corruptions in religion and philofophy, profligacy in public and private conduct, and abfurdity and indecency in drefs and manners, His cenfure, however, is to indifcriminate, nor does he feem to understand every author whom he wishes to hold up to public view as an object of ridicule. To compare the infpiration of Mofes to that of Numa Pompilius, however it might have been relifhed by "a learned body" of proteftant diffenters, cannot by Chrifiians be thought very creditable in a man whofe employment it was to preach, by whatever authority, the Gofpel of Chrift, which refts on the writings of Mofes as its foundation; nor will any real philofopher applaud the attempt to bring down Locke, by a palpable mifreprefentation of his meaning, to the level of the author of Zoonomia.

Lord Monboddo might perhaps have been fair game, had his dogmas been at any time fafhionable, and had this author understood them; but we really fee no good that can refult from expofing the harmless abfurdities of a man of uncom mon worth and learning, who when this Effay was published could not defend himlelf, and who brought to light more ancient fcience than Mr. Walker was ever acquainted with. We beg leave likewife to obferve, that, were it worth while, it would be no difficult task to fet the very foundation of this Elay in es ridiculous a point of view as the author has fet Monboddo's ravings about human tails; for, that, from a mere principle of imitation, and from no other principle, men fhould deviate as much as poffible from each other, is a fuppofition too palpably abfurd to made the fountain even of a torrent of ridi cule.

We come now to the opus palmarium of Mr, WalkerThe Diffenters' Plea; or the Appeal of the Diffenters to the Juftice, the Honour, and the Religion of the Kingdom, against the Teft Laws. This was originally publifhed by itfelf foon after a petition from the diffenteis for the repeal of the Teft Laws had been rejected by the Houfe of Commons in 1789; and being confidered by the editor of thefe volumes, on the authority of Meffrs. Fox and Gilbert Wakefield, as the best pamphlet on the fubject, it is here republished with the other Elays of its author, with the hope, we prefume, of alienat ing the minds of the people from the established Church, That it will produce fuch an effect we are under no appre henfion; for we cannot adopt the opinion of Meffis. Fox and Wakefield of its merits, even as a pleading; while the principles which its author wifhes to inculcate, are fuch as, When fairly stated, muft be univerfally abhoried. It would

require

require, however, a larger portion of our journal than we can afford to a work, which, if read with attention, cannot be dangerous, to expofe all the fophifms with which it abounds. We fhall therefore content ourselves with examining the principles from which Mr. Walker reasons, and with pointing out the confequences to which his reafoning leads.

"The principles," he fays, " on which the reafoning of proteftant diffenters has been conducted, and their claims afferted, may be reduced to thefe: 1. That political fociety is for the good of all; that protection and acceffibility to all the advan tages and privileges of a citizen are the rights of a citizen; and that refponfibility for civil allegiance is the only condition of this right. 2. That religion is not within the jurifdiction of the civil magiftrate; that it is the unalienated property of every individual, for which he is anfwerable to God alone; and that no differences of religious faith and worship ought to exclude a citizen from one of thofe rights or privileges which he claims on the grounds of the preceding principle." P. 263.

On thefe two propofitions, the whole reafoning, he fays, of the proteftant diffenters turns. It will therefore be proper, before we proceed further, to confider in what fenfe thefe principles must be admitted; for if they be each capable of two fenfes, in one of these they may be true, and in the

other falfe.

That political fociety is for the good of all; and that protection of life, liberty, and property, is the right of every citizen who gives to the civil magiftrate fufficient fecurity for paying obedience to the laws of his country, are indeed truths which cannot be rationally controverted. But fuch protection is all that any citizen has a right to claim in return for his civil allegiance. It has been often heedlessly faid, that rewards and punishments are the fanctions of civil laws; but if any thing more than protection be meant by reward, the abfurdity of fuch an affertion is obvious; for if all the individuals of any flate, or even the majority, were to be equally obedient to the laws in their feveral flations, whence could the rewards be derived for fuch univerfal obedience? For mere obedience, legal protection is a fuf. ficient reward, and indeed the only reward that the founders of states ever intended, or could intend, to confer on fuch negative merit. In well-regulated ftates, many privileges, are indeed acceffible to every citizen on certain conditions; but as thofe conditions are fomething very different from mere allegiance, by whom are they to be determined? The majority of every people is neceffarily ignorant and illiterate, 004

while

while too many of them are the flaves of abfurd prejudices. Has every individual of this mixed multitude, who may think himfelf qualified to fill fome office of truft under the execu tive government, a right to claim that office to himself in return for that allegiance which he may have faithfully maintained? This will not be pretended. Who then is to deteroffices are to be ob

mine the conditions on which fuch tained? Not, farely, ignorance and prejudice, nor private individuals, however enlightened, but the legislature of the ftate.

The Author's first propofition, therefore, as it applies to the propriety of the teft laws, cannot be maintained; for the proteftant diffenters enjoy, under thofe laws, that protection which they can claim in return for their allegiance, as completely as it is enjoyed by the members of the established church; and nothing more is due to any citizen, merely because he is a loyal citizen.

To the first claufe of the fecond propofition we wish not to object. Religion is certainly no further within the jurifdiction of the civil magiftrate than what is implied in his unquestionable authority to prevent one fect of religionis from propagating their faith, by means injurious to the life, liberty, or property of other fects. It is likewife true, that no differences of religious faith and worship ought to exclude a citizen from any of thofe rights or privi leges, which he can juftly claim on the grounds of the preceding principle. But we have feen, that offices of truft under the executive government, are not among thofe rights or privileges which he can claim on the grounds of the preceding principle; that over and above obedience to the laws of the country, there are certain conditions on which alone fuch offices can be obtained; and that it belongs to the legiflature, and not to private individuals, to determine what thole conditions fhould be.

To the Author's affertion, (p. 265) that the proteftant Diffenters "have a peculiar claim to the good opinion and confidence of the civil guardians of the British conftitu. tion," we dildain to make any reply. The refpective merits of Churchmen and Diffenters will be feen in the pages of impartial hiftory. The affertion, in the fame page, that

à religious teff, which opens or fhuts the door to civil advantages, (if by advantages be meant offices in the ftate,) is an ufurpation of a power which is not committed to the magiftrates," is a begging of the queftion at iffue; and the fubfequent affertion,-that to impofe fuch a teft, is "a violation of the rights of a citizen," has been already proved to

be

be an abfolute falfhood, occafioned by the author's including among the rights of a citizen, more than any citizen has a right to claim. The author's particular objections to the facramental teft, fhall be confidered afterwards; but it will be expedient to examine firft, the reafoning by which he oppofes all tefts, for if that reafoning be conclufive, the facramental test must be abandoned of course.

"The foundation," he fays, "of all the reafoning of the opponents of the claims of the diffenters, is a fuppofed alliance between church and ftate, between the church of England and the ftate of England, and the neceffity of each to the prefervation and profperity of each." P. 269.

We afk then, in what code of laws is this alliance to be found. We affert, from the evidence of all hiftory, that there neither is, nor can be, an alliance between the ftate and any particular church, and that the fuppofition charges the ftate with the dif grace of infidelity to her fucceffive allies. If the church of England be an effential part, and neceffary to the existence of the civil conftitution, it is a fingular paradox, that this civil conftitution fhould have had an origin, and continued many centuries, before the Church of England had a being, and that during the greater part of her exiftence, the fhould have been adverfe to the true and proper conftitution of England." P. 270.

Had we been lefs accustomed than we have been of late to the hardy affertions of party-writers, the affertions con tained in thefe extracts would have greatly furprifed us. In answer to the author's queftion;-In what code of laws the alliance between the church and flate of England is to be found? We reply, that it is to be found in the common law of England; in the coronation oath of the Anglo-Saxon Kings; in the great charter granted by King John, of which the party of this author fo loudly boats ; in the fourth

* See Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. 4, Chap. 1 and 4.

"In the beginning of that charter, the King declares, that, for the honour of God, and the fafety of holy church, he has in the first place granted to God, and confirmed by the faid charter, for himfelf, and for his heirs for ever, That the Churches of England fhall be free, and fhall enjoy their rights and franchifes entirely and faily; and he conclades it with the following words: We will, and ftrictly command, that the Church of England be free, and enjoy all the faid liberties, and rights and grants, well and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and entirely to them and their heirs, in all things, in all places,

and

fourth and eighth conditions of the act paffed in the reign of William the third, for limiting the crown in fucceffion to the houfe of Hanover, being Proteftants; in the coronation Oath taken by every King or Queen of England; and in acts of parliament innumerable.

Can the author have been ferious when he affirmed, and appealed to the truth of all hiftory; that there neither is, nor can be, an alliance between the ftate and any particular church? Had he forgotten that the flate and church of the Ifraelites were not only allied but incorporated with each other by God himself, when he laid the foundation of both by the inftrumentality of his fervant Mofes? Was not the heathen religion or church allied to the ftate of Rome, when the office of Pontifex Maximus was held by the Chief Magiftrate, and when the Chriftians were perfecuted to death for refufing to join in the eftablifhed religion and to worfhip the gods of the empire. For the three firft centuries, the Chriflian Church was indeed in alliance with no fiate, but exiited in great purity as an independent fociety governed by her own bishops and prefbyters, &c.; but did the not form an all ance with the Roman ftate when Conftantine made her the established Church of the Roman Empire?

But, fays the author, there can be no alliance between the church and fate of England, because "the civil conftitution had an origin, and continued many centuries before the Church of England had a being." That there was in each of the fmall kingdoms, into which England was divided by our Saxon ancestors, fome kind of civil conftitution before the arrival of Auftin at Canterbury, is indeed true; but were not thofe ftates, which conftituted what is commonly called the Heptarchy, at that period, in alliance with the religion and church of Paganifm? and when their fovereigns were, in fucceffion, converted to the faith by Auftin and his affociates, did they not all break that alliance, and form a new alliance with the church of Chrift? When the king

and for ever as aforefaid. And We, and our barons have sworn, that all things above written, shall be kept on our parts, in good faith, without ill-defign."

Thefe claufes or conditions are," That whofoever shall hereafter come to the poffeffion of this crown, fhall join in com munion with the Church of England, and as by law eftablished.” And,-"That further provifions (fhall) be made for the confirming of all laws and ftatutes for the fecuring our religion, and the rights and liberties of the people,”

doms