PART II. from an authority which should be a very high one, that this is a principle which we cannot be permitted even to discuss-" a question not admitting, on Christian principles, of argument or debate."* The time is gone by, we rather think, for prescribing with effect such limits to the range of free inquiry, on any question of this kind. Men are not now in the habit of requesting permission on these occasions, either from their civil or ecclesiastical superiors; and any attempt to give advice on such a subject, where it is not asked, especially when there may be some ground for suspecting that the advice is not altogether disinterested, will rather quicken than slake the appetite for full information. The question a fair one. In truth, why should we be backward to make any principle the subject of fair and full investigation? The burning words of Milton are equally applicable to our times, as to those in which they were spoken. The temple of Janus, with his two controversal faces, might now not insignificantly be set open. And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, * Memorial of the Clergy of Edinburgh.-All clergymen are not of their mind. An English prelate writes thus: "It is a question which might admit of serious discussion, whether the majority of the members of any civil community have a right to compel all the members of it, to pay towards the maintenance of a set of teachers appointed by the majority to preach a particular system of doctrine."-Quarterly Review, Vol. xxix. p. 525. The English prelate seems much less High Church in his views than the Scottish Presbyters. He had Ireland, however, in his view, where the "majority" principle (however well it may suit the church's interests for England), if followed out, would lead to rather alarming results. so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously to mis- PART II. doubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing. Who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies nor stratagems to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her when she sleeps; for then she speaks not true, as the old Proteus did, who spake oracles only when he was caught and bound, but then rather she turns herself into all shapes except her own, and perhaps tunes her voice according to the time, as Micaiah did before Ahab, until she be adjured into her own likeness."* Christian moralists. The attempt to put down the doctrine that the Opinions of law of tribute has limits, by representing it as opposed to a principle so settled that it must never again be touched, will not only, I believe, prove a fruitless one, or rather produce fruits of an opposite kind to those sought for, but it is in direct opposition to the great body of Christian moralists, with whose works I am acquainted, who generally hold that paying tribute, with other forms of civil obedience, is not of unlimited obligation, and seem to fear no immediate disorganization of civil order, either from the promulgation of the doctrine, or from its being acted upon. "It is not our duty (ovde det)," says Theodoret, Theodoret. "to obey the magistrate in every thing; but Areopagitica, a Speech of Mr John Milton, pp. 35, 36. 4to. Lond. 1644. PART II. while we are bound to pay tax and tribute, and to render honour to them who deserve it, should they enjoin any thing sinful, we must determinedly gainsay them."* John Knox. M'Ward. Jeremy Taylor John Knox, addressing the nobility of Scotland in the name of the "congregation of Christ Jesus within the same," says, in reference to the Popish established clergy, "If they be evil trees,' as ye yourselves must be compelled to say they are, advise prudently with what consciences ye can maintain them. The name and cloak of authority which ye pretend, will nothing excuse you in God's presence, but rather shall ye bear double condemnation, for that ye burden God, as that his good ordinances were the cause of your iniquity."+ In the pithy language of our persecuted ancestors, "Tyrant's exactions, enacted and exacted for promoting their wicked designs against religion and liberty: hireling's salaries, for encouraging them in their intrusion upon the church of God: arbitrary impositions of pecuniary punishments for clear duties,-are nowise due, and cannot be debt, and therefore it is no equity to pay them."‡ Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who will scarcely be accused of being too lax a casuist on questions of this kind, expressly states, that "the laws of tribute have the same conditions, causes, powers, *Theodoret in Tit. iii. 1. + History of the Reformation in Scotland, by John Knox, p. 118. M'Gavin's edit. 8vo. Glasgow, 1831. M'Ward and Brown in the Hind let Loose, p. 703. and measures, with other laws of government. PART II. This rule requires that the authority be supreme, -that the cause be just,-that the end be public, -that the good be general,-that the people receive advantage.' ""* Haddington. In his "Compendious View of Natural and Brown of Revealed Religion," a respected ancestor of my own, whose views with regard to the powers of the magistrate went a good deal farther than mine go, in his enumeration of the duties of subjects to their magistrates, mentions, (3.) Subjection to their just laws,―(4). Cheerful payment of their just taxes:" thus obviously placing tribute on the same level as other forms of civil duty; and intimating that, in his opinion, it might be made a question, whether unjust laws should be obeyed, and unjust taxes paid."† "God," says President Dwight, "has wisely Dwight. and benevolently required mankind to render tribute and custom, when lawfully demanded."‡ tion,-the moral object Unterrified, then, by the attempt to warn us First limitaoff this field of discussion, as too sacred to be avowed immade debatable, we proceed to inquire, whether of a tax. the laws of tribute have any limits to us, and if so, what they are? And first, then, I apprehend, that on the clearest principles of moral obligation, we are not-we cannot be bound to pay a tax levied for a specific purpose, if that purpose is immoral or impious; and every thing must be * Taylor's Duct. Dubit. p. 519. + Brown's Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 542. Glasgow, 1782. Dwight's Theology, vol. iv. p. 153. Vide Note XXX. PART II. regarded as such by us, which, according to our honest convictions, possesses these qualities. Taxes for specific ob dient The imposition of taxes, for specific purposes, jects inexpe- is a mode of administering government which suits only a very imperfect or a very advanced state of civil society. Where the great body of the people are ignorant, and have been accustomed to take the mere will of the rulers as a sufficient reason for yielding obedience, it may be safe enough; or, where both the magistrates and the subjects are so enlightened, as that the former are not likely to enter on any unjust or unwise enterprise, and the latter are sure not to be disposed to withhold the due support to every enterprise that is wise and just-it may not only be safe, but advantageous. But in such a state of things as prevails in the best constituted communities the world has ever yet seen, when governors will occasionally, either intentionally or unintentionally, seek not the best ends by not the best means, and when subjects are often ill qualified to judge on such points, and too much under the influence of selfishness to let even such judgment as they possess fairly exert itself, there can be no doubt that by far the best arrangement is to raise the necessary revenue under the general name of tribute, for the support of all the functionaries, and gaining all the ends of government.* Had this been the case in this * HOBBES Seems to have seen this distinctly, so far as war-taxes are concerned. "Pecunia, belli causa, si civitatem salvam esse volumus, tempore pacis congerenda est.”—Elementa Philosophica de cive, C.xiii. S. viii. p. 220. Amst. 1647. |