but it does not actually interfere with the government.  The principle of your petitioners is no passive conscientious dissent, on account of an over-scrupulous habit of mind:  the dissent on their part is fundamental, goes to the very root; and it is at issue not upon this rite or that ceremony, on this or that school opinion, but upon this one question of an Establishment, as unchristian, unlawful, contrary to the Gospel and to natural right, Popish and idolatrous.  These are the principles violently and fanatically held and pursued,—­taught to their children, who are sworn at the altar like Hannibal.  The war is with the Establishment itself,—­no quarter, no compromise.  As a party, they are infinitely mischievous:  see the declarations of Priestley and Price,—­declarations, you will say, of hot men.  Likely enough:  but who are the cool men who have disclaimed them?  Not one,—­no, not one.  Which of them has ever told you that they do not mean to destroy the Church, if ever it should be in their power?  Which of them has told you that this would not be the first and favorite use of any power they should get?  Not one,—­no, not one.  Declarations of hot men!  The danger is thence, that they are under the conduct of hot men:  falsos in amore odia non fingere.

They say they are well affected to the State, and mean only to destroy the Church.  If this be the utmost of their meaning, you must first consider whether you wish your Church Establishment to be destroyed.  If you do, you had much better do it now in temper, in a grave, moderate, and parliamentary way.  But if you think otherwise, and that you think it to be an invaluable blessing, a way fully sufficient to nourish a manly, rational, solid, and at the same time humble piety,—­if you find it well fitted to the frame and pattern of your civil constitution,—­if you find it a barrier against fanaticism, infidelity, and atheism,—­if you find that it furnishes support to the human mind in the afflictions and distresses of the world, consolation in sickness, pain, poverty, and death,—­if it dignifies our nature with the hope of immortality, leaves inquiry free, whilst it preserves an authority to teach, where authority only can teach, communia altaria, aeque ac patriam, diligite, colite, fovete.

In the discussion of this subject which took place in the year 1790, Mr. Burke declared his intention, in case the motion for repealing the Test Acts had been agreed to, of proposing to substitute the following test in the room of what was intended to be repealed:—­