PART II. made its appearance, the ground on which it rested was rather dissatisfaction with the corruptions of the Establishment, than disapprobation of the Establishment itself; and in consequence of this, there was little conscientious scruple as to the support of that which, though seen to be at present corrupt, was considered as capable of being converted into an important instrument of good.* Views and conduct of the Friends. Progress of the Volun ple. The Friends, commonly called the Quakers, from the commencement of their existence as a separate religious body, have held the principle of the inconsistency of a civil Establishment of religion with the essential principles of Christianity, and with beautiful straight-forwardness, have followed out their conviction to its fair practical consequences, by refusing, at all hazards, every thing like positive support to a system, which they conscientiously condemned.† The true fundamental principle of dissent-the tary princi- voluntary principle-steadily but gradually made its way among the denominations of Christians, whom the corruptions of the Establishments had driven from their communion, till it has become almost a universal characteristic. Notwithstanding this, with the exception of a very few individuals, the great body of these denominations continued to pay the religious taxes; and the defences, or rather apologies, to be met with for their conduct in their writings, show how very willingly they clung to any thing which wore the appearance of a reason, which could excuse them from taking a course, which must have exposed * Vide Note XXXIII. + Vide Note XXXIV. them not only to obloquy and spoiling of their PART II. goods, but which must have broken up many pleasant and useful connexions which they had formed with Churchmen. Few things have amazed me more than the flimsiness of the pretexts under which Dissenters have attempted to escape from the charge of inconsistency, and "building again the things which they had destroyed," in contributing to the support of a system which they both implicitly and explicitly, condemned as unscriptural, unjust, and impolitic.* ment of church taxes with that Of late the attention of the Christian public, in Is the payboth ends of the island, has been strongly turned consistent to this subject; and I am sure I do not over- principle? state the truth when I say, that in few questions are the minds of conscientious men at present more painfully interested, than how far they are warranted, by the voluntary payment of church taxes, to contribute to the permanence of an order of things, which they are fully persuaded is inconsistent with the mind of God and the law of Christ Jesus. That the civil Establishment of religion in any form is so, is my firm conviction; and though it is no object of this lecture to discuss that point, already in my estimation enough has been said to show, that this conviction rests on immoveable foundations.‡ stated The question which is now before us, is not The question whether civil Establishments are in accordance with or in opposition to the will of God; but whether a person, who is conscientiously con * Vide Note XXXV. + Vide Note XXXVI. PART II. vinced that they are not accordant with,—that they are opposed to that will,—is morally bound, or can even safely consent, to pay a tax specifically imposed for their maintenance. The determination of this question depends on the circumstance, whether in the estimation of the individual, and in truth, the voluntary payment of a tax for that specific purpose, is, on his part, to sanction and support that which he accounts to be sinful. -and resolv ed. I most cordially agree in the sentiment expressed with his usual terseness and force, by my much esteemed friend and brother, Mr Marshall, to whom so prominent a place has been assigned in this holy warfare, and who has so worthily fulfilled its difficult duties; that to make it the obvious duty of a man to refuse payment of a tax levied for ecclesiastical purposes by the civil power, a conviction both that its object is sinful, and that its payment is an implied approbation of that object, is necessary: "Though we be convinced that ecclesiastical demands are unjust, and impolitic, and oppressive, we are not warranted on Christian principles," I would rather say, not bound by Christian principles, "to refuse compliance with them, so long as they are the law of the land. We are warranted, indeed, in such a case, and not only warranted but required, to use every exertion to have the law repealed; yet the method of passive resistance, as it is called, seems not a constitutional but vexatious method, calculated to embarrass the civil government, and therefore not to be resorted to" except where duty compels, " by those who wish to lead quiet and peaceable lives, PART II. in godliness and honesty. On the other hand, if the law which sanctions the ecclesiastical demands be regarded as a sinful law; if it be considered as invading the prerogatives of God and of his Son Jesus Christ; if the government which makes and enforces it, appears to step beyond its proper sphere, and to legislate where no earthly authority should dare to intermeddle-in that case, it would seem that to yield active compliance would be to violate every principle of duty, and to obey men rather than God."* The only two principles on which the conduct of a person who conscientiously disapproves of civil Establishments, can be defended in paying a tax for their support, are, either that the payment of a tax is not a moral act, or that though it is, it does not imply in it any sanction to an undue interference with the prerogatives of God or of his Son Jesus Christ. The first of these principles has already been fully discussed, and, I apprehend, satisfactorily disposed of.† tablishment of religion police. The most plausible form which the second of A civil Esthese principles assumes, is this;-that the civil not a moral government, in establishing a particular form of religion, does not interfere with the prerogatives of God, or the laws of Christ, or the rights of conscience at all, but merely employs a certain class of religious teachers, as a species of moral police, for the prevention of crime and the promoting of good order. This seems to be Warburton's argument, who says, "that it is unjust in any who are * Marshall's Reply to Inglis, p. 282. + Pp. 132-134 supra. M PART II. not of the Established Church to refuse payment of tithes, as they contribute to the maintenance of opinions different from their own, because this maintenance is not assigned by the public for the support of opinions, but for the use and necessities of the state: With as good reason, therefore, might they refuse to pay other taxes which, in their several applications, are for the same civil purpose. The difference is only accidental: church officers happen to have religious opinions, and civil officers sometimes none.' This statement, though it is in some degree specious, is not at all satisfactory. For, in the first place, the assertion is not true. What is established, or pretended to be established, by public civil authority in both countries, is not a moral police; but the Christian religion, and the Christian church. The doctrines of the one, and the ordinances of the other, are sanctioned and * Warburton's Alliance, Book ii. Chap. iii. pp. 124, 125.— Warburton saw clearly that on no other principle could the justice of requiring Dissenters to contribute to the support of an establishment be maintained. He distinctly states, 66 that no contribution to a public maintenance, could be lawfully demanded of those who are not members, of an unestablished church; for in this case it would be indeed for maintenance of opinions which they think erroneous: to which no one can be obliged to contribute as they justly may to what by covenant and compact is expressly directed to promote the good of that civil policy of which they are members."-P. 126. According to the Bishop, if a tax is exacted for the maintenance of certain religious opinions solely, then no one who disapproves of these, can be obliged to contribute. On this principle he would have decidedly condemned regium donum, and parliamentary grants to dissenting bodies. It is only as civil functionaries that clergy can have any claim on public support—and to make them civil functionaries, they must be allied to the State. |