Q. Is not the expediency of toleration, and consequently the right of every citizen to demand it, deducible from our second proposition?

A. Yes, as far as relates to liberty of conscience, and the claim to being protected in the exercise of her religion. The proposition asserts abstract truth to be the supreme perfection of every religion. Intolerance is adverse to the progress of truth. Truth results from discussion and controversy. Whatever, therefore, prohibits the research necessary to these, obstructs that industry, and liberty which it is the common interest of man to promote. In religion as in other matters, truth, if left to itself, will almost always obtain the ascendancy. Without formally renouncing their ancient religion, men will adopt into it the more rational doctrines of a neighbouring

sect.

Q. In addition to this principal argument in favour of toleration from its conduciveness to truth, are there not some auxiliary considerations?

A. Yes, too important to be omitted. The confining of the subject to the established religion, is a needless violation of natural liberty. Persecution, produces no sincere conviction; on the contrary it vitiates morals by driving men to prevarication; it induces infidelity, and disgraces the character of Christianity, by making it the author of oppression, cruelty and bloodshed.

Q. What books do you include under the idea of religious tolerations?

A. All books of serious argumentation; not those which circulate ridicule, invectives, and mockery upon religious subjects.

Q. Is there any reason for the doubts which have been entertained concerning the admission of dissenters to employments in this public service?

A. Yes; for it is possible that such opinions may be holden, as are utterly incompatible with the necessary functions of government. It would be absurd to intrust a military command to a Quaker, who believes taking up arms to be contrary to the Gospel. But I see no reason for the assertion, nor do I know upon what argument it is founded, that discordance in opinions (even supposing each religion to be free from any errors that affect the safety of the government) is enough to render men unfit to act together in public stations.

Q. In what cases, if any, may test laws be defended?

A. Two; in which they are wont to be applied. One is, when two or more religions are contending for superiority, and when there appears no way of ending the contest, but by giving to one a decided superiority. To this precaution I should assent with many scruples. If the dissenters become the majority, the establishment ought to be qualified. The second case of exclusion, and in which I think the measure is more easily vindicated, is that of a country in which some disaffection to the subsisting government happens to be connected with certain religious dis

tinctions. But even here it should be observed, that it is not against the religion that government shuts its doors, but against political principles, which the members are found to hold.

of

Q. If the papists for the most part adhere to the interests of a foreign prince, and there be no way distinguishing those who do, from those who do not, is government warranted in fencing out the whole

sect?

A. Yes; but even in this example it is not to popery that the laws object, but to popery as the mark of Jacobitism.

Q. Why should not the legislator direct his test against the political principles, which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them through the medium of religious tenets ?

A. There are but two answers to this objection, Ist, that it is not opinions that the laws fear so much as inclinations, and these are more easily detected by the discovery of the creed, to which they are wont to be united. 2ndly, That when men renounce their religion, they commonly quit all connexion with the members of the church they have left. These answers, however, we propose rather than defend. The measure cannot be defended at all except where the suspected union between obnoxious politics and certain tenets is universal.

Q. What is the result of our examination of those general tendencies by which every interference of civil government ought to be tried?

A. "That a comprehensive national religion with a few articles of conformity, with a legal provision for its clergy, and a complete toleration of all dissenters without any other exception, than that which arises from the conjunction of dangerous politics with religious tenets, appears to be not only the most just and liberal, but the wisest and safest system a state can adopt."

CHAPTER XI.

Q. OF what does this chapter treat?

A. Of Population and Provision; and of Agriculture and Commerce, as subservient thereto.

Q. Is not the final view of rational politics, to produce the greatest quantity of happiness in a given tract of country?

A. Yes; the riches, strength, and glory of nations and the topics which history celebrates, have no value further than as they contribute to this end. When they interfere with it they are evils. 2ndly, Although we speak of communities as sentient beings, nothing really exists or feels but individuals—the happiness of a people is made up of the happiness of single persons. 3rdly, Notwithstanding diversity of condition &c. greatly vary the quantity of happiness enjoyed by the same number of individuals, and extreme cases may be found in w he increase of numbers is

only the amplification of misery, yet under temperate governments it may be affirmed with certainty, that the quantity of happiness so far depends upon the number of inhabitants, that a larger portion is enjoyed amongst ten persons possessing the means of healthy subsistence, than is enjoyed by five persons, under every advantage of power, affluence, and luxury. Q. What follows from these principles ?

A. That the decay of population is the greatest evil that a state can suffer, and the improvement of it the great object to be aimed at in all countries. The superiority of population to every, other national advantage being a point necessary to be inculcated and understood, it is stated with unusual formality.

Q. Has not nature provided for an indefinite multiplication in the fecundity of the human species?

A. Yes, as in other animals, and in favourable circumstances the population has been doubled in 20 years; the havoc of wars and pestilence is usually repaired in a short time.

Q. What are the causes, then, which confine or check this natural progress?-does not population stop, when the inhabitants are so numerous as to exhaust all the provision which the soil can produce?

A. This, though an insuperable bar, will seldom be found to be that which actually checks population, because the number of people have seldom arrived at, or even approached, this limit in any country. In England, which holds the first place in agriculture, the produce of the soil might probably be increased