unravel all the silly sophistry which makes up the bulk of these two famous performances; though the first of them, the parent of the other, hath imposed upon a great writer *; and, as it is pretended, was planned by the assistance of one still greater †.

On the whole, how different soever these Highchurch and Free-thinking system-makers would have their notions thought from Popery and Infidelity, they are unavoidably drawn, by the alacrity of their own heaviness, into the very centers of Malmsbury and Rome; from whence indeed they derived their birth; but are, I know not how, ungraciously ashamed of their progenitors.

THI

NOTES TO BOOK I.

P. 34. [A]

HIS will aid us to resolve a doubtful question; namely, Whether a banished man be a subject of the state from which he hath been expelled? Hobbes and Puffendorf hold the negative; and Tully, with the excellent Lord Chancellor Hyde, the affirmative. The former, in support of their opinion, say, that, by the very act of expulsion, the state gives up and renounces all right of subjection: the latter only appeal to the practice of societies; the reason of which practice, as here given, seems to determine the question in their favour.

P. 43. [B]. Whoever reads what is here said of the different views and ends which God and men had in instituting the two several communities, Civil and Religious, cannot but be surprised at the extreme ignorance or inattention of J. J. Rousseau, Citizen of Geneva, who, in his Contract Social, speaking of the means employed by the ancient lawgivers to procure submission to their laws, concludes his observations in these words-" Il ne faut pas, de tout ceci, con"clurre avec WARBURTON que la politique et la religion aient, parmi nous, UN OBJECT COMMUN; "mais, dans l'origine des nations l'une sert d'instru"ment à l'autre." p. 59. "But from all this we are

"not to conclude with WARBURTON, that civil "policy and religion have, amongst us, one cOM

MON OBJECT; but in the origin of nations, one

66 was

"was made an instrument to the other."-Now this whole chapter of the Alliance is written for no other purpose than to prove that Civil Policy and Religion had not ONE COMMON OBJECT, but Two, entirely different and distinct. The very thing which possibly misled him (viz. the title of my book, The Alliance between Church and State) had he duly attended to it, would have set him right: for the word Alliance, when used, as here, in a civil sense, and applied to Church and State, shews that, in my opinion, Policy and Religion HAD NOT ONE COMMON OBJECT: because an Alliance between two communities implies the independency of each: but had the Church and State one common object, this would destroy the independency of one, in order to avoid, what of necessity must be avoided, an imperium in imperio. If Mr. Rousseau, by the common object held by Warburton, means, the good of mankind, he either trifles or prevaricates. In this sense, all the ordinances of God, all the legitimate institutions of man, have one common object. The consequence of all this is, that either Warburton or Rousseau was here upon a subject which he did not understand. Yet this is the man who says to Christophe de Beaumont, Archeveque de Paris, " Monseigneur, j'ai "cherché la verité dans les livres; je n'y ai trouvé

que le mensonge & l'erreur-C'est souvent un "petit mal de ne pas entendre un auteur qu'on lit: "mais c'en est un grand quand on le refute, et un "tres grand quand on le diffame."

But if this writer be consequent, the principle, that Civil Policy and Religion have one common object, is his own: for he holds, that though the Magistrate ought to tolerate Religions already introduced and spread abroad in the community, yet

he

he is under no obligation to suffer new ones to be introduced; and that in policy he should not do it. -"Quant aux religions une fois etablies ou tole"rées dans un pays, je crois qu'il est injuste et "barbare de les y detruire par la violence, et que "le souverein se fait tort a lui-même en maltrai"tant leurs sectateurs. Il est bien different d'em"brasser une religion nouvelle, ou de vivre dans " cette où l'on est né; le premier cas seul est punis"sable. On ne doit ni laisser etablir une diversité "de cultes, ni proscrire ceux qui sont une fois " etablis." Now if M. Rousseau says this upon principles, and does not merely copy Bolingbroke, as Bolingbroke is copied by Voltaire, he must needs espouse the opinion which he falsely charges upon the Author of the ALLIANCE, that Civil Policy and Religion have one common object, for this opinion making Religion a Creature of the State, she may always be so treated as best serves the ends of the civil magistrate.

P. 46. [C]. From hence we may collect how pernicious it would be to Society, and how destructive of its end, to multiply the use of oaths to inferior purposes: for if the sanction of an oath be the great fundamental cement of civil society, and the multiplying of them doth unavoidably tend to dissolve (as it is clear it does) all their force and efficacy, such mistaken politics must prove very fatal to the state. Hence too we may see, it would be as bad policy, in a contrary extreme, to dispense with the religion of an oath in matters of highest moment, out of indulgence to tender consciences. But that which shews such indulgence to be pernicious to society, shews the claim to it to be vain and ill founded; there

there being no exemption, on pretence of conscience, from the necessary demands of society. And for politicians to let one part of their fellow-citizens loose from the religion of an oath on the most indispensable occasions, and to tye up the rest so closely, by it, and even for trifles, looks as if they had the same notion of the moral world, that certain philosophers have had of the natural: and that the quantum of oaths in society was like the quantum of motion in the universe, always to be kept the same: and a want in one place to be made up by an abundance in another.

P. 52. [D]. It is very true that the new modeling ecclesiastical Government was the principal point debated in that famous dispute: but then the Puritans contended for that Reformation on principles that equally concluded for a Reformation in the Civil likewise and this Mr. Hooker well understood, when he took so much pains to overthrow their fundamental maxim, the head theorem, as he calls it, of their scheme :-That the scripture of God is in such sort the rule of human actions, that simply whatsoever we do and are not by it directed thereunto, the same is sin. Now who sees not that this principle pursued, brings on, directly and necessarily, a Reformation of the civil government upon Jewish ideas? The very error of the reformed ministers of that time. This, as we say, was not hid from the penetration of this great man. The reason (says he, in his preface), wherewith you would persuade that Scripture is the only rule to frame all our actions by, are in every respect as effectual for proof, that the same is the only law whereby to determine all our Civil Controversies; and therefore to root it out for ever was the