this country (except during the grand rebellion in the 17th century) to remove the fuperftructure from the only foundation by which it could be fupported, Of all this our reformers were duly fenfible. They pretended not therefore to erect a new Church; but while they burnt

66

Eph. ii. 20.

+1 Cor. iii. 10.

the

the hay and flubble, which their predeceffors had been accumulating for ages, and removed every thing which tended to deftroy the fymmetry of the original building, they retained whatever appeared to them neceffary to give it ftability on its fure foundation. The church was thus rendered more perfect than fhe had ever been in England, at least fince the converfion of Ethelbert, by Auflin*; and the was brought to her prefent ftate of purity, long before our civil conftitution was perfected by the revolution, which, in 1688 was brought about, not by diffenters, but by church

men.

It is therefore fo far from being true, as this author alledges, that what we call "our civil conftitution had an origin, and continued many centuries, before the Church of England had a being," that the very reverfe is the truth; that the Church of England was in alliance with the ftate before any thing like our prefent conflitution had a being; that the continued in alliance with the ftate through every step of its progrefs towards perfection; that the was peculiarly active in extorting from the tyrant John the great charter; that fhe was herfelt reformed from the corruptions of popery long before the civil conflitution was brought to its prefent ftate of perfection; and that her members were (1688) the inftruments, under Providence, of bringing it to that ftate; while thole who, forty-lik years before that period, had diffolved the alliance between her and the flate, deftroyed the civil conftitution at the fame time.

Mr. Walker indeed allows,—

"That there is a natural alliance between religion and human nature, and that therefore religion becomes the intereft of every civil government. But whether it be the Druidical religion in the forefts of the ancient Britons, the religion of papal Rome from the time of St. Auftin, or the Church of England from the period of the Reformation, depends on the information of the day, as well as on a variety of co-operating caufes." P. 274.

There is not much decency in the comparison of Chrif tianity to Druidifm; but we fhall neither cavil at trifles, nor make myfleries where we find none. If it be the intereft of every civil government to fupport religion, it must be fo, not because it is the duty of the civil magiftrate to conduct

There was a British Church before the arrival of Austin, which never acknowledged the fupremacy of the bishop of Rome and was probably very pure.

his fubjects, by what he thinks the moft direct way, to future happinefs, for no fuch duty is incumbent on him, but becaufe to fupport fome form of religion among his fubjects is necellary to preferve among them prefent tranquillity. The effablifhment which will beft anfwer this purpose, is, unquestionably, that, which teaching the great and unchangeable duties of piety and morality, together with the doctrine of a future ftate of rewards and punishments, is moft acceptable in its government, forms of worship, and theological doctrines to the majority of the people; and in its principles, moft friendly to the civil conftitution, which all are, by the' fuppofition, defirous to maintain. Thefe, and thefe alone, are the circumftances which ought to determine the legiflature in giving a civil eftablishment to one conftitution of the church, and one fyftem of faith in preference to all other conftitutions and fyftems. Now, at the time when the teft laws were enacted, the Church of England was certainly more acceptable to the great body of the people, and to all ranks in the ftate, and believed to be in her principles more friendly to the civil conftitution in King, Lords and Commons, than any one of thofe fe&ts, whether Catholic or Proteftant, which diffented from her. It was therefore the duty of the legislature to preferve to that church all her privileges and immunities, and to prevent thofe hoftile fećtaries from getting into any civil office in which they could contrive to injure her, under the pretence of difcharging their duty to the ftate. It was with this view that the test laws were enacted, and it is with the fame view that the legislature has hitherto rejected every petition for their repeal. By all this, no man has been deprived of his rights, far lefs of rights which confcience calls on him to maintain; for, as we have already proved, individuals derive no right from their loyalty to hold, under the executive government, civil offices, which are conferred by that government on certain terms, which the legiflature has unquestionable authority to prefcribe.

That the care of the legiflature to preferve uninjured the bulwarks of the church is as neceffary now, and as much its duty, as it was in the reigns of Charles II, and James II, cannot, we think, be queftioned, when the very advocate for the repeal of the teft laws, declares, that

"As all civil polity has a tendency to corruption, infomuch that not the most perfect form, which mankind have ever experienced, can be reconciled with the jober maxims of virtue and religion, while few are found, which are not greatly abhorrent to both; it is not to be expected that the union of religion with civil

polity fhould have any other tendency than to debase religion, fubs mit her dictates to the convenience of the paffions, and even the vices of the very worst of men, and at length render her little other than a pander to thofe interefts which the abhors;"- —who affirms, that "though better fentiments of religion may not be wholly obliterated, yet the bulk of the nation is configned to error, and the means of recovery are diminished by that ignorance, and ftupor, and obftinacy, which are the wretched progeny of a State religion! P.317. "Such," he continues, "is the character and fuch the tendency of every civil establishment of Chriftianity from the time of Conftantine, when the unnatural union firft commenced, to the prefent day. Infomuch that there is not one Christian establishment in Europe, to which the enlightened and confcientious difciple of the New Teftament can submit himself, without that violation which the New Teftament condemns, whereby the freedom of the human mind, and the progrefs of truth, which is promoted by free inquiry, are either totally crushed, or exceedingly retarded." P. 321.

Can civil power, as long as the majority of the people confider our apoftolic church as worthy of fupport, be safely entrusted, even on the principles of whiggifm, to men holding fuch principles as thefe? Mr. Walker, indeed, repeatedly affures the people of England, that he and the other petitioners for the repeal of the teft laws, have no wish to fupplant the church by being taken into alliance with the ftate; that "to the flate they commit the church, to be protected and cherished, or to be abandoned by the flate, as the flate fhall choofe; and that her honours and emoluments they would not participate if they could:" (p. 287) but if they were clothed with the authority of the ftate, as they might be were the teft laws repealed, is it not evident that their prin ciples, as here declared, would oblige them as honeft men, to abandon the church, and to appropriate her emoluments to the fervice of the ftate? This was the conduct of the conflituent affembly of France, which the diffenters, with Dr. Price at their head, congratulated for fetting twenty-five millions of men free; and have we not reafon to dread, that in England fuch conduct would be productive of confequences fimilar to thofe which flowed from it in France?

Mr. Walker fufpe&ts (p. 84,)a nd his fufpicion is probably well-founded, that " the revolution principles of the diffenters conftitute their most unpardonable crime." Revolution principles are principles of dreadful omen, efpecially when maintained by men who declare, by their moft approved advocate, "that the moft perfect form of civil polity, which

4

mankind

mankind have ever experienced, cannot be reconciled with the fober maxims of virtue and religion;" for it would be the bounden duty of fuch men, if clothed with power, to ove throw our conflitution, and erect another on its ruins sotally different from all the forms of civil polity, which mankind have yet experienced. Revolutions may fometimes be neceffary, but they are always evils; and if our conftitution could have been preferved and purified in 1688, without altering the line of regal fuccellion, every fober politician will allow that the alteration which took place would have been foolish and criminal. The conflitution, however, could not be otherwile preferved, and therefore the nation acted wifely and properly, when it fubmitted to a lefs, in order to efcape from a greater evil; whereas the conduct of him who is guided by revolutionprinciples, can tend only to anarchy, licentioufness, and bloodshed.

But if a religious teft be neceffary for the prefervation of our conftitution in church and ftate, why employ, for this purpose, the facrament of the Lord's fupper, which,

"If it be a teft for any world, is a teft for another, and not for this ;-which decides not the religion of the communicant, repels the honeft, invites the unprincipled, and corrupts the weak; which is in every view, a prostitution and a profanation of the moft ferious and confcientious act of Christianity." P. 265.

"The experience of every nation on earth, and of our fifter kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland, to all of whom our test laws are strange and unknown, is a proof that even a national religion may exist and profper without the mode, which the legislature of England has adopted and preferves." P. 281.

In appealing to the ftate of Ireland as a proof of the inexpediency of teft-laws, there was not, we think, much wif dom; for the difturbances and rebellions which have raged in that country ever fince the commencement of thofe indulgences that have from time to time been granted to the members of the Church of Rome, are events which could add to the happiness of no Englifhman, except, perhaps, a diffenter of Revolution principles! Whether the facramental teft be the best that could have been devifed for afcertaining the attachment of men to our conftitution in church and ftate, has been queftioned by many, of whofe conftitutional and ardent loyalty it is impoffible to doubt; but that fame teft is neceffary for this purpose must be acknowledged by all, who think the conftitution worth preferving, and are

aware