But what if the magistrate believe such a law as this to be for the public good? I answer: As the private judgement of any particular person, if erroneous, does not exempt him from the obligation of law, so the private judgement (as I may call it) of the magistrate does not give him any new right of imposing laws upon his subjects, which neither was in the constitution of the government granted him, nor ever was in the power of the people to grant, much less if he make it his business to enrich and advance his followers and fellow-sectaries with the spoils of others. But what if the magistrate believe that he has a right to make such laws and that they are for the public good, and his subjects believe the contrary? Who shall be judge between them? I answer: God alone. For there is no judge upon earth between the supreme magistrate and the people. God, I say, is the only judge in this case, who will retribute unto every one at the last day according to his deserts; that is, according to his sincerity and uprightness in endeavouring to promote piety, and the public weal, and peace of mankind. But What shall be done in the meanwhile? I answer: The principal and chief care of every one ought to be of his own soul first, and, in the next place, of the public peace; though yet there are very few will think it is peace there, where they see all laid waste.--John Locke A Letter Concerning Toleration (translated by William Popple).
In the final quoted line Locke echoes -- as the editor (Mark Goldie) of the volume that I use in my teaching also notes -- if not plagiarizes, the famous, spirited speech by the to-be-vanquished-Galgacus in Tacitus Agricola (recall this post). As I noted a year ago, Hume rejects Tacitus's treatment of Galgalus.
I still think Hume's reasons for ignoring Tacitus use of Galgacus have to do with his defense of empire and Union and his rejection (as the distinguished scholar, Aaron Garrett, noted in his comments) of Jacobite cause. Even so, it's also possible that Hume is sensitive to Locke's use of Galgacus. For, Hume thinks it is important that the state maintains tight control over religion. At his most visionary, Hume argues for tight state control over religion: "The [state] council of religion and learning inspects the universities and clergy." (Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth) While Locke does not go so far as Adam Smith, and argue for complete dis-establishment, Locke is quite clear that the state should try to minimize interference with and control over religion. For, as he notes "there is only one thing which gathers people into seditious commotions, and that is oppression." (In context, Locke is thinking of religious oppression, but he is also clear the point generalizes.) That is to say, while Hume likes some freedom, especially the commercial ones, he prefers his freedoms constrained by lawful authority; Locke agrees, of course, but his embrace of Galgacus suggests he tends toward a more Liberal position.
Comments