thority. But even here it fhould be obferved, that it is not against the religion that government fhuts its doors, but against those political principles, which, however independent they may be of any article of religious faith, the members of that communion are found in fact to hold. Nor would the legiflator make religious tenets the test of men's inclinations towards the ftate, if he could difcover any other that was equally certain and notorious. Thus if the members of the Romish church, for the most part adhere to the interefts, or maintain the right of a foreign pretender to the crown of these kingdoms; and if there be no way of distinguishing those who do from those who do not retain fuch dangerous prejudices; government is well warranted in fencing out the whole sect from fituations of truft and power. But even in this example, it is not to popery that the laws object, but to popery as the mark of jacobitism; an equivocal indeed and fallacious mark, but the best, and perhaps the only one that can be devised. But then it fhould be remembered, that as the connection between popery and jacobitifm, which is the fole cause of fufpicion, and the fole juftification of thofe fevere and jealous laws which have been enacted against the pro

Z 3

profeffors of that religion, was accidental in its origin, so probably it will be temporary in its duration; and that these restrictions ought not to continue one day longer, than fome vifible danger renders them neceffary to the preservation of public tranquillity.

After all, it may be asked, why should not the legislator direct his test against the political principles themselves which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them through the medium of religious tenets, the only crime and the only danger of which consist in their prefumed alliance with the former? Why, for example, fhould a man be required to renounce tranfubftantiation, before he be admitted to an office in the state, when it might seem to be fufficient that he abjure the pretender? There are but two answers that can be given to the objection which this queftion contains; first, that it is not opinions which the laws fear, fo much as inclinations; and that political inclinations are not so easily detected by the affirmation or denial of any abstract proposition in politics, as by the discovery of the religious creed with which they are wont to be united: secondly, that when men renounce their religion, they commonly quit all connection with the members of the church

which they have left; that church no longer expecting affistance or friendship from them: whereas particular perfons might infinuate themselves into offices of truft and authority, by sub- . fcribing political affertions, and yet retain their predilection for the interests of the religious fec to which they continued to belong. By which means government would fometimes find, though it could not accufe the individual, whom it had received into its fervice, of difaffection to the civil establishment, yet that, through him, it had communicated the aid and influence of a powerful ftation to a party who were hoftile to the conftitution. These answers, however, we propose, rather than defend. The measure certainly cannot be defended at all, except where the sufpected union between certain obnoxious principles in politics, and certain tenets in religion, is nearly univerfal: in which cafe it makes little difference to the fubfcriber, whether the teft be religious or political; and the state is somewhat better fecured by the one than the other.

The refult of our examination of those general tendencies, by which every interference of civil government in matters of religion ought to be tried, is this: "That a comprehensive na"tional religion, guarded by a few articles of

peace and conformity, together with a legal "provision for the clergy of that religion; and "with a complete toleration of all dissenters from "the established church, without any other li"mitation or exception, than what arifes from

the conjunction of dangerous political difpo"fitions with certain religious tenets, appears to "be, not only the most just and liberal, but the "wifeft and fafeft fyftem, which a ftate can "adopt inafmuch as it unites the feveral per"fections which a religious constitution ought to "aim at liberty of confcience, with means of "instruction; the progrefs of truth, with the « peace of fociety; the right of private judg"ment, with the care of the public safety."

CHAP.

CHAP. XI.

OF POPULATION AND PROVISION; AND OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE, AS SUBSERVIENT THERETO.

ΤΗ

HE final view of all rational politics is to produce the greatest quantity of happiness in a given tract of country. The riches, ftrength, and glory of nations, the topics which history eelebrates, and which alone almoft engage the praises, and poffefs the admiration of mankind, have no value farther than as they contribute to this end. When they interfere with it, they are evils, and not the less real for the splendour that furrounds them.

Secondly, although we speak of communities as of fentient beings; although we afcribe to them happiness and mifery, defires, interefts and paffions, nothing really exists or feels but individuals. The happiness of a people is made up of the happiness of fingle perfons; and the quantity of happiness can only be augmented by increafing