, 1875-12-19

The CHuRCH SlUE Uf EAuHEA lAAA11UM.
The President has stated the question Of
taxing church property from the side Of the
State alone. Thus viewed, it is essy to see
that the State would gain by an impartial
system Of taxation Hence many may sup
pose that the Church would be correspond
inely the loser. But this does not follow,
since in every proceeding Of true equity Ill
parties are really the gamers, as in an honest
inter-trede in business, It is not to be de-
MED, indeed, that church expenses would be
somewhat increased by the tax laid but this
would be partly met by the decrease Of the
individual tax of the members Of the congre-
cation, each of whom now pays his own
share and portion Of that Of the Church
also. The poor churches have cheap houses
of worship, and their tax would be small.
They might think it burden at first; and SO
they would think their insurance burden If
somebody had always paid it for them but
in time they would become accustomed to the
necessary expense. Our forebodings Of evil
in changing from old customs are usually ex-
aggerated.
Take parallel instance. The clergy used
to be exempt from military service; and some
Of them were foolish enough to complain
when they were subjected to the draft in the
Late War. But cal1ner thought showed that
nations claim, in time Of deadly struggle,
is upon all citizens alike; and this claim
clergyman should rejoice to meet, that he
might exhibit the came patriotism with the
members Of his flock To be exempt was an
injustice to others; it took from the bright
ness Of his example as a patriot; aud it di-
11linished his influence with the people. The
case is the same in the States (suoh as New
York; which exempt the clergy from taxi
ton. It was common to balance this by de-
priving them of right to vote, or to hold
Office. But who cannot see that it is more
honorable for the clergy to bear the same
burdens Of taxation with others, and then to
enjoy similar privileges? They are thus
more self-respecting, and can freely
appeal to others in matters Of State policy.
The exemption usage furnishes an argument
to infdslity. Thus MORLEY, the biographer
of VoLTARE, writes: !" The direct refusal Of
the clergy in 1850 to consent to pay their
owning as much as q fifth Of all the property
in the realm- moved him to insist, in q Wig
orous pamphlet, that the distinction in a
kingdom between spiritual and temporal
powers is relic Of barbnrism;
that superstition inevitably tends to make bud
citizens, and therefore Princes ought to pro-
tect philosophy, which destroys superstition" ="
It needs small argument to ahov that when.
in this matter Of tax-paying, the clergy and
the churches shall SGT the example Of t:ren-
dering unto CESAR the things that are
C.zsAR's, they will have more power in ap-
pea]ing to the irre1igious to render "unto
God the thicgs that are Gods"
It is to the true honor of the churches that
they should break this Inst link which cor
meets them with the State, and mikes them
the recipients Of its bounty. The primitive
churches had no State charity, in gifts or in
exemptions; and why should modern church.
es receive it which abound so much more in
wealth? II churches are to be viewed as be-
nevolent insttutions,-which they are only
in pazt,-why should they ask others to as
sume a portion Of their bsaefactions7 Lst
eaah man do hia OWN giving. IN thu mAstss