PART II. against Christians, the public, I am sure, has not; but, on the contrary, very great reason to thank us for the custom we pay, with the same conscience we abstain from stealing."* It is impossible, however, fairly to deduce from these statements any thing more than this, that the Christians conscientiously paid civil tribute; and it would be quite as good reasoning to conclude, that the Christians worshipped idols when the magistrates required them, because their apologists say, that they scrupulously obeyed the laws,―as to conclude, that the Christians contributed to the support of idolatry, if required by the magistrate, because their apologists say, that they cheerfully paid tribute. Evidence on the other side. While there is no evidence on the one side, there is evidence on the other, part of which has already been adduced. While Tertullian's words may admit a question, as to the degree and extent in which the religious rates, to which he refers, were compulsory, however that question may be settled, they show that the Christians did not,-would not, directly contribute to the support of what they knew to be wrong. There is a remarkable incident, recorded by more than one of the early ecclesiastical historians, which is calculated to throw light on a subject so interesting as the conduct of the early Christians, in reference to direct contribution to the support of heathen idolatry. Case of Mar- Marcus, the bishop of Arethusa, a city in Syria, having, during the reign of Constantius, been ac cus of Are thusa. * Tertull. Apolog. cap. xliii. Reeves' translation, vol. i. pp. 323, 324. 8vo. Lond. 1716.-Vide Note XXVIII. tive in destroying a heathen temple in that city, PART II. and remarkably zealous in promoting the interests of Christianity, had brought upon himself the extreme dislike of the Pagan citizens. On Julian's assuming the purple, he was subjected to severe persecution, to avoid which he fled, in accordance with the command of our Lord.* On finding, however, that his flock were exposed to great hardships on his account, he returned, and was commanded to rebuild the temple, or pay the expense of having it rebuilt. He obstinately refused to do either; and submitted to the most excruciating tortures even to death, rather than contribute one obolus to such a purpose, "thus resisting unto blood, striving against sin."† tion. Of our information, then, on the interesting Recapitulasubject of the conduct of the primitive Christians, in reference to the payment of tribute for the direct support of idolatry, which was the established religion of the empire," this is the sum." The only tax avowedly imposed for the support of idolatry, to which we have reason to believe any of the primitive Christians were liable, we have equal reason to believe they refused to pay, though by doing so, they exposed themselves to severe persecution. To have acted in any other way would have been utterly incongruous with their behaviour as to military service, and their scrupulous care to avoid every thing which could be *Matt. x. 23. + Sozomen, Hist. Lib. v. c. x. p. 194, Folio. Cantab. 1720. Theodorit. Ecc. Hist. Lib. iii. c. vii. pp. 128, 129, Fol. Cantab. 1720. Vide Note XXIX. PART II. construed into a sanction of idolatry in any of its innumerable forms. On the supposition, which is in the highest degree probable, that when the apostle wrote, the Christians were not subject to any tax levied avowedly for the support of idolatry, it is obvious that the apostolic command to pay all civil tributes, could not contain in it an injunction to pay such a religious tax, should it afterwards be imposed; and even on the supposition, which is in the highest degree improbable, that the Christians were at that time liable to such an impost, the general command to pay civil tribute, no more bound them to pay such a tax, when demanded by the magistrate, than the general command to yield civil obedience, bound them, when ordered by the magistrate, to burn incense on an idol's altar; both commands being limited by the great fundamental principle of human duty. In fine, while there is no evidencenor the shadow of it, that the primitive Christians paid tribute for the specific purpose of supporting idolatry, there is evidence both direct and collateral on the opposite side; the direct evidence proving that, in the only case in which we have reason to think that such tribute was demanded, it was refused at the expense not only of property but of life-torture and death being submitted to in preference to the violation of conscience, felt to be involved in paying it;—the collateral evidence proving that the payment of such a tribute had it in other cases been demanded of them, would have been utterly incompatible with their principles and feelings, strongly and habitually express ed in their self-denying abstinence, at whatever PART II. expense, from every practice which had the slightest idolatrous taint, however innocent in itself, and however conducive to their temporal interests. tation. A second limitation under which the law of Second limi tribute was binding on the Roman Christians, was the legality of the imposition and collection of the tribute. They were not morally bound to pay any taxes not imposed by the authority, to whose province, according to the constitution of the Roman imperial government, this department of administration belonged, nor to pay taxes to any, but to those appointed for this purpose. Without sin they might submit to what they knew to be oppression; but if they paid in these circumstances, it was rather "for wrath" than for "conscience' sake," not from any direct obligation, but from the general obligation that, in morally indifferent actions, we are bound to do what upon the whole is likely to be followed by the best consequences. tion. The only other set of limitations with respect Third limitato the payment of tribute, rises out of the magistrate's transgressing the proper limits of his province, and interfering in matters not belonging to him. Under this head, as well as the first, come all taxes for the support of religion,—that being an affair with which the civil magistrate, in his public character, has no concern.* "If it be a right of kings and rulers to prescribe the creed and manner of worship, with its appendages, to their subjects, and to enforce their concurrence, it must be equally the right of all kings; for they all think, or profess to think, their own re PART II. On the supposition that the Roman Christians were called on by the Roman government to pay taxes specifically for an immoral purpose, or ille ligion to be the true religion. Again, if it be the duty of Christian kings and rulers to prescribe these things to their subjects, it is equally the duty of all kings, and for the same reason. This is the palladium of those who oppose establishments, and how shall we deprive them of it?" These are the words of a candid and liberal churchman-the Rev. Thomas Scott the commentator, in a treatise "On the Evil of Separation,"—quoted by Conder, in his judicious work on non-conformity. The following illustration of the principles, by the witty Robinson of Cambridge, is an amusing example of the "reductio ad absurdum :" Suppose a modern clergyman, animated with the spirit of Paul, should go on a mission to the savages of Canada; what method would he use to establish the faith? Whether he went to the Algonquins, whose kingdom is elective; or to the Hurons, whose kingdom is hereditary, it would be immaterial; in both he would find a chief magistrate, who has nothing to do to cure a refractory subject, but to say to one of his guards, "Go and rid me of that dog." Considering what influence the tyrant's rank naturally gives him, he would endeavour to conciliate himself to him first, and to obtain, if possible, his good graces. He would for the present content himself with secretly abhorring a savage despotism, which he could not control, and probably would avail himself of Hobbes' maxim, who used to say, that "if he was in a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, he would take hold of it, to be drawn out by it." Suppose his majesty should indulge him with an audience, would he dare say to him, "Sire, I am an ambassador of the Great Spirit who made, who preserves, and who after death will judge and reward or punish all mankind. The obedience which he requires is partly dictated by men's consciences, and fully explained in this book in my hand; a book which the Great Spirit commanded to be written for our instruction, and received under pain of his displeasure. Your majesty, however, has the same authority in this nation as other kings have in their dominions, and it remains with you to determine whether these things be true or false. Not only have none of your subjects a right of examining and determining for himself, but I myself, consistent with my notion of your majesty's supremacy, an ready to renounce all, but what your majesty believes, as long as I am in |