50 Chapter III
writings of all languages it would doubtless be possible to find similar works from
all countries in which there were religious minorities that had any recognized ex-
istence at all; for in virtually all states the holding of office was limited to persons
of a preferred religion. Warburton’s arguments could probably be found in Calvin-
ist Geneva or Amsterdam, in Lutheran Württemberg or Sweden, and even in the
Catholic states in the eighteenth century.
Church and state, he holds, are equals in a federal pact. It is “Hobbist” to sup-
pose that religion was invented to facilitate government, and “papist,” in his opin-
ion, to believe that government exists to advance the cause of religion. Neither can
be reduced to the other. But the church, having no power of compulsion, needs to
be protected by the state. A particular religion is protected not because of its truth
but because of its social utility. To argue the case for an establishment on the
ground of religious truth leads to endless theological disputation. The whole “key”
or “clue” to the question is to understand that a religion is established “not to pro-
vide for the true faith, but for civil utility.” All religious beliefs should be tolerated,
and Warburton prides himself, fairly enough, on being more indulgent than the
French deists toward novel and absurd religious movements. But, he argues, it is
well to single out one moderate religion for alliance with the state. The state
thereby benefits because people are taught their duties, religious acrimony is min-
imized, and eccentric religious behavior is kept under control. The favored church
benefits because its clergy are set up as an order in society, and by receiving a
public endowment, in most countries in the form of tithes, become independent
of voluntary contributions by the people. It is useful to have the bishops of this
church sit in a parliament, where they can protect religion. It is also useful to
have the bishops designated by the civil power, and to allow church assemblies
only by the permission of magistrates, though of course in such matters the
church should be consulted. Arguments of reason and utility, though really of
universal application, show an “amazing agreement” with the existing institutions
of England. Adversaries are baffled, because reason and the establishment “prove
to be one and the same.”^14
Nevertheless, some will say, Warburton continues, “that every qualified subject
having a right to the honors and profits in the disposal of the Magistrate, the de-
barring him from these advantages for matters of Opinion is a violation of the
rights of the subject.” Warburton grants that his other arguments may not con-
vince such wholly unsympathetic opponents. He willingly therefore takes the ar-
gument on to higher ground. He simply denies that there is any right to public of-
fice at all. Or, rather, he asserts that the existing authorities may prescribe such
qualifications for office as they think fit. “All places of honor and profit, in the
Magistrate’s disposal, are not there in the nature of a Trust, to be claimed and
equally shared by the subject; but of the nature of prerogative, which he [the “mag-
istrate”] may dispose of at pleasure, without being further accountable, than for
having such places ably supplied. All right of claim then being absolutely at an
end, and consequently all injustice, in excluding at pleasure, we may finish our
14 Alliance of Church and State (London, 1766), 66, 90, 115, 123, 187–205.