CHAP. III.

OF THE MAGISTRATE'S RIGHT TO ENCOURAGE TRUE

RELIGION; WHEREIN IS SHEWN, SECONDLY, HOW

THIS RIGHT STANDS UNDER THE GOSPEL REVELATION.

IT being clear then that the magistrate has a right to encourage true religion, by and under the law of nature; our next business must be to consider how the case stands under the light of revelation. In pursuing which point, I do not purpose to begin with the Old Testament; for that under the law the magistrate was by divine appointment vested with the care of religion is allowed on all hands, and therefore there needs to be no dispute about it. But then they tell us that this was a thing peculiar to the legal dispensation, which being entirely distinct from the evangelical, there can therefore be no arguing from the one to the other. Now this I confess, that the magistrate's having a right under the law to take care of religion, is of itself no direct proof that such a right is also vested in the Christian magistrate: but then I think also that it is of great weight, considered as a collateral evidence; and how far the argument will go, I shall not forget to take notice at a more proper season. At present I go to the Gospel, and the point is, whether, as the magistrate under the law of nature has a right to encourage religion,

as taught by the law of nature; so the magistrate under the Gospel, i. e. the Christian magistrate, has not also a right to encourage religion as taught by the Gospel.

It has afore been observed, and I presume it will readily be allowed, that what right the magistrate always had by the law of nature; the same right and no other he has still under the Gospel, unless the Gospel hath made any difference. The question therefore is, whether, so far as a general right to encourage true religion is concerned, the Gospel hath made any difference or not; and I beg leave to say it hath made none. For if there be any difference, that difference must arise from hence, viz. either, 1. that the Gospel hath by some positive command prohibited the Christian magistrate to concern himself with its religion; or, 2. that, in the nature of the thing, there is not the same reason why the Christian magistrate should concern himself with the religion of the Gospel; as there is that the magistrate not Christian should concern himself with the religion of nature. If I If I say there be any difference between these two cases, it must necessarily stand upon one or the other of these foundations: for what stronger argument can you desire to shew, that the Christian magistrate has a right to encourage Christianity, than this, viz. that the reason of the thing enforceth it, and that the Gospel forbids it not? Now that the Gospel no where forbids the

Christian magistrate to encourage Christianity, must be evident to any one who has ever read the Gospel; and whether it is reasonable for him to do it, will easily appear by looking back to the arguments that have been alleged in the foregoing chapter, and considering whether what they infer with respect to natural religion, they do not infer with regard to revelation also.

In examining this point you may remember, that I argued first of all from the end of the magistrate's office, considered as he is the guardian of the public civil good. And under this head I observed, that if it be the business of the magistrate to secure the happiness of civil societies; it must be his business to secure the practice of true religion, upon which the happiness of society necessarily depends; and that 1. as the happiness of society has a necessary dependance upon the behaviour of the subject, upon which religion, or the want, of it, must always have a very sensible influence; and, 2. as the happiness of society is. concerned in the pleasure or displeasure of Almighty God, who blesseth those who pay a due reverence to his name, and frequently punisheth whole nations for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. Now as to the first of these two reasons, it must be acknowledged, that directly and immediately it relates to the principles of natural religion only; because the performance of natural duties, i. e. the duties of morality, implies all that good

behaviour which is necessary to the being, or wellbeing of a civil society considered as such. It is not essential to the being of civil government that the members of it are Christians; nor does a man's faith, with respect to revealed truths,, render him a better subject any otherwise than as it leads him to better manners, i. e. as it makes him a more moral man. But true morality may subsist in those who have no faith; and if it does, the habitude which they bear to civil society (so far as this reason carries us) will be the very same.

It is nevertheless proper to observe, that though moral virtue may subsist even in those who have no faith, yet that morality is best secured by the religion of the Gospel, the precepts and motives of which are by all acknowledged to be both an improvement and an enforcement of the law of nature and by consequence that the magistrate is still concerned to take care of Christianity, if not for its own sake, yet for the sake and on the account of morality. And this I would have understood not only of Christianity in general and at large; but of its particular branches. For the whole subsists by its parts; and whatever weakens or destroys one article of faith, has a manifest tendency to weaken and destroy all the rest. It must farther be observed, that there is no one part of the Christian doctrine which does not one way or another, in a greater degree or in a less, contribute towards the advancement of virtue and piety,

For either it is subservient to some greater point, upon which the certainty of our religion does more immediately depend: either it directly points out to us our duty, or administers some help to make the performance of it more easy to us, or furnishes us with some wise and weighty considerations, why we ought to be diligent and industrious in our heavenly calling. If there is room for any exception in this case, it should seem to lie against the positive institutions of the Gospel. But we must not fasten so great a reproach upon the author and finisher of our faith, as to suppose that these external rites are useless, insignificant ceremonies. We should rather consider them (for such indeed they are) as proper helps to the infirmities of flesh and blood, and as instruments ordained by God to secure that inward essential holiness, which is the, end of our profession. There is no need for me to enlarge upon these points, because they contain no more than what every Christian, I presume, will readily acknowledge, and what any man of common sense may easily understand. I shall only remark that what is true of the original and standing laws of the Gospel, of which Christ himself is the immediate author; is proportionably true of those by-laws (if I may so call them) relating to order and discipline, which are at any time appointed by persons acting by authority under him, the true use whereof undoubtedly is, the securing the profession of a right faith, and the practice of