the State fuffer no Detriment, but have a full Allowance made for them.

In the fame manner, we may reason about the Expences employ'd in Buildings, Paintings, Mathematic Sciences or any of his own Curiofities, or for the Support of his own peculiar Religion. If he maintain the neceffary Officers of the State in proper Dignity, and keep up the neceffary Honors of his own Court and Houfhold as the Dignity of his Poft requires, he has a liberty to fave more Money by Prudence and Thriftinefs for any lawful Diverfions, or Buildings, or Philofophical Experiments, or the Practice and Propagation of his own Religion, &c. I fay, he may fave fo much more of his Revenue for fuch Purposes and Practices, than if these Civil Expences were diftinctly settled and limited by diftinct Parts of the Revenue appropriated to each.

X. But if many of the People fhould be of a different Sect, and fhould find that the Prince faves and withholds too much Money from the Ufes of the State and his publick Honor, and that he expends too much upon the Practice and Propagation of a Religion which they disapprove, 'tis poffible they may grow uneafy and murmur at the Largeness of

K

their

their Taxes imposed on them, which they daily observe to be spent, not in Civil Government, but in propagating a difagreeable Religion: and in this Cafe every fuch Prince must be left to his own Prudence to judge how far his Zeal to promote any peculiar -Religion by fuch large and constant Ex-pences, fhould be indulged to the diffatiffaction of his Subjects.

SE C T. IX. :

Of a Religion establish'd among the Rulers and Officers of the State.

...

I..

A

Fter all our Enquiries we have not hitherto found any one Religion, whether natural or reveal'd, or pretending to Revelation, which can be authoritatively eftablish'd by the State thro' all the Nation, and by that Authority can juftly demand or require the Attendance and Compliance of all the People under any Penalty. Let us fee then whether fome one Religion may not be establish'd among all the ruling Powers, and demand the Attendance of the fupreme and fubordinate Magistrates and Officers of the

Land,

Land, and this would be fome fort of esta blifh'd Religion.

913 vedt II. I enquire here then in the first place, whether the fupreme Power or Powers or Legiflators of the State may not make Laws, which fhall constitute and require the Reli gion which he or they profefs, to be practised by all who are admitted to the Civil and Military Offices thereof; and whether fuch a Law may not rightfully exclude all Perfons who refuse to comply with this Religion, The Reafon given for it is this; Surely every Mafter in a Family may refufe to take any Servant who is not qualify'd as he requires; as for inftance, one who does not believe the Bible, one who cannot fpeak French or Dutch, one who is not willing to wear his Livery, or who fcruples to take an Oath. Here is no Injury done to any Perfon whatsoever; for no Man has a Right to come into an, other Man's Houfe or Family and be made his Servant or to enjoy any Poft in his Houfehold, but by his Appointment or Order. Now Military and Civil Officers in the State are but as Servants in a great Family; and no hurt is done to any Subject in their Natural or Civil Rights or Properties, if they are conftantly continued as Subjects under

ها

K 2

the

the Protection of the ruling Powers, tho' they are not made Officers or Rulers in the State, because they have no Right to it.

III. To this Enquiry I would make the following Anfwers. 1. It is granted that a Master of a Family has a Right to take or exclude what Perfons he thinks proper for the Service and Welfare of his own private House, for they were not Members of his Family before they were taken into it: fo the ruling Power may chufe what Perfons and what Officers he pleafes for his own Houfhold, his perfonal Affairs, his Guards, and his own publick Equipage and Honor, without any Injury done to other Persons, who never had any Pretence by Station or Merit to be receiv'd into the Royal Household or the Guards, as a Part or Member thereof. But the Officers of a State or Magiftrates of the Country stand in a very different Character from the Servants in a Family, because every Subject is already a Member of the State, and if he has behav'd well therein he should at least stand capable of the Preferments and Offices of his own Country, as what he has merited by his good Character and Behavior as a Subject in that State of which he is a Part or Member: nor is it

reasonable

reasonable or just that a Capacity of Prefer ment fhould be taken from him by Law, but for fome Civil Crime or Mifdemeanor, because fuch an Incapacity fixed by Law is a publick Reproach or Civil Punishment.

IV. I answer in the fecond Place, That it is poffible the fupreme ruling Power may at prefent profefs a different Religion from almost all the People, or may fall into such Sentiments, and then furely it doth not feem to be reasonable or fair to confine all inferior Magiftrates or Officers to the Religion of the fupreme Ruler, and to forbid the People ever to have any ruling Officer among them who is of their own Religion, or to bind down all the Officers (who must keep the People under due Regulation and Obfervance of the Laws) to a peculiar Religion which the bulk of the People dislike and perhaps abhor. Would not this univerfal Separation and Oppofition of Religions probably beget fuch a Strangeness and Ill-will between the Rulers and the Ruled, as might in a great measure endanger thofe Bonds of Union and Love and mutual good Offices, which should be always reciprocally maintain'd between the Rulers and the Ruled? Would it not tend to provoke the People to Sedition, and can

it