204 CIVIL POWER IN THINGS SACRED. different in the very foundations and substanceof them, as the heathen and the christian. But if the religions in contest be very nearly the same, and differ only in some circumstantials, therecan never be so much reason why there should be so great a difference made between them in the disposal of public offices of trust or profit ; for the dangers of any kind that can arise from such promiscuous officers is not so great or formidable. This therefore in such enquiries should always come into the consideration. 1X. But after all, if in any nation a great majority of the people together with the supreme rulers, be of one religion or one sect, and several othersects of thesame religion are disper- sed throughout the land, I cannot see any hurt in it, as I said before, if the ruling powers generally chuse and appoint per- sons of their own sect to be officers of the state ; supposing still they do not exclude others by a law, and thereby lay a publie reproach or odium upon those who have no way deserved it. If therebe a just and complete toleration of every such sect or re- ligion, as Both not hinder the public peace of the state, I do not see that the lesser sects have reason to complain, that they are not actually made rulers and officers of the state ; pro- vided always that thereare no offices of burden and expence im- posed upon them, while they are not called into any offices of honour or profit. And if there are persons of worth and value, very fit in all respects to sustain public offices, and yet are of a different religion or different sect from the chief rulers and the bulk of thepeople, I think if must be determined by the wisdom of the rulers to judge where the superior balance lies, between the advantages arising from the good qualifications of the person, and the dangers which mayarise from the difference of his re- ligion ; and accordingly they must determine whether it be fit to entrust him with any such public office or no, to which he has no claim by nature or by law. Here an objection will arise from this concession, viz. If the supreme rulers should judge, that the superior balance of wisdom lies in guarding against the danger of persons of a different religion constantly, why may not this be expressed and confirmed by a law, which is but the constant and final determination of the supreme rulers ? But I answer as before, I. That, perhaps, it would not be just by a law, to lay any markof infamy, any public odium or civil incapacity on persons, merely on account of their religion, where in all other respects they deserve well of the state. Besides, H. 'The present determination of any supreme ruler not to snake such or such a man an officer or magistrate, because of the ruler's jealousy of his religion, reaches but to the pre-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=