The Eclectic Review for carried a review of two books about Robert Peel that digressed into a defense of conscientious tax resistance. Some excerpts:
On the subject of Church Rates, Sir Robert’s ethics are particularly
profound. “When,” says he, “the honourable member for Leeds, (Mr. Baines,)
says, that he hopes there will be an end to all imprisonment for the
non-payment of church rates, I am afraid I cannot concur in that hope; for,
if a demand be made in pursuance of the law of the land, and there is a
refusal to pay that demand, it will be impossible to determine whether that
refusal arises from conscientious feeling or from contumacy… whilst the law
remains the same, authorizing the imposition, I see no alternative but to
obey the law; and, if parties refuse that obedience, they must take the
consequence, otherwise there will be a dissolution of the bonds of society.” — Case of John Thorogood, .
Here, a footnote:
The Editor of the “Opinions of Sir Robert Peel” states, in a foot note upon
this passage, that John Thorogood, of Bungay, Essex, was imprisoned for a
very considerable period, for non-payment of church rates. We fear, that Sir
Robert too much resembles his chonicler in his ignorance of all that relates
to dissenters. Our editor here is singularly prolific of blunders. Mr.
Thorogood never lived at Bungay. Bungay never was in Essex, and the prisoner
never was confined for non-payment of church rates, but for contempt of court…
The review continues:
Unquestionably, the best method of testing the accuracy of a general
principle, is to apply it to an extreme case. We will suppose then, the law
which Sir Robert is for enforcing, to be, that every man should be impaled
and burnt, who does not recant the protestant faith, and profess his
adherence, either to
puseyism or
popery, at his option. To such a case the principle of Sir Robert manifestly
applies; and, we can imagine him saying, with his bland smile and urbane air,
over his box on the table of the House of Commons, “if this demand be made in
pursuance of the law of the land, and there is a refusal to comply with that
demand, it will be impossible to determine whether that refusal arises from
conscientious feeling or from contumacy. Whilst the law remains, I see no
alternative but to obey it, and, if parties refuse that obedience, they must
take the consequence, otherwise there would be a dissolution of the
bonds of society.”
…[E]xpediency is the grinding law of his political system… We refer to the
rule as laid down in the matter of church rates, with reference to the duty
of subjects to obey the existing laws of their country. We should not deem it
necessary to recur to this subject, but for the very erroneous opinions
which, as we conceive, prevail most extensively amongst the professed
advocates of religious freedom. It is very generally maintained, both in and
out of parliament, that the established religion of this country should be
maintained by the pecuniary support of all, whether belonging to or
dissenting from its religious tenets, on the ground that the law of the land
enforces such support; and that the authority of such law should be paramount
amongst all christian communities. We think that it becomes the christian
world at large to give their most serious attention to this principle. It has
long been the fashion to regard abstract principles of right or wrong as
altogether inadmissible to the courts, both of civil and ecclesiastical
jurisprudence. The lofty, we might almost say, unequalled genius of Mr.
Burke, has stamped a current and nominal value on this fiction, which it by
no means deserves. The vulgar have come to regard it as a sort of text of
political scripture; or rather, perhaps, with that selfish awe with which
those contemplate a piece of bank paper, who have been deluded by the
declaration of an eminent statesman, that a one pound note and a shilling are
to all intents and purposes equivalent to a guinea. Mr. Burke indeed tells
us, that abstract principles of right applied to the concerns of civil
society, are like rays of light penetrating into a dense medium, which become
refracted from their own original direction; and, under the shadow of Mr.
Burke’s genius, many no doubt have taken up with the philosophy of existing
laws, and deemed all national inovation as little less than profane. But in
this matter it become the servants of Christ to recollect, that they are
placed under two systems of law, to each of which they owe a suitable and
proportionate obedience. A certain denomination of professing christians is
established among us, supported by the patronage of government, and the
authority of law. Under this system, doctrines are formally propounded which
we regard as hostile to the dictates of the religion of Christ. The problem
we have to solve is simply this: are we to obey the government, existing
pro tempore, or that authority which existed under supreme
sanction, before our little policy was even predicted; and which will exist
in undiminished force when our very history shall have been transmuted into
tradition. Are we, in a word, to obey the eternal truth of God, or to conform
to the shifting expedients of men. In this dilemma, we have at least the
precedent of the inspired apostles. If the dictum of Sir R. Peel is deserving
of even a transient thought, the inspired apostles were wrong; they were
guilty of a seditious violation of the law, and set the example of impious
insubordination to all their successors in the christian faith. We may say,
without irreverence, that the position of the inspired apostles was precisely
similar to that of conscientious dissenters of the present day. The pagan
forms of hostility to the christian religion stood in their way, backed by
the power of imperial Rome; and before us stands a system of spurious
christianity, with its baptismal regeneration, its apostolical succession,
its confirmation and absolution, its creeds and formularies, scarcely less
opposed to the revealed will of God. The question is now what it was then — Will you support by your contribution, your subscription, or any other form
of adhesion, what you regard as directly opposed to the revealed will of God?
Sir Robert Peel says, at all hazards obey the law of the land; we say,
“whether it is right to obey God or men, judge ye.”
The question respecting the duties of dissenters, in reference to the
pecuniary support of the established church, is of so very simple a kind,
that any difference of opinion with regard to it, especially in the minds of
Christian men, becomes a matter of mere astonishment. Such men admit it to be
their highest duty to propagate the pure truth of the gospel, and not only to
refuse their support, but to offer their utmost resistance to all systems of
opinion which are inconsistent with that truth. Such persons hold as the most
sacred aud fundamental doctrine of their faith, that mankind can only be
saved by repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; whereas
the Anglican church teaches, that unconscious infants are regenerated by
baptism, that in that rite they are made “members of Christ, children of God,
and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.”
Several other such examples of Anglicans-are-ridiculous-crypto-papists whereas we-are-following-the-one-true-faith follow.
It is unnecessary to enumerate farther what we consider to he the vital
errors held by the established church of this country. We have cited some
which appear to us to attack the very vitals of the Christian religion. Can
it be a question with one who is well instructed in the truth of the gospel,
jealous for its integrity, and solicitous for its extension, whether he
should contribute to the propagation of such dangerous errors as have just
been indicated? Would not this be to scatter poisons with one hand, and to
proffer antidotes with the other? And if the claims of God are paramount to
the authority of man, and the duty of allegiance to him far more binding than
the conventional proprieties of human politics, we cannot imagine any man who
holds those principles which we have here assumed, supporting by any means,
direct or indirect, the pernicious doctrines to which they stand opposed. To
plead in excuse that we are bound to obey existing laws, is at once and
deliberately to postpone the authority of God to that of man, and would
necessarily involve the co-operation of those who hold it in a legal effort
to extirpate Christianity itself from the world. On the other hand, those who
protest against these principles, but still contribute to their propagation,
because that course is prescribed by law, and excuse themselves under the
plea that while they feel bound to obey the law as it exists, they are doing
their best to secure its repeal, incur a practical absurdity of a kind, if
possible, still more flagrant. They allow the legislature to fix them in this
dilemma: “You cannot pretend that your conscience forbids you thus to support
the hierarchy because, in defiance of such scruples, you do so every day;
while, on the other hand, your objection, if only of a political or
economical nature, we must treat as we should a peculiar antipathy to
assessed taxes, or an irresistible passion for smuggling.” It appears to us
most evident that the only ground on which dissenters can consistently oppose
ecclesiastical imposts is the ground of conscience, and that the only way of
making such an objection intelligible to others is religiously and
unswervingly to act upon it.
