have chofen for the measure in queftion, full of danger as the moment may be; it is the principle of the measure itfelf on which I feel myself impelled to fix my reprehenfion. This, fir, is not one of the ordinary mistakes which will frequently occur in the management of the public concerns. It is not an improvident bargain concluded in a moment of burry or negligence. It is not an ufelets or impracticable project, haftily undertaken, then abandoned and forgotten by all.-No. It is a fundamental error; an error committed with deliberation against the fixed and unalienable principles of our Conftitution: and while it compromifes your judgment as a Statesman, it reveals to us fomewhat too much indifference in you, as a member of the Proteftant Reformed Church, established by law in these dominions." P. 17.

The author then reminds the Right Hon. Gentleman of his conduct on the Diffenters' Bill in 1790, and ftrongly infifts, that what he then argued is equally applicable to the matter now in queftion.

The fecond Letter adverts to the period when the Corporation and Test Acts were originally paffed, and ftates the mo'tives for their enactment, as alledged in the preambles to those Aas: obferving carefully that they were made, not against Diffenters of any one clafs alone; but against Nonconformists of all forts and defcriptions." He then argues thus upon the fubject.

44

"And what was the reafon of this vigilance of the Legislature against the Roman Catholics on one hand, and the Protestant Diffenters on the other? When we feparated from the Church of Rome, it was ftill kept in mind by the Reformers, that the vitible church of Chrift was to be maintained, and in the fame purity to which they had brought it from the errors of Popery. While, therefore, the true faith was preferved by the Reformation, the outward conftitution of the Church, which taught that faith, was alfo to be guarded; the one being the indifpenfable attendant on the other. This was done, on the one hand, by vefting the fupremacy of it in the throne, which undertook to de-fend it on the principles then recognized; and, on the other hand, by .enacting reftrictive laws against thofe who were likely to make any attempts, ecclefiaftical or civil, to throw the establishment back again into that corrupt form and difcipline from which it had been happily refcued. And let God and man judge of the right we had thus to re⚫form the national church, and to protect it, when reformed, by that al-liance with the state which was alone competent to its prefervation.

"What again was the motive of the Legislature in its vigilance against the Proteflant Diffenters? They had recently fhewn what -pirit they were of." They had broken through all public order; overturned the throne; plundered the Church; and established a rigorous Prefbytery upon its ruins. At the happy return of the Monarchy, they were not dealt with according to the meafure of their own enormities. A clemency almoft reprehenfible (if clemency can deferve - our reprehenfion) covered their paft tranfgreffions; and it was only provided

A a

BRIT. CRIT. VOL, XVIII, OCT..1801.

provided by the Corporation Act, &c. that the Church and State fhould be fhielded from future mifchiefs at their hands. Without receiving the facrament according to the effablished rites, which feemed the moft convenient and effectual Teft for proving their attachment to the Church and State, they could not hereafter poffefs those situations which might facilitate their attempts to deftroy once more both the one and the other. And here again God and man may be called upon to judge between the moderation of the Church, and the provocations of its enemies. One remarkable thing may be obferved in this part of the fubject. The Teft Acts, followed as they have been with fo much calumny, have yet proved themselves acts of mercy. They became, as it were, the reprefentatives of the former penal laws; and it is an hiftorical fact, that, from the time of paffing these Acts, the penal laws began to fall into difufe. They became mere words in the ftatute-book; and there was no longer an occafion to put them in force, guarded as the Church and State now were, by the tranquil and effectual operation of the Telt. I need not add more on this head; as the right and propriety of eftablishing this fafeguard must be felt by all. If there is ftill a doubt, recourfe must be had again to Sherlock, who demonstrates with perfect method and clearness the two points effential to this argument, viz." That it is lawful to confine offices of power and truft in the Government, to fuch as are obedient and well-affected to the Ecclefiaftical State and Conftitutión of the Realm." And again, "That it is farther lawful to require of any man who is willing to accept any office civil or military, that he should communicate with the Established Church, and particularly, that he should receive the facrament, according to the ufage of it, in order to prove fuch his obedience and affection to the Ecclefiaftical Conftitution."

"We have now feen in what manner the restoration of the Throne came to the aid of the Reformation of the Church, and by what means the fafeguards thrown around the one became, upon the fame common principle, the fecurity of the other alfo. I will now pafs on to the illuftration afforded to this fundamental maxim in the conduct 'of the Revolution." P. 22.

The conclufion of this paffage marks fufficiently the progrefs of the author's reafonings, from which, though all important, we must content ourselves with citing the following very forcible and juft apostrophe.

"Allow me to point out another thing. The reftraints so griev oufly complained of, are reftraints in an equal measure on the Sovereign and the fubject. By the 12, 13 Wm. III. cap. 2. it is provided, that whofoever fhall hereafter come to the poffeffion of the crown, Shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established."-But what! Shall the Sovereign be bound, and his fubjects left loofe? Shall the throne be neceffarily Proteftant, and fhall the offices intended for its luftre and fupport be Catholic at will? Shall the fpirit of the Teft be partial? And fhall a Romish Administration be at liberty to give incongruous advice to the Supreme Head of the Reformed Church? No, Sir. And I call upon all that is truly Proseltant in the nation to refift the attempt. At all events, you must be

prepared to go through with your principle. If you wish to take off that refraint which affects his Majefty's promotion of any but his Proteftant fervants-for, as I faid, the reftraint is equally on the King and the Nonconformist-you must add to it the exemption from that other reftraint, by which his Majefty is bound, in his own perfon, to hold communion with the church, as by law eftablifhed. Are you prepared to do both? Even if you fhould be ready with your double licence, his Majefty will not violate his confcience with the acceptance of either. His excellent heart will teach him to anfwer, "No, I have fworn to maintain, in my own perfon, the principles of the Church established by law. I have undertaken to maintain the fame in the perfons of others, whom I appoint to places of truft and confidence under me-and, by God's help, I will be faithful to both these pledges." P. 26.

The third Letter moft judiciously compares the conduct of the legiflature in the Union with Scotland, with that of the managers of the late Union with Ireland, as to the particular point of fecuring the establishment; a comparifon very much to the difadvantage of the latter. The whole of this Letter is very masterly, but too closely connected in its argument to admit of a proper extra&.

The fourth Letter treats of that connection of the Church with the State, which renders a teft of conformity with the one a neceffary pledge of fidelity to the other. Here all that has been faid of the greateft importance, on the fubject, is molt ably flated and abridged. From this view of the queftion, the following conclufion is jultly drawn.

From this fhort fketch of the opinions which have been enter tained on this fubject, we are enabled to draw one certain and useful conclufion. To whatever mode of explanation we attach ourselves, whether with Hooker we maintain the famenefs of the perfon, comprehending both the fubject of the State and the believer in Jefus Chrift; whether with Sherlock we bind up the guardianship of the Church in the fovereign and inalienable duty of the Magistracy; or whether again with Warburton we compound an artificial with a na tural perfonality; and view the Church and State originally independent of each other, but coming together for the promotion of their mutual benefit; I fay, in whatever manner we interpret the connection, this one undoubted and practical truth will be the refult. The alliance which the State has with the Church (however the alliance was produced) is, by the laws and the practice of ages, contracted with one particular Church, of one denomination, and of one determined do&rine and difcipline. I beg, Sir, you will give your particular attention to this. If you violate that principle of exclufive fecurity for which the State ftands practically pledged to the Church, you diffolve that connection between them which has been acted upon from the time of the Reformation. On the faith of this fpecial guardianship, the Church offers her fubmiffion to the Throne, and looks not to any other Head upon earth. If you give the propofed encouragement to the enemies of the Reformation

A a 2

formation if you throw open the Proteftant Establishment to the recurrence of the ancient Popery, you at once let the Church loose from its fubjection, and, by authorifing the fubject to look to a paramount Head of the Church elfewhere, you deftroy his Majefty's fole and rightful claim to that fupremacy, which the Reformation fettled on the Sovereigns of this country for ever." P. 42.

The fifth Letter takes up the fubject of the most current objections to thefe laws, which it decifively refutes; and the fixth 'adverts to the important point of the Coronation Oath, on which it throws new and vivid lights. Fabius explains the oath as particularly directed to exclude the evils which had recently been felt, when it was framed, and contends that it gives the Sovereign liberty to add new fecurities and privileges to the Established Church, but by no means to leffen those that exit. This is powerfully urged.

"The prefent laws he is bound to maintain, though no new ones fhould be made: but if additional ones are neceffary, the " rights and privileges of the Clergy and their Churches" must be the exclufive and invariable objects of their favour. And it is of infinite confequence to fix the obligation of the oath upon this ground; for, in the loofe acceptation of it, which generally prevails, that is made a mere fentiment, which ought to have a fixed meaning and an absolute cogency. It is fuppofed that his Majefty will not affent to the demand made upon him for the Catholics, because he thinks that his compliance will violate his oath. This is not enough. Some future King may think that a compliance will not violate it. But the obligation is of a more pofitive nature: and his Majefty knows, from the very terms of the oath, that he cannot áffent. He knows that the "rights and principles" of the established Church must be the favoured objects of the new law. And, until it can be proved, that to put Nonconformists upon the fame footing with the Church, which has hitherto been maintained upon the exprefs terms of their exclufion, is to preserve the rights and privileges of the Clergy;-until this is done,--which never can be done,-to affent to their admiffion is to violate, in the most certain and unavoidable manner, the exprefs conditions of the Coronation Gath. And, doubtlefs, it is his Majefty's good fenfe, and his lively feeling of religious impreffions, which have conveyed to him this pofitive meaning of the foleinn pledge which he has given to the Church, and infpired him with the firin refolution to maintain it." P. 57

It is of great confequence that in this Letter an answer is given to an extraordinary affertion of Mr. Butler; who fays, the whole claim of the governments of the earth begins and ends with temporal power; that no Catholic denies them, and more than that no government can claim." Behold the reply of Fabius.

"Yes, Mr. Butler, a temporal Government can claim more than that. The English Government does claim it, both in right and in -fact. At this moment it poffeffes this fpiritual effect of its claim, and

has

has poffeffed it from the time of the Reformation. The Conftitution of the Church and the State too (for they are effentially conjoined) depends on the preservation of this claim. This you must know: I hope it is not on that account you wish to fet the claim afide. What was the law of England which declared to the world that a temporal Government could claim fomewhat more than temporal power? By 26 Hen. VIII. c. 1. it is exprefsly declared, that "the King, his heirs, and fucceffors, fhall be taken and reputed the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England, &c."

I need not enter into the farther affertion of this claim by the 1 Ed. VI. c. 12, by the 1 Eliz. c. 1, or the fettlement at the Revolution. The language of our ftatutes, in this refpect, accords with the language of the Articles of our Church, which declare (Art. 37) that "the chief government of all eftates of this realm, whether they be ecclefiaftical or civil, appertains in all cafes to the crown."-But what "the whole claim of the is the language of Mr. Butler? That Governments of the earth begins and ends with temporal power ;-and more than that no Government can claim." This is the genuine fubftance of the old declarations of the Popedom to the nations of the earth, in the plenitude of its fpiritual affumption: and I beg to turn the attention of thofe perfons to it, who have fo cafily talked to us of the mitigated spirit of the Romifh doctrines, and the confequent fafety of the admiffion of Catholics to any fituations of truft or power. No. The fpirit of Popery (whatever may be its outward circumftances) is eternal; and what Hildebrand might well be fuppofed to fay, is at this time afferted, with equal pofitivenefs, by Mr. Butler. This too is his offenfive declaration, in the very moment of foliciting a boon at the hands of the Government, which he wishes to degrade. He accufes the Conftitution, and denies the power of that country, from whofe fatal grant alone he can obtain the gratification of his own defires, and the accomplishment of our ruin both in Church and State." P. 59.

The author, having fo powerfully urged his arguments, is brief and refpectful in his conclufion. The Appendix contains a large extract from Mr. Pitt's own Speech, as reported in 1790; and a fhorter, from the Speech of Mr. Burke in the fame debate.

We have been unavoidably copious in our account of this important tract, which our readers will perceive is, in general, as well written as it is argued. Should the queftion again be agitated, which with the moft anxious zeal for the public welfare we heartily deprecate, this tract, and the famous treatife of Bishop Sherlock," againft a Repeal of Corporation and Test Acts," will be the leading text-books on the subject.

* We here infert a note of the author, being fully of his opinion. "It would be a great benefit to the community if this Treatife were immediately reprinted. In the year 1790, there was an edition of it from the Clarendon prefs; but I believe it is now fcarce." P. 20.

ART.