THE 
 
 DUTY OF PAYING TRIBUTE ENFORCED, 
 
 SUs 7 ■ ' < * 1 
 
 ' V. 
 
 IN LETTERS 
 
 REV. DR. JOHN BROWN, 
 
 OCCASIONED BY HIS RESISTING THE PAYMENT OF 
 
 THE ANNUITY TAX. 
 
 by 
 
 ROBERT HALDANE, Esquire. 
 
 & 
 
 GTlmt) ^Hjougani). 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 SiMPKIN AND MARSHALL. IPSWICH ,T M. BURTON. 
 
 1840 . 
 

 
 •3JC.X 
 
 M \£.9fl 
 
 INDEX 
 
 xetter 
 
 I.* TO THE REV. DR. BROWN 
 
 7 
 
 II. THE DUTY OF PAYING TRIBUTE 
 
 8 
 
 III. REMARKS ON DR. BROWN’S DISCOURSES RESPECTING CIVIL OBEDIENCE 
 
 14 
 
 AND THE PAYMENT OF TRIBUTE 
 
 IY. REMARKS ON DR. BROWN’S DISCOURSES RESPECTING CIVIL OBEDIENCE 
 
 AND THE PAYMENT OF TRIBUTE—CONTINUED .... 22 
 
 Y. TAXES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTS. 30 
 
 VI. TAXES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTS—CONTINUED . . 36 
 
 VII. PASSIVE RESISTANCE 
 
 43 
 
 Dr. Brown, when he publicly declared his resolution not to pay the Annuity Tax, 
 affirmed that there were warrants against 1961 persons in Edinburgh on account of their 
 refusal to pay this tax. Immediately after the publication of the following letters, this 
 number of 1961 was reduced to fifteen individuals; and the tax was afterwards levied 
 without difficulty; so completely was public opinion changed in the course of a few 
 days. If Dr. Brown could have established wnat lie had advanced, namely, that in 
 certain cases it is a duty not to pay tribute, and were this acted on, no Christian could 
 live in a heathen country, and an end would at once be put to sending out Missionaries. 
 
 * The numbering of the following letters refers only to this edition; the original 
 edition contained several others, which being of more local interest are here omitted. 
 
 J. M. BURTON, PRINTER, TAVERN STREET, IPSWICH. 
 
£o. ( 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The Annuity Tax referred to in the following letters, from which the Clergy 
 of the Established Church in Edinburgh derive their stipends, has existed for 
 about 200 years. To the payment of this tax a system of resistance has lately 
 been organized. Its first opponents appear to have been men immersed in the 
 politics of this world, who cared little for Christianity in any form. Of late, 
 however, the agitating party have so far prevailed, as to influence the conduct 
 of many of whom better things might be expected. 
 
 The progress of this species of agitation was chiefly alarming, as it indicated 
 the working of an opposition to lawful authority, the results of which may 
 ultimately be attended with tumult and bloodshed. It was therefore calculated 
 to awaken just indignation, when, at a public meeting in October last, the 
 Rev. Dr. John Brown stood forward and read a written declaration, pledging 
 himself to suffer any penalty, even to the extent of bonds and imprisonment, 
 rather than pay a tax which contributed to the support of the Clergy of the 
 Established Church. At the same time he stated, that he was one of 1961 
 individuals in Edinburgh, against whom warrants, on account of their refusal 
 to pay this tax, had been issued. The radical in politics, and the infidel in 
 religion, might probably laugh in secret at the abandonment of Christian duty 
 involved in Dr. Brown’s declaration; but considering the station which he 
 occupies as a leader in a large denomination of Christians, and as the theological 
 instructor of their future ministers, no one can deny that his influence and 
 example must be considerable either for good or evil. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that I felt it my duty to bring the conduct 
 of Dr. Brown to the test of the Word of God. I therefore addressed to him 
 a letter through the medium of the Edinburgh Advertiser. To that letter he 
 replied in a manner which proved how little he had calculated on the difflcul- 
 ^ ties of his position, and how much he was swayed by the tumultuous influence 
 ^ of worldly passions. He felt the keenness of the shaft that was winged with 
 4 truth, but instead of attributing its sting to the proper cause, he declared that 
 £ he was the object of a railing accusation, and that I might rail on without 
 9 further answer from him. He soon discovered that my arguments were not to 
 £ be so easily disposed of, and after more than once violating his pledge of 
 , '-^Bilence, he finally delivered to his congregation two elaborate discourses on 
 civil obedience and the payment of tribute, in which he reviewed the whole 
 subject, and printed them with copious notes, defending his resistance to the 
 Annuity Tax. 
 
 fy It has been my object in the following letters to expose Dr. Brown’s princi- 
 •o pies and conduct in the light of Scripture, and to prove, that in refusing 
 £ payment of a lawful tax he has sinned against God, and held himself out as an 
 example to others, who, by following his steps, will implicate themselves in 
 the same guilt. In every one of the questions discussed are involved principles 
 of lasting importance, which in the present age of change and agitation are 
 peculiarly deserving of attention. If the Bible be indeed the volume of God’s 
 holy Word; if it does contain the Christian’s rule of conduct, as delineated in 
 
 J 
 
 \ 
 
IV 
 
 its precepts and example by the finger of divine inspiration ; if it be the book 
 out of which men shall be judged at the last day ; with what horror ought we 
 to view the attempt to fritter down its meaning, so as to accommodate it to the 
 prejudices and the follies of latitudinarians in religion, or agitators in politics ! 
 If Dr. Brown is at liberty to trample on the law of Christ so far as it relates to 
 tribute; if, with impunity, he may give to the winds the solemn precepts of 
 the Apostle, why may not others more reckless, though not more daring in 
 their application of the Neologian theory, also venture to blot out of the Book 
 of God whatever happens to condemn a cherished sin, or run counter to any 
 of their preconceived notions. 
 
 Dr. Brown is not aware of the precipice on which he stands. He little 
 dreams of the awful responsibility in which he is involving himself. He may 
 take encouragement from the applause of those who use him as a political 
 tool, and m&y mistake the empty sound of flattery for the approbation of 
 enlightened men, but this is a poor substitute for the approval of God. In his 
 calmer hours, when away from the bustle and excitement of agitation, does he 
 not consider what is likely to be the effect of his example upon those who look 
 up to him as a guide ? Does he not think of the dangerous vortex in which he 
 is involving himself as well as others ? And if he hopes to escape the temptations 
 into which he plunges, has he the same confidence as to those whom he hurries 
 on in the like dangerous path ? 
 
 Had I not been deeply impressed with the importance of the subjects in 
 debate, I should not have come forward on this occasion. But in the peculiar 
 exigencies of the present times, there seems to be a loud call upon Christians, 
 according to their means and opportunities, to warn others of the dangers with 
 which they are threatened. Every successive age brings with it its own tempta¬ 
 tions, and to those whose perceptions are not clouded by their worldly politics, 
 or deadened with the jargon of party strife, it is very plain that we are now 
 living in times eminently perilous to the professors of religion. There are 
 seasons when such conduct as that of Dr. Brown would be injurious to none 
 but himself. But in an age like the present—an age of much excitement and 
 of political changes, it is no light matter to witness a minister of the gospel and 
 a theological professor, placing himself in the front ranks of agitation, and 
 heading an organized system of resistance to the laws of his country. 
 
 Assuredly this is, of itself, a sign of the times of no doubtful import. It 
 becomes doubly striking when it is considered that Dr. Brown does not stand 
 alone ; that, on the contrary, he is cheered onwards by other ministers of long 
 standing, who have testified their concurrence in his opinions, and their 
 approval of his resolution ; while there are many professing Christians who 
 shelter themselves behind his authority, and make his example an apology for 
 conduct which, at any other period, would have been deemed wholly incon¬ 
 sistent with the slightest pretensions to godliness. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that this restless insubordination has suddenly sprung 
 up in such luxuriance. Christians are always prone to catch somewhat of the 
 tone and colour of the age in which they live ; and in proportion as turbulence 
 and agitation have become popular, too many of the professed disciples of 
 Christ have forgotten the injunctions of their Divine Master, and acted in such 
 a manner, that so far from exhibiting themselves as strangers and pilgrims on 
 the earth, it might be supposed that all their loftiest aspirations, and all their 
 highest efforts, were bounded with the prospect of some new political change, 
 or some empty dream of popular aggrandizement. The solemn injunctions 
 in regard to civil obedience, as contained in the thirteenth chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Romans, have been practically neglected even by many who 
 would fear to deny their authority. The precepts of the Apostle being in 
 direct hostility to the spirit and temper of political agitators, it is no wonder 
 that those who have been seduced by their snares, should desire to lull their 
 conscience to sleep, and turn away from all that might disturb its slumbers. 
 The infidel, sitting in the chair of the scorner, boldly scoffs at the words of 
 the Apostle, which he does not affect either to misinterpret or misunderstand. 
 The more subtle Neologian finds in these words matter adapted only for 
 
V 
 
 a peculiar season, and a small body of Christians. The Socinian adopts 
 the same persuasion, and unites both with the Infidel and Neologian in 
 sneering at any attempt to restrain their schemes of political agitation, until 
 at last they have gone far to turn the very idea of submission to “ the powers 
 that he ,” into a by-word and a proverb for ridicule. 
 
 If ever there was a period in the history of the world, in which more than 
 at any other, Christians have reason to be grateful for their outward privileges, 
 it is now, when, in this favoured country, men of every religious denomination 
 are permitted to worship God according to their conscience, without the 
 hazard of molestation from any quarter, civil or religious. For these privileges, 
 fervent thanks are due* to the Great Huler of events. But is it to be supposed 
 that God is honoured or thanked for these blessings by men, whose feelings 
 can only find expression in great swelling words of vanity about “battles to be 
 fought,” about “high places to be won,” about “lives to be jeoparded,” or 
 “ tyranny and wrong” to be redressed ? Is it under such teaching that Chris¬ 
 tians will become remarkable for their quiet and peaceable lives, as men that 
 “fear God” and “honour the king,” and “meddle not with them that are 
 given to change ?” Or will not those Churches that are subjected to such 
 pernicious doctrine be found to be among that unhappy number who have 
 forsaken their first love, whose candlestick is in danger of being removed, and 
 whose ways are not perfect before God ? 
 
 The practical effects of this doctrine are becoming more and more manifest. 
 Can we look without anxiety as to the spiritual welfare of those who are 
 forward in every scene of political strife, and whose whole soul seems to be 
 wrapped up in the prosecution of some party object ? Christian legislators and 
 statesmen have lamented the deadening tendency of their legitimate and 
 necessary pursuits. They have regretted that in their unavoidable amalgama^ 
 tion with the world, it was difficult to keep themselves free from its contagion. 
 But what must be the case with those, who, on every occasion of popular 
 excitement, volunteer their services, and engage in political pursuits with a zest 
 which seems to indicate that these are far more congenial with their habits, 
 than the performance of those duties in which pure and undefiled religion 
 consists. 
 
 Nor is this all; there are some who, like Dr. Brown, predict the coming of 
 great changes. Are they foolish enough to believe that these changes can be 
 effected without convulsion ? We know that there is a day approaching when 
 God will come out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their 
 iniquity; to reckon with the nations for their contempt of his authority, for 
 their rejection of his Gospel, and for their trampling on his precepts. But we 
 know also by whom it has been said, “Woe, unto you that desire the day of 
 the Lord ! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not 
 light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met hinj; or went into the 
 house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the 
 day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness 
 in it ?” In nearly the same words, another prophet was commanded to speak 
 of the coming of that day: “ Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, qnd sound an alarrq 
 in my holy mountain; let all the inhabitants of the land tremble : for the day 
 of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand; a day of darkness and of gloominess, 
 a day of clouds and of thick darkness. Does this resemble the language in 
 which many in the prospect of great political changes are accustomed exult- 
 ingly to expatiate, and to “ desire” the coming of that day? Or rather, is it 
 possible to imagine a stronger contrast ? Ought not Christians, in the persua¬ 
 sion of the coming of such events, instead of inflaming their minds by idle 
 declamations about occupying “ the high places of the field,” to remind one 
 another of the command and gracious injunction of God : “ Come, my people, 
 enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee ; hide thyself as 
 it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, 
 the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for 
 their iniquity : the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover 
 her slain.” 
 
THE DUTY OF PAYING TRIBUTE, &c. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 November 13, 1837. 
 
 Sir, —In the account of the late meeting in Edinburgh to 
 oppose the Annuity Tax, it is stated that you expressed a de¬ 
 termination never to pay it again, as you “ could not do so 
 without offering violence to your conscientious conviction,” and 
 that you “ resisted the tax from the fear of contracting guilt 
 before God.” This resolution is directly contrary to Scripture, 
 and tramples under foot one of the great laws of the kingdom 
 of Christ. That a Christian, with the injunctions of the Apostles 
 on this subject before his eyes, should fear to contract guilt by 
 paying tribute, is truly astonishing. I shall refer only to 
 Romans xiii. 1—7, and shall merely quote the passage. The 
 meaning is so clear, that any attempt to evade it must be utterly 
 forced and unnatural. The conscience that can resist it must 
 be either not in subjection to the Wol*d of God, or greatly in 
 ignorance of that Word. 
 
 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there 
 is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of 
 God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the 
 ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to them¬ 
 selves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, 
 but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power ? 
 do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 
 for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do 
 that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in 
 vain : for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath 
 upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, 
 not only for wrath, but also for conscience* sake. * For, for this 
 cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God*s ministers, 
 attending continually upon this very thing. Bender, therefore, 
 to all their dues : tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to 
 whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honour, to whom honour.** 
 
8 
 
 I am aware that many expedients have been resorted to, to 
 limit the application of this apostolic rule; but it is a law of 
 Christ, expressed with a fulness and precision beyond that which 
 is to be found on almost any other subject; and it is at his peril 
 if any man rebel against it. 
 
 You, Sir, hold a very responsible situation as a minister of a 
 numerous congregation—as an influential member of a large 
 denomination, and as one who is employed officially in training 
 young men for the ministry; and if on so momentous a ques¬ 
 tion your conscience is misinformed, how mischievous must be 
 the influence of your doctrine and conduct * I am shocked with 
 your determination of going to prison, rather than pay a tax of 
 which you disapprove. What an example is this to your con¬ 
 gregation ! What an extensive and pernicious effect must it 
 have, not only on your own denomination, but on Christians in 
 general! What mischief is it calculated to excite in social 
 life ? To what violence and bloodshed may it not lead ? Is 
 this like the doctrine and conduct of the apostles and first Chris¬ 
 tians ? Can anything be conceived more opposite ? Your views 
 of the scriptural way in which the religion of Christ ought to be 
 maintained you have a right to promulgate and defend by argu¬ 
 ment. But to resist a tax imposed by the Government under 
 which you live, is to rebel against Christ, and in the end may 
 kindle the flames of civil war. You may attempt to excuse 
 yourself as you will, but it must be evident to those who trem¬ 
 ble at the Word of God, and understand the import of the 
 passage above quoted, that a more flagrant violation of the 
 divine law has seldom been exemplified than in the line of con¬ 
 duct which you have adopted, and the deliberate purpose which 
 you have avowed. 
 
 I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 ROBERT HALDANE. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 ON THE DUTY OF PAYING TRIBUTE* 
 
 December 12, 1837. 
 
 Sir, —In declaring before a public meeting that you were 
 determined to go to prison rather than submit to a tax of 
 which you disapproved, you held yourself forth as a pattern to 
 your fellow-subjects, and courted an examination of your con¬ 
 duct and principles. You were not contented with privately 
 
9 
 
 acting upon your convictions, and patiently submitting to the 
 consequences of resisting a legal impost on your property. 
 You were eager to proclaim yourself a self-devoted martyr in 
 the cause in which you had embarked. To the Annuity Tax 
 you openly unfurled the banner of resistance, and, not content 
 with thus defying the laws of your country, you did what you 
 could to infuse your opinions into the minds of others, to con¬ 
 firm the wavering, to silence their conscientious scruples, and 
 to rouse your fellow-citizens to follow in your pernicious career. 
 
 It was under these circumstances that I felt it my duty to 
 address you publicly in your responsible character. It was my 
 object to expose the unscriptural nature of your principles, the 
 criminality of your procedure, and the dangerous tendency of 
 your example. From one who had so deeply committed him¬ 
 self before the world, I had no reason to expect either “ grati¬ 
 tude or thanks,” and assuredly you are greatly mistaken if you 
 imagine that I experience mortification at the rudeness and 
 vulgarity with which you attempt to turn the edge of my argu¬ 
 ments. You are very welcome to treat as “a railing accusa¬ 
 tion” my appeal to the Word of God, and its application to 
 your case. You may impeach the motives and impugn the 
 character of your reprover; but, after all, the irritation you 
 exhibit can only be regarded as an exhibition of the moral dis¬ 
 comfort with which you survey the novel position in which you 
 have so recklessly placed yourself. 
 
 You begin your letter, in which you attempt to vindicate 
 your conduct, by collecting together the charges that are 
 brought against you, and you seem to be so deeply impressed 
 with their accumulated weight, that you conclude, if they are 
 true, you must not only be a fit object of Church discipline, 
 but also a dangerous citizen. In this conclusion we shall both 
 pretty nearly coincide. The man who refuses to pay “tribute 
 to whom tribute is due,” violates an express law of Christ. If 
 a professed Christian, he is still one “that walketh disorderly 
 and not after the tradition received” of the apostles. He is, 
 therefore, deserving of ecclesiastical rebuke, while, at the same 
 time, his allegiance to the government of his country is justly 
 liable to impeachment. If to this we add that the offender 
 occupies a prominent and influential station in society, his “dis¬ 
 orderly walk” must be regarded as still more deplorable, since 
 others more ignorant and less prudent than himself may be 
 emboldened by his dereliction of duty to assume a still more 
 decided attitude of insubordination, and thus occasion scenes of 
 murder and bloodshed, such as those with which the same line 
 of conduct has already desolated Ireland. 
 
10 
 
 We are also agreed upon the grounds of my charges against 
 you, namely, your determination to resist the Annuity Tax, 
 even if by this defiance of the laws of your country, you should 
 hazard “the spoiling of your goods, the incarceration of your 
 person, and even the loss of your life.” But you deny what 
 you are pleased to term my assertion that “this avowal and 
 determination is inconsistent with the law of Christ,” as laid 
 down in the first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter of the 
 Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 You admit the law, but plead for an exception in favour of 
 the tax you resist. You cannot deny that the divine precept is 
 very precise and explicit. You cannot point out, from Genesis 
 to Revelations, one solitary instance of an authorised exception. 
 Still you plead for an exception in favour of those who dislike 
 the Annuity Tax, while you overlook the essential principle, 
 that the distinction upon which a limitation in each case is 
 founded must be warranted by Scripture : otherwise, however 
 strict a precept may be, we could easily accommodate it to our 
 own fancies. You argue, however, that there are limitations 
 to many divine laws, which, like the command to pay tribute, are 
 expressed without exception or limitation. In particular, you 
 instance the case of the Sabbath, and the command to do no 
 murder. 
 
 In regard to the Sabbath, it is quite clear that when we are 
 commanded to abstain from work on that day, it is only that we 
 may fulfil the first injunction to keep it holy. All work is there¬ 
 fore forbidden which is not consistent with this great duty. 
 The words of the decalogue are, therefore, to a certain extent 
 limited, and, even without the comment of our Lord, we might 
 have known that the “ Sabbath was made for man, and not 
 man for the Sabbath,”—that it was an institution of mercy, 
 intended for the temporal comfort and eternal welfare of man— 
 and, consequently, that neither in the spirit nor in the letter 
 could it possibly be violated by the performance of works of 
 necessity or mercy. 
 
 The case of the Sabbath will not then, Sir, serve your pur¬ 
 pose, nor will those other cases to which you refer. The pre¬ 
 cept, “thou shalt do no murder,” surely does not contravene 
 the divine declaration, “ He that sheddeth man^s blood, by 
 man shall his blood be shed.” And in regard to the injunc¬ 
 tion for wives to obey their husbands, children their parents, 
 and servants their masters—there can only be one kind of ex¬ 
 ception to its generality, and that is involved in the paramount 
 authority of God. It is indeed self-evident, that under colour 
 of obedience to the letter of a divine law, we must not violate 
 
11 
 
 its spirit by doing despite to the Almighty Lawgiver. We are 
 to obey God rather than man. If, however, under the general 
 command that wives should obey their husbands, and servants 
 their masters, a particular act were specified in which it was 
 unreservedly enjoined that they should obey, can it be supposed 
 that in the performance of that act there could be any contra¬ 
 vention of the law of God ? This is precisely the fact respect¬ 
 ing the precept to pay tribute. It is a special act enjoined 
 under a general law, and apparently thus particularized, because 
 the paying of tribute is the duty to which, above all others, men, 
 as subjects of civil government, are most averse. Being thus 
 distinctly specified, every doubt is removed respecting its pe¬ 
 remptory obligation. 
 
 Another proof that there is no exception regarding the duty 
 of paying tribute, as long as the Government under which it is 
 levied subsists, is seen in the fact, that the payment of tribute 
 is placed in the Scriptures on the same footing with the pay¬ 
 ment of individual debts. Tribute is declared to be a debt 
 owing to the existing Government, which we are commanded to 
 discharge. If you plead, then, that you are not bound to pay 
 a tax because the purpose for which it is to be employed is a 
 sinful purpose, on the same principle you should refuse to dis¬ 
 charge a private debt. If the rent of your house were made 
 over by the proprietor for some improper object, such as the 
 support of the idolatrous worship of the Church of Rome—a 
 case which has actually occurred in this country not long ago 
 —you must either refuse payment of the legally constituted and 
 stipulated rent, or contract the guilt of sanctioning and support¬ 
 ing a system directly opposed to the Scriptures. And accord¬ 
 ing to another of your false principles, namely, that the paying 
 of a tax whose purpose is sinful is equally sinful as a sinful work 
 performed with our own hands, your guilt would be as great, 
 as if you were yourself to engage in the practice of idolatry. 
 
 Resistance to the payment of tribute might have appeared 
 more justifiable in Judea than in any other country. That land 
 belonged to God in a peculiar sense, and he gave it by a cove¬ 
 nant of salt to the family of Abraham. He dispossessed the 
 Canaanites, and bestowed it on his people, among whom he 
 dwelt as their king. The Romans, in the course of their con¬ 
 quests, took possession of the land. They deprived the inha¬ 
 bitants of the privileges which they enjoyed, by the power of 
 the sword maintained their usurped dominion, and made the 
 Jews “servants to tribute.” If ever anything like a plausible 
 objection to the payment of tribute could be offered, it must 
 have been in these circumstances. It might have been 
 
12 
 
 alleged, that, in complying with this exaction, the sovereignty of 
 God over his people would be compromised. The matter was 
 referred to the Lord, not, indeed, in that instance, for the pur¬ 
 pose of ascertaining what was duty, but to lay a snare for him, 
 which it seemed impossible to avoid, whatever decision he should 
 deliver. He not only answered the question, but did it in a 
 way calculated to place the subject of paying tribute in the 
 plainest and clearest light to his people in every situation. He 
 desired those who inquired to bring him a piece of the cur¬ 
 rent coin, and asked whose image and superscription it bore. 
 They replied, “Csesar’s.” Jesus said, “ Render, therefore, unto 
 Caesar the things which are Caesar’s ; and unto God the things 
 that are God’s.” 
 
 Such is the ground on which the Lord has placed the pay¬ 
 ment of tribute, and not on the uses to which it is to be applied. 
 This was a question with which he did not burden the consciences 
 of his people. By having Caesar’s image on their current coin, 
 the subjection of the Jews to Caesar was manifest, and they were 
 consequently bound to pay the tribute he demanded. This duty, 
 then, being established by Jesus Christ, it is at their peril if any 
 of his disciples refuse or evade it. This decision not only tends 
 to the peace of civil society, but is a very merciful appointment 
 for Christians,—it frees them from all responsibility in this mat¬ 
 ter, or danger of being misled by their consciences being weak 
 or ill-informed, and from being deceived by designing men. 
 When they pay a tax, they have nothing to do with the purpose 
 to which it is devoted, any more than they have to do with the 
 manner in which the person to whom they owe a debt applies 
 the payment of it. The money they possess bears the image 
 and superscription of the head of the Government under which 
 God has placed them, and they are bound, by his authority, to 
 pay the taxes imposed on them while it subsists. They pay 
 them as a debt,-—the price he has appointed for having their 
 lives, and all they possess, secured by that Government. 
 
 Now, Sir, having stated the duty of paying tribute, as decided 
 by the Lord and his apostles, I charge you, on account of your 
 resistance to the Annuity Tax, with aggravated criminality, for 
 which no extenuation can be pleaded, but culpable ignorance. 
 You are guilty of rebellion against the law of God, and the law 
 of your country, in refusing to pay what you owe to the Govern¬ 
 ment. You do not act, indeed, like the smuggler, who, in an 
 underhand and covert manner, defrauds the revenue. Although 
 you are solvent, you boldly tell your creditor, “ I will not an¬ 
 swer your demand. I cannot plead that I am unable to do 
 so; but as I know that you intend to employ the money in a 
 
13 
 
 way which I consider to be wrong, I will not indeed withstand 
 you by force, but I will withhold payment by a ‘passive resist¬ 
 ance You may send me to prison, or wrest the money from 
 me. If you do so, I will charge you with violence done to 
 my person, and with the spoiling of my goods.” 
 
 That it is our bounden duty to pay tribute to Government* 
 I needed not, so far as concerns you, Sir, to have insisted so 
 long, since this is fully admitted by yourself. “ I consider,” you 
 say, “ Christians are bound to pay, conscientiously and cheer¬ 
 fully, all taxes imposed for general purposes by the Govern¬ 
 ment under which they live. If the Government misapply the 
 revenue thus raised,—for that misapplication they , not their 
 
 subjects, are responsible.Even where the imposts 
 
 themselves are in their estimation unwise, exorbitant, or un¬ 
 just, it is their duty to pay them. Every attempt to evade 
 them is inconsistent with the law as well as the spirit of Chris¬ 
 tianity, and though, in our circumstances, we may, and ought, 
 by constitutional means, seek the repeal of the objectionable 
 statutes, yet, while they continue the law of the land, the law 
 of Christ obliges us to obey them.” Such is the doctrine you 
 lay down,—-we are bound to pay taxes,—if the Government 
 misapply them, they, and not their subjects, are responsible,— 
 even when they are unwise, exorbitant, or unjust, it is our duty 
 to pay them. After all this it might be supposed that you, Sir, 
 would be one of the last men to resist the payment of taxes. 
 
 One open door, however, you have reserved, by which you 
 may make your escape,—“All taxes,” you say, “imposed for 
 general purposes.” On this point you afterwards fully explain 
 yourself. “It is only,” you add, “in the case of a tax imposed 
 specifically for a purpose which in the conscientious conviction 
 of the individual, is sinful, that I hold the doctrine that the 
 general supreme law, ‘ We ought to obey God rather than 
 man/—which controls and regulates all our obligations to our 
 fellow-men, comes in to limit the obligation of the particular 
 law respecting tribute; and even then, I do not hold that a 
 Christian man is warranted to employ force in resisting what 
 he must consider as an unjust aggression on his property, but 
 that he is bound to suffer everything man can inflict rather 
 than be the voluntary agent of anything he believes God dis¬ 
 approves.” Here you declare what is the only limitation for 
 which you plead in paying tribute, and also what you deem the 
 proper mode of refusing to pay it, namely, in the way of “a pas¬ 
 sive resistance.” Your sophistry on these points I shall in my 
 next letter expose; in the meantime, I briefly notice the other 
 methods of defence to which you resort. 
 
14 
 
 In refusing to pay the Annuity Tax, you have attempted to 
 show that you are following the practice of the early Christians, 
 respecting the payment of tribute devoted to the maintenance of 
 the Pagan temples ; in this you have signally failed. The com¬ 
 plete proof which has been produced against you, you have not 
 dared to face, while you have done your utmost to parry it with 
 a degree of disingenuousness and hardihood that has seldom 
 been surpassed. Your appeal to the conduct of the Covenant¬ 
 ers has been equally unfortunate, as Mr. Cunningham has 
 shown; and he tells you, in his second letter, that you “ dare 
 not repeat your assertions” respecting them. The Covenant¬ 
 ers were excellent men, of whom the world was not worthy; 
 but even if you had succeeded in proving that they had deviated 
 from their duty, it would have been no rule to us. I may, how¬ 
 ever, remind you, since you are eager to appeal to such autho¬ 
 rities, that the sentiments and conduct of your predecessors on 
 the subject of paying tribute were directly in opposition to yours. 
 In proof of this, I refer you to the extract from their proceed¬ 
 ings, dated 4th March, 1752, published in The Advertiser of 
 October 27. Although, however, your plea from the example 
 of the early Christians and the Covenanters has been wrested 
 from you, I can inform you, for your comfort, that your mode 
 of reasoning, respecting the payment of tribute, is not altogether 
 unprecedented. I shall furnish you with an instance of the ad¬ 
 vantage of which it will be impossible to deprive you. The 
 principle of allowing the tax-payer the benefit of every doubt 
 that may arise in his mind as to the lawfulness of the tax, is 
 thus promulgated in 1652, by the famous Jesuit, Anthony Es¬ 
 cobar, in his rules of universal morality : “ Subjects are excused 
 or are not excused from paying tribute, in consequence of an 
 opposite probable opinion. Certainly they are excused; for as 
 the prince rightly levies tribute in the opinion that it is pro¬ 
 bably just, so also may the subject rightly refuse the tribute in 
 the opinion that it is probably unjust.”—I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 REMARKS ON DR. BROWNES DISCOURSES RESPECTING CIVIL 
 OBEDIENCE. 
 
 February 23, 1838. 
 
 Sir, —Your formal announcement of a full and elaborate 
 defence of your resistance to the Annuity Tax , induced me to 
 pause in the exposure of the sophistry with which you had pre- 
 
viously attempted to shield yourself from public censure. Con¬ 
 sidering the magnitude of the sin of which you are arraigned, 
 and the palpable fallacies of which you have been already con¬ 
 victed : considering that your main argument had been actually 
 annihilated, and your appeal to history turned to your own con¬ 
 fusion ; it seemed more equitable as well as more convenient, 
 to wait till your case was fully closed, and you had exhausted 
 every plea which your utmost ingenuity could invent, in vindi¬ 
 cation of your disobedience to the laws of your country. Your 
 apology is now before the world, and I am compelled to say 
 that it does little credit to your candour, and still less to your 
 character, as an expositor of Scripture. 
 
 After all the labour you have employed in your endeavours 
 to prove that your conduct in resisting the Annuity Tax is not 
 inconsistent with the law of Christ, you are virtually compelled 
 to abandon this attempt so far as concerns the thirteenth chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Romans. The language of the Apostle is 
 far too precise to permit of its being explained away, and in 
 spite of your efforts to silence its warning voice, it resists the 
 violence with which it is assailed, and continues in solemn ac¬ 
 cents to repeat the condemnation of the course you are pursuing. 
 It is therefore no matter of surprise that you should labour to 
 neutralize this passage of the Word of God. It has been the 
 uniform practice of the abettors of heresy in every age, either 
 to wrest the Scriptures from their plain and literal meaning, 
 or to deny their applicability to any other period but that in 
 which they were written. Unable to torture the doctrine of the 
 inspired Apostle into any meaning favourable to your conduct, 
 you have undertaken the daring task of proving that his pre¬ 
 cepts in regard to government, and the duty of civil obedience, 
 were only intended to apply to the peculiar circumstances of 
 the Roman Christians in the age and countiy in which they 
 lived. This gross perversion of the Word of God is neither 
 more nor less than the method by which Semler and the 
 other German Neologians endeavour to set aside all those 
 parts of Revelation with which they are displeased. “ I do the 
 Rationalists,” says Mr. Rose, in the full account he has given 
 of those infidels, “ no injustice in saying that the general in¬ 
 clination and tendency of their opinions is this, that in the 
 New Testament we shall find only the opinions of Christ and 
 the Apostles adapted to the age in which they lived, and not 
 eternal truths.” In a note he subjoins, “ This is the very 
 sum and substance of all the statements of the Rationalists.” 
 Erom this it appears that you, Sir, have arrived at the sum and 
 substance of German Neology. In attempting to limit the 
 
16 
 
 exhortation of the Apostle to the peculiar circumstances of the 
 Roman Government, you are treading in the steps of those 
 wicked men, and doing what you can to fortify their impious 
 system. On the same grounds on which you thrust aside an 
 important portion of the Word of God, as local and temporary 
 in its application, you will find no difficulty in disposing of any 
 other precept of Scripture which offends your prejudices. 
 
 But, Sir, did you never consider the consequences of such a 
 reckless mode of interpretation as that which you have adopted? 
 You choose to limit your hypothesis to the doctrine of civil obe¬ 
 dience, but it cannot stop there. You may have imbibed the 
 spirit of political agitation, and may be eager to remove every 
 barrier to the progress of that passive resistance, (of which you 
 shall hear more by and by,) by means of which you are con¬ 
 spiring the subversion of the Established Church. But others 
 will not be so restricted. You choose to select one passage of 
 Scripture, and one precept out of the rest with which it is con¬ 
 nected. It is indeed the one which is most elaborately ex¬ 
 pressed, and most carefully guarded. But why may not the 
 duellist take hold of the precept which immediately precedes 
 that which you labour to set aside, and argue, upon your prin¬ 
 ciples, that he is not prohibited from avenging the wrong which 
 has been done to him. “ Dearly beloved,” says the Apostle, 
 “ avenge not yourselves.” This and what follows condemns 
 the duellist; but he says, No, you are utterly mistaken ; Dr. 
 Brown has taught us a more excellent way of interpreting this 
 passage, and this I shall prove to your satisfaction, if you will 
 listen to the arguments I have borrowed from his discourse on 
 civil obedience. First, then, the duellist will gravely enunciate 
 in your words, that to understand thoroughly any book, not of 
 a strictly scientific kind, it is necessary to be intimately ac¬ 
 quainted with the events of the age and country in which it 
 was written, and with the customs and habits of thought of the 
 people to whom it was originally addressed. And, next, he 
 will tell us that the precept against avenging ourselves “ origi¬ 
 nated in a state of things totally different” from that of the 
 present age. He will further tell us that it was good policy in 
 the Apostle Paul to enjoin a meek and quiet disposition as a 
 duty, because “ the Christians in Rome were a small body— 
 chiefly of the lower orders,” who could not be expected to have 
 the high and chivalrous feelings of a modern gentleman. In 
 short, there is not an argument you have used, for the purpose 
 of setting aside the precept to obey the powers that be, which 
 might not with equal ease be employed by the duellist to justify 
 a crime which some casuists have vindicated on the footing of 
 
17 
 
 defensive war. But this is not a place for noticing all the false 
 principles and false reasonings which occur in almost every page 
 of your discourses. This requires a separate publication. Here 
 I must confine myself to a very few remarks. 
 
 Your exposition of the first part of the thirteenth chapter of 
 the Epistle to the Romans, ought rather to be called an artful 
 evasion of the Apostle’s meaning, by sophistical criticism. You 
 indignantly repudiate the absurd and palpably forced explana¬ 
 tions of some who have substantially laboured on the same side 
 with yourself, and sneer at the silliness of their reasoning. But 
 your own view of the subject is as opposite to the doctrine of 
 the Apostle, as that of the most extravagant of your coadjutors. 
 There is no portion of the Word of God in which the reason¬ 
 ing is more palpably obvious. The simplest Christian needs 
 no exposition of it but what he can make for himself; and after 
 all the efforts of subtlety that strive to retain a favourite opinion, 
 and at the same time to ward off the condemnation of Scripture, 
 still the bare reading of the passage is sufficient, with every un¬ 
 prejudiced Christian, to dispel all the mist that a perverted in¬ 
 genuity can cast upon the subject. If all the arts of human 
 sophistry were employed to turn away the testimony of this 
 portion of scripture, I would not fear to leave the refutation of 
 the whole to the judgment of the most unlettered Christian 
 fully under the conviction and impression that it is God who 
 speaks. 
 
 Of all the evasive resources of subtlety employed by the So- 
 cinians, there is not one more arbitrary than some of those re¬ 
 sorted to by you, to establish a doctrine inconsistent with the 
 testimony of that part of the Word of God which you labour to 
 harmonize with your political views. Let the same canons of 
 interpretation, and the same modes of evasion, be granted on 
 any subject, and there is not a truth or duty in the Bible that 
 might not be obscured, perverted, or extinguished. If you do 
 not in all respects proceed with them to the same pitch of ex¬ 
 travagance, you labour, by false colouring, to pervert the 
 Apostle’s doctrine, while you exclude, by unjustifiable limita¬ 
 tion, what is directly taught. 
 
 In your very commencement, while you are pointing out 
 what you esteem the proper boundaries of the interference of 
 Christians and Christian ministers in politics, you artfully and 
 unjustly represent this very passage as an example of interfer¬ 
 ence in the matter. It is no such thing in any light in which 
 it can be viewed, Is the Apostle addressing rules in vindica¬ 
 tion of the rights of subjects ? Ear from it. He is solely en¬ 
 joining on Christians their duties to Government, and is not 
 
18 
 
 giving an example, in the slightest degree of interference with 
 politics, whether the thing in itself be right or wrong. He is 
 not teaching them their civil privileges, but enjoining their 
 religions duties. 
 
 You lay down a principle of interpretation, applying it to 
 Scripture, which, in its consequences, would make the Bible 
 a sealed book to the generality of Christians, and but partially 
 intelligible to the most learned among them. “ To understand 
 thoroughly any book/' you say, “not of a strictly scientific 
 kind, it is necessary to be intimately acquainted with the events 
 of the age and country in which it was written, and with the 
 customs and habits of thought of the people to whom it was 
 addressed.” So far from acceding to this canon, and con¬ 
 sidering it self-evident, I assert on the contrary, that any com¬ 
 position that is not intelligible from its own phraseology, is 
 deficient in accuracy, and that if the Bible is not intelligible 
 from its own language, it is not a revelation. If the language 
 of Scripture needs the knowledge of the times in which it was 
 written, in order to be understood, further than that knowledge 
 is contained in itself, it is a deficient guide. Besides, with 
 respect to many things, where is a full knowledge of the times 
 that can be depended on but what is contained in the Bible 
 itself ? You here adopt a principle which has been extensively 
 employed to pervert the clearest and most important doctrines 
 of the Word of God. In the present case, however, I have 
 no need to dispute it. I resist it as unsound and mischievous, 
 not as being in any way against my views of the passage before 
 us. This principle, connected with what is said in your sixth 
 note respecting the Bible not being the ultimate standard to be 
 appealed to, without all the notes and comments that have been 
 written—which is the very essence of Popery—takes the Bible 
 out of the hands of the great body of the people, and is an 
 impeachment on the perfection of that holy book. The ulti¬ 
 mate standard of religious truth is the Bible itself, and by it 
 alone, every note and comment from every quarter, must be 
 justified or condemned. 
 
 As a modification of the doctrine of the Apostles in reply to 
 the doctrine of Hobbes, Barclay, Filmer, and Parker, you 
 give us the following passage:—“ In the agitation of pas¬ 
 sion utterly forgetting, or warped by interest, studiously 
 keeping out of view, that the circumstances of the Christians 
 in Rome,—a small body,—chiefly of the lower orders,—many 
 of them foreigners,—under a Heathen Government essentially 
 absolute, over which they had and could have no control, and 
 the circumstances of the British nation—with few exceptions 
 
19 
 
 making a profession of Christianity,—under a government 
 administered by men professing Christianity,—essentially free, 
 —on whose management the Constitution gives their subjects 
 the means of making an impression by petition or representa¬ 
 tion, and whose very existence depended on their will, were 
 by no means parallel—from the passage before us they at¬ 
 tempted to prove that the existing Government was the ordi¬ 
 nance of God, its administrators his appointed ministers, and 
 that whosoever resisted them, violated the law of Christ, and 
 drew down on himself the righteous vengeance of Heaven.” 
 This passage embodies a host of errors. A duty that is uni¬ 
 versally applicable to Christians in every age and country, is 
 here represented as having its origin in the circumstances of the 
 Christians at Rome. Does the Apostle urge their duty from 
 circumstances of the time or place ? Submission is here 
 grounded by you on the consideration of the Christians at 
 Rome being a small body. Does the Apostle say, submit to 
 the Roman Government because you are but a small body and 
 unable to resist successfully ? Can anything be more contrary 
 to the text than such a commentary ? Can any evasion of the 
 Apostle's injunction be more unauthorized ? Instead of ground¬ 
 ing obedience on the smallness of their number, does he not 
 urge it on the fact that Government is the ordinance of God ? 
 The Christians, you say, were chiefly of the lower orders, and 
 this is represented as one of the circumstances that call for sub¬ 
 mission. Of course, when they should enlist the great and the 
 powerful in their favour, and had the prospect of success, they 
 might resist. Can anything be more opposed to the whole 
 passage than such a modification ? It would be much better 
 directly to contradict the Apostle, and say with the Quakers,— 
 Paul enjoins that women should not teach in the Church, but 
 I beg leave to .differ from Paul. Such a mode of opposing 
 Scripture is honest. But to oppose it by perversions so fla¬ 
 grant, is not only irreverent towards God, but is an insult to the 
 understanding of every reader. 
 
 Another circumstance on which obedience is here supposed 
 to be grounded is, that many of the Christians at Rome were 
 “ foreigners.” Where do we learn that this should modify the 
 Apostle's doctrine ? Another reason which, it seems, affects 
 and limits the duty inculcated in the passage is, that the Chris¬ 
 tians at Rome were “ under a Heathen Government essentially 
 absolute, over which they had and could have no control;” 
 and you might have added, a Government practically tyrannical 
 in the highest degree. But such circumstances surely are not 
 calculated to limit the meaning of the passage. If Christians 
 
 B 
 
20 
 
 were bound to obey a Government despotic in principle and 
 tyrannical in practice, are they not bound to obey Governments 
 that may in every point of view be the reverse. 
 
 You also intimate, that in order that the duty inculcated in 
 this passage should be incumbent on Christians in the present 
 time, all the circumstances in each must be “ parallel.” A 
 more false principle of interpretation was never devised. What 
 is it that demands such a parallelism? You might as justly 
 bring such a diversity of circumstances to evade the paying of a 
 debt. Of other precepts it might be said, Christians were 
 then but few in number, and very poor, and lived among hea¬ 
 thens who hated them. Now, things are very different. There 
 is, therefore, no reason to apply such precepts without modi¬ 
 fication to modern times and customs. There is no precept in 
 Scripture which this principle would not subvert. The cases here 
 are not only parallel, but identical, in the only point of view in 
 which the question at issue is concerned. The Christians at 
 that time, under a tyrannical Government, were commanded to 
 obey their rulers as an ordinance of God. The precept then 
 is perfectly the same to us. The apostolic injunction is not 
 grounded on the circumstances alleged by you, but on the fact, 
 that all the rulers of this world are appointed by God. No 
 circumstances are to be taken into the account in applying the 
 duty to times and places. If such modifications are lawful on 
 one subject, they are equally so on every subject; and every 
 doctrine and duty of Scripture may, in this way, be evaded and 
 set aside. Were ever reasons for a duty in the commentary 
 more opposite to those of the text? The Apostle gives the 
 Christians whom he addresses, a number of reasons why God 
 enjoins obedience to civil rulers. You, Sir, also gave a num¬ 
 ber. But in the whole there is not one reason common to the 
 commentator and the author. 
 
 Instead of viewing the doctrine inculcated in the text which 
 you have chosen, as containing a truth that is universal, and 
 precepts that are always binding, you employ every art to ex¬ 
 plain away the one, and to restrict the other. And all that we 
 have left in order to bring any part of this portion of the Word 
 of God home to ourselves, is the drawing a precarious infer¬ 
 ence, which may suit in certain circumstances, but not in 
 others. Accordingly, this passage may be applicable to us 
 under the Government of Britain, and even then in a very 
 limited degree, but by no means so were we living in Turkey. 
 Is this the way in which a theological professor of the Secession 
 handles the Word of God ? 
 
 Here, Sir, is the mischief of your views; they not only tend 
 to the disorder of civil society, but lay a deep foundation for 
 
21 
 
 perverting the Scriptures in every point in which evasion has 
 need of assistance. They provide one of the chief refuges to 
 which merely nominal Christians uniformly betake themselves, 
 pleading the difference of their circumstances from those of the 
 first Christians! I have heard this impious evasion of the 
 authority of the Word of God urged an hundred times. This 
 principle is now adopted by great multitudes in America, who, 
 by means of it, set aside, among other things, the doctrine of 
 regeneration taught in the third chapter of John's Gospel, as 
 belonging to Jewish customs and notions, but not at all applica¬ 
 ble to present times, and to men “ professing Christianity." 
 I distinctly and strongly charge you with making void the Word 
 of God as grossly as was done by the Pharisees through their 
 traditions. 
 
 It is now easy to understand the grounds on which you ac¬ 
 cused me of begging the question at issue betwixt us, when in 
 condemnation of your conduct I referred to the thirteenth 
 chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. I was well aware at the 
 time that it was out of your power to exculpate yourself without 
 perverting that portion of divine truth. I was not, however, 
 prepared to anticipate, that in doing so, you would boldly resort 
 to Neological principles, and have recourse to “ the sum and 
 substance" of the errors of German Rationalists. In your re¬ 
 fusal to pay the Annuity Tax, you proved yourself a “ dangerous 
 citizen," and now you have proved that you are a most un¬ 
 sound expositor of the Word of God. 
 
 Your discourses respecting Civil Obedience, will bring a 
 matter of great importance to the test. They will prove whe¬ 
 ther or not your manner of interpreting the Word of God is 
 general among the Secession Churches of your denomination, 
 or if they will bear it. It will be seen whether they will con¬ 
 tinue to intrust with the education of their future guides, one 
 who stumbles at the very threshold in expounding the Scrip¬ 
 tures, who has adopted principles that at once make them void, 
 and wrest them out of the hands of the people—of one who, 
 under the influence of Neological principles, does the utmost 
 violence to the plainest passages of those sacred oracles, wresting 
 them from their true and obvious meaning, thus darkening his 
 own mind and misleading others, in regard to their duty both 
 to God and man. You may talk of Voluntaryism as you please, 
 but if these discourses of yours, which are said to be admired 
 by your people, and pronounced unanswerable, present a fair 
 specimen of the doctrine taught among you, it is full time that 
 others should exert themselves to extend the preaching of the 
 pure Gospel throughout the land. It is time for them to pro¬ 
 mulgate to the people the unadulterated truths of God, such as 
 
22 
 
 those holy men at the commencement of the Secession pro¬ 
 claimed with so much clearness and effect. I trust that it shall 
 not be left to me alone, to raise the warning voice against this 
 method of treating the Scriptures which you are introducing. 
 I trust that others, without delay, not only of other denomina¬ 
 tions, but of your own, will lift up their voice like a trumpet, 
 and warn their fellow-Christians against that inundation of heresy 
 and Neology pouring into this country from Germany and 
 America, and those errors which are embodied in your dis¬ 
 courses. I have no doubt, that many who are associated with 
 you, will be shocked at your principles when their attention is 
 called to them. Never did Neologian make more havoc of the 
 Word of God, on the points on which you expatiate in your 
 discourses, than you, Sir, a theological professor of a denomi¬ 
 nation long distinguished for orthodoxy. In my next letter, I 
 shall resume the consideration of your discourses, especially as 
 they relate to civil obedience. I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 ON DR. BROWN’S DISCOURSES RESPECTING CIVIL OBEDIENCE- 
 
 CONTINUED. 
 
 February 27, 1838. 
 
 Sir, —Having done your utmost to depreciate the force and 
 destroy the universality of the apostolic exhortation to civil obe¬ 
 dience ; having endeavoured to show that it was limited to the 
 small and unimportant body of Roman Christians, and that it 
 was only to them that the existing Government was a divine 
 appointment, you proceed to inquire, “ What are these things 
 to us, and to Christians generally, in every country and in 
 every age V 3 In answering this inquiry, you enter upon ques¬ 
 tions which ought never to be discussed; upon questions which 
 are calculated to make rebellion and revolution familiar to all 
 who come within the sphere of your influence; questions which 
 are never touched upon in Scripture, and which, while they 
 never can do good, are sure to produce much mischief. It is 
 easy to imagine extreme cases, and to speak of the right as well 
 as the power of the people to put down an intolerable tyranny 
 by force. But the only result of such language, is to lower the 
 standard of civil obedience, to inflate the ignorant and conceited 
 with lofty ideas of a power which they do not possess, and to 
 
23 
 
 inculcate a spirit of insubordination, which may very easily issue 
 in the carnage of domestic war and the miseries of civil commo¬ 
 tion. Even if your theory were sound—if there be cases in 
 which resistance to Government might become a duty—no wise 
 man would willingly descant upon the subject, or gloat on it as 
 you do with an exultation that augurs very ill for your cheerful 
 submission to the authority of God's appointment. What would 
 you say of the man who delighted to discuss the question, whe¬ 
 ther there were not some cases when filial obedience becomes 
 sinful, and others, where a parent might put to death his child, 
 or a child stand in arms against his father ? What would be 
 said of the soldier who entertained his comrades with specu¬ 
 lating on the possibility of mutiny becoming, under certain cir¬ 
 cumstances, a duty ? Does not every right feeling revolt at 
 such a supposition, and yet it might not be difficult, upon your 
 principles, to make out a plausible case, to prove any of these 
 conclusions to be, under certain imaginable circumstances, 
 defensible. 
 
 But the Bible shuts the door against all these sinful specula¬ 
 tions. It broadly announces to us our duty to God and our 
 duty to man. Our obedience to God is paramount to every 
 other consideration, but we are also told, that Government is 
 an ordinance of the Almighty, appointed for the well-being of 
 man, and that "whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the 
 ordinance of God." You dare not boldly gainsay this state¬ 
 ment, and treat it with the scorn an Infidel seldom fails to pour 
 on it,—but, by your perversions, you neutralise and set it aside. 
 
 When you ask the question, if a Christian is ever authorised 
 to resist Government, how do you answer it? Is it by appealing 
 to Scripture ? Is it by quoting precept, or example, from the 
 Word of God ? No such thing. You give us your own de¬ 
 cided authority. AYhat better can we have ? " I have no 
 
 hesitation," you say, "in replying in the affirmative." And 
 the authority of Paley may also be pleaded for the same answer. 
 —"The truth," you observe, "is very clearly stated, and the 
 grounds of it unfolded by Paley." " So long," he says, "as 
 the interest of the whole society requires it; that is, so long 
 as the established Government cannot be resisted or changed 
 without inconveniency, it is the will of God (which will uni¬ 
 versally determines our duty) that the established Government 
 be obeyed, and no longer . This principle being admitted, the 
 justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a 
 computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on 
 the one side, and of the probability and expense of redress on 
 the other." Was ever an answer to a question more contrary 
 to another than this is to that of the Apostle ? The Apostle 
 
24 
 
 enjoins submission on Christians to the existing Government. 
 Paley frees from submission the moment that rebellion can be 
 resorted to without public inconveniency. Is this interpretation 
 of Scripture which you, Sir, profess your discourses to be ? It 
 is the most barefaced contradiction of God's holy Word. 
 Where did Paley learn that Christians might rebel in such 
 circumstances as he supposes ? The Scriptures do not give 
 this limitation, and nothing but Scripture can limit an assertion 
 of Scripture. Paley tells us, that the will of God universally 
 determines our duty. Where does he learn the will of God on 
 this subject ? Where can it be learned but in the Scriptures, 
 and there he has not pretended to find it. “ The principle," 
 he says, “being admitted ;" but the principle is not admitted. 
 How is it possible, that when Paul urges submission to the most 
 tyrannical Government that ever existed, on the ground of its 
 being an ordinance of God, it can, at the same time, be his 
 doctrine, that resistance is lawful when it can be made without 
 public inconveniency ? You next appeal to the authority of the 
 Associate Presbytery. Do you think that this is a legitimate 
 ground of reasoning ? “ The present Government of this coun¬ 
 try," you say, a have no right to their places, if these princi¬ 
 ples (laid down by the Associate Presbytery) are not true." Is 
 this sound reasoning ? What right then had Csesar to his place ? 
 Christians have nothing to do with the means by which their 
 rulers have come to their power. It is enough for them to 
 know, that by whatever means they have obtained it, they are 
 now, by being in possession, the ordinance of God. “ There 
 is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained 
 of God." 
 
 I believe it would "surpass the power of the most accomplished 
 Jesuit to preach sedition under a more specious garb than is 
 here employed. Let us only suppose that you had been one 
 of the Council of Papineau, or Mackenzie in Canada, and your 
 opinion had been asked as to the lawfulness of revolt; suppose 
 that they had been solemnly warned of the danger of violating 
 the ordinance of God, and plunging their country in the hor¬ 
 rors of rebellion; suppose that, under such circumstances, you 
 are appealed to as an experienced casuist. You eagerly accept 
 the reference ; you take for your text the thirteenth chapter of 
 the Epistle to the Romans, and you begin by announcing to 
 your auditors, that they must clear their heads of the folly of 
 supposing that anything contained in that chapter is directly 
 obligatory upon them, so as to render rebellion criminal in the 
 sight of God. You farther tell them, that although “ Civil 
 Government, in general, is of divine appointment," yet it is 
 by no means to be supposed that the English Government is 
 
25 
 
 God’s • ordinance to the Canadians. On the contrary, you de¬ 
 clare, that so long as the established Government cannot be 
 resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of 
 God that it should be obeyed, “but no longer” This you might 
 announce to your audience to be the final settlement of the 
 matter; and it would be therefore for them to weigh well the 
 amount of evils of which they complained, and the probable 
 conveniences or inconveniences of a general insurrection. You 
 might then declaim against those who, under “pretensions to 
 superior sanctity, keep ever in the back ground,” and thus 
 excuse their want of enlightened patriotism and philanthropy, 
 or of hatred of “tyranny and wrong.” This, Sir, is no cari¬ 
 cature ; it is a plain practical statement of your abominable doc¬ 
 trine, and of your shameful perversion of the Word of God. 
 And what might we suppose to be the result of such a discourse 
 on the duty of civil obedience ? We may suppose M. Papineau, 
 and his other colleagues in treason, arguing thus: Certainly this 
 is most encouraging doctrine, and such as ought to remove the 
 scruples of all timid and weak consciences. We are all agreed 
 as to our grievances, and as to “the intolerable tyranny of 
 the mother country;” and as for the “conveniences” of a 
 revolt, we could scarcely select a better opportunity,—the Go¬ 
 vernment is unprepared, the troops have not been reinforced, 
 the winter is setting in, the frozen St. Lawrence will defend us 
 from all attacks from without; and, to crown the whole, we 
 shall receive succours from our patriotic brethren of the United 
 States. The problem is solved, henceforward persons “pre¬ 
 tending to superior sanctity,” may prate of Government being 
 the ordinance of God, but thanks to Dr. Brown, as he has 
 shown that we are at perfect liberty to revolt if we can do it 
 without public inconveniency;” so we see clearly, that it is 
 “no longer” the will of God that the “ Government be obeyed,” 
 and we therefore resolve “to throw off the baneful^dominion of 
 the mother country.” 
 
 It is true that, in reference to the Government at home, you 
 conclude, after duly considering its principles, its administration, 
 and its capacity of improvement, that on the whole it may, on 
 these doubtful grounds, be considered as the ordinance of God; 
 but as you draw this conclusion not from the authority of Scripture, 
 but by a process of mental reasoning, others may take a different 
 view of the subject, and arrive at a result totally the reverse. 
 Of this you seem yourself perfectly aware, for you thus con¬ 
 clude this part of your subject: “ The hazards connected with 
 resistance, while a Government is in any measure what it 
 should be, are, and ought to be so great that no man is likely 
 to make the attempt; and when there is a general disposition 
 
26 
 
 to resistance, the crisis is come,—it is time that that Govern¬ 
 ment should govern no more.” 
 
 Thus you sum up the matter, that the fear of the halter, and 
 not the fear of God, is the best safeguard against rebellion, but 
 that should the spirit of revolt become general, and if personal 
 hazard is consequently diminished or annihilated, the crisis is 
 come,—it is time that the Government should govern no more. 
 Did any minister of the Gospel ever promulgate sentiments 
 concerning Civil Government more atrocious than these ? Ac¬ 
 cording to you. Sir, if the spirit of revolt is only general, no 
 matter what may be the cause, “the crisis is come,—it is time 
 that the Government should govern no more.” According to 
 you, when Absalom stirred up a general spirit of revolt against 
 King David, when the monarch fled from his capital with a 
 small band of faithful followers, and almost all Israel, from Dan 
 to Beersheba, were carried away with the delusion, and favoured 
 the conspiracy, the crisis was come,—it was time that David 
 should reign no longer. Such sentiments might suit very well 
 with the infidel supporters of the present ungodly school of poli¬ 
 tical philosophers,—to whom Paley, that demi-Socinian utili¬ 
 tarian moralist, belonged,—with whom you are too closely allied. 
 But it is lamentable to think that such false, heretical, pernicious, 
 and abominable doctrines should be proclaimed by one profess¬ 
 ing to be a minister of the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 In the above declaration you bring the will of man into direct 
 collision with the will of God, and the latter you make to give 
 place to the former. God commands obedience to the powers 
 that be, and declares that whosoever resisteth them resists his 
 ordinance. You say, “when there is a general disposition to 
 resistance, the crisis is come; it is time that the Government 
 should govern no longer.” You here teach direct rebellion 
 against the authority of God, and place the will of man above 
 the will of God. 
 
 The commandment to Christians to obey the Government 
 under which they live, which is promulgated in the text you 
 have chosen, is as authoritative, as universal, as peremptory, 
 and equally of perpetual obligation with the ten commandments 
 uttered by the voice of God from Mount Sinai; yet you set 
 it aside whenever the general will of the people requires this, 
 and in the same way you may set aside all these commandments. 
 One of them enjoins the duty of keeping holy the Sabbath-day. 
 But let there be a general disposition to resist it, and it ought 
 no longer to be obeyed! During the French Revolution this 
 general disposition manifested itself, the crisis was accordingly 
 come; it was time that the Sabbath-day should be observed no 
 longer. It was therefore superseded to give away to the 
 
27 
 
 decades. According to your principle this was just as it ought 
 to be. If, however, a difference between the duties of the ob¬ 
 servance of the Sabbath, and obedience to Government, be 
 pleaded, it may be easily obviated. “The magistracy of the 
 Jews,” you tell us, “was the result of direct divine appoint¬ 
 ment, but not the magistracy of any other people;” and you 
 inform us, as to what is said in Romans thirteenth, respecting 
 obedience to Government, first, that the command is addressed 
 to a small body, chiefly of the lower orders, many of them fo¬ 
 reigners, under a Heathen Government; and next, you observe, 
 that “the whole passage is an answer to the question, are Chris- 
 tains subject to the authority of a Government administered 
 by heathens.” Now, in the same way you may tell us, that 
 the law as to the Sabbath-day was of direct appointment to Is¬ 
 rael, but not to any other people, and that all that is said of it in 
 the New Testament relates to a few poor people, scattered about 
 in different countries, under a Heathen Government. From 
 all this it follows, that the French nation, when they proclaimed 
 the decades instead of the Sabbath, did nothing wrong ! 
 
 But, Sir, not content with sowing the seeds of rebellion and 
 disaffection, under the sanction of your character as an expositor 
 of the Word of God, you proceed farther to criminate your 
 brethren who will not unite with you in resisting taxes and coun¬ 
 tenancing political agitation. The following is the language 
 you adopt:—*“ It is the duty of every Christian, in every rela¬ 
 tion, ‘to do good to all as he has opportunity and he who, 
 in any age calling for vigorous exertion to secure and extend 
 civil and religious liberty, keeps ever in the back ground, and 
 excuses his want of enlightened patriotism and philanthropy— 
 or of hatred of tyranny and wrong—or of mental fortitude to 
 avow these sentiments, and follow them out to their fair practi¬ 
 cal consequences, under pretensions to superior sanctity, which 
 cast reflection on the conduct of his more consistent brethren, 
 may likely find, at the close of the day, that ‘ He who set his 
 own face as a Hint’ in the cause of God’s glory and man’s 
 salvation, and ‘hid it not from shame and spitting,’ the ‘ Cap¬ 
 tain of the Lord’s host,’ in apportioning the rewards of his 
 chosen tribes, will show that he regards with more compla¬ 
 cency Zebulun and Naphtali, who ‘jeoparded their lives in 
 the high places of the fields,’ than Reuben, who ‘abode 
 among the sheep to hear the bleating of ‘the flocks,’ or Han, 
 ‘who remained in ships,’ or Asher, ‘who continued on the sea¬ 
 shore and abode in his breaches.’” 
 
 Now, Sir, let me seriously and solemnly ask you, is this the 
 language of a Minister of the Gospel of Peace ? Are these 
 the words of one who has himself “tasted the good word of 
 
God, and the powers of the world to comeof one who has 
 learned something of the vanity of earthly ambition, and the 
 importance of heavenly things ? Is this the outpouring of the 
 heart of a faithful pastor, zealous for the spiritual welfare of his 
 flock, eager to win souls to Christ, and save the sinner from the 
 too powerful seductions of the world ? Or say, rather, do we 
 not hear some inflamed demagogue, some hot-headed agitator, 
 whose ardour after change and innovation, indicate a mind ill 
 at ease with itself, but resembling the troubled sea when it can¬ 
 not rest, whose waters cast forth mire and dirt ? 
 
 You tell us in this passage, that we live “in an age calling 
 for vigorous exertion to secure and extend civil and religious 
 liberty.” One might suppose from the tone you adopt, that 
 we were living in the age of Charles the Second, rather than at 
 the time when civil and religious freedom are in this country 
 enjoyed to an extent almost unparalleled in the history of the 
 world. If your statements be correct, we have still to contend 
 with “tyranny and wrong,” and there is a battle to be fought, 
 in which we are to “set our faces like a flint,” and, like Zebu- 
 lun and Naphtali, to jeopardy our lives in the high places of 
 the field. Are you in earnest when you thus write—are you 
 indeed sounding the tocsin of rebellion, or are you only pouring 
 forth some school-boy declamation, and exhibiting all the mock 
 grandeur of a storm in a mill-pond ? Whatever be your inten¬ 
 tions, Sir, and whether you are in jest or earnest, your senti¬ 
 ments are most unbecoming a Christian. Above all, when in 
 speaking of the battle to be fought, you dare to draw an im¬ 
 pious analogy between the political struggles of agitating dema¬ 
 gogues, and the combat of the Son of God with the powers of 
 hell and darkness; when you venture to speak of the potsherds 
 of the earth, and their striving with the potsherds of the 
 earth, as receiving the approbation of the great “Captain 
 of the Lord’s host,” and meriting rewards at his hands,—we 
 have, in your case, a ^melancholy instance of the deadening and 
 darkening influence of error and worldly-mindedness upon your 
 spiritual perceptions of truth and soberness. 
 
 We can account for and pardon the irritation with which you 
 contemplate the conduct of your brethren, who stand aloof from 
 any association with theological agitators, intoxicated with idle 
 dreams of battles to be fought for the defence of civil and reli¬ 
 gious liberty, of “high places” to be contested, of lives to be 
 jeoparded, and of “tyranny and wrong” to be redressed. If 
 those whom you denounce be ministers of the Secession Church, 
 they may each reply to your censures in the language and spirit 
 of Leighton, when challenged for not preaching to the times, 
 “ If so many are preaching to the times, why may not one poor 
 
29 
 
 brother preach for eternity.” The political changes to which 
 yon refer in your lecture may be in your eyes of vast import¬ 
 ance, but is it fitting that those who scruple not to agitate in 
 such questions should be spoken of as treading in the steps of 
 Him who, “in the cause of God's glory and man's salvation, 
 hid not his face from shame and spitting.'' Sir, the passage 
 which I have quoted from your discourse, when viewed in its 
 connexion, is not only absurd—it is blasphemous. 
 
 But, after all, is it indeed the case that you and other re¬ 
 sisters of taxes are the men who are jeoparding their lives in the 
 high places of the fields , while those who stand aloof from you 
 resemble Reuben, who abode among the sheep to hear the 
 bleating of the flocks, or Dan, who remained in ships, or 
 Asher, who continued on the sea-shore and abode in his breaches. 
 It is almost as cruel to rob you of your ideal consequence as to 
 rob Don Quixote of his imaginary glory in overthrowing his 
 enemies. But if truth, Sir, must be told, we cannot forget 
 that when the times were less favourable to agitation than they 
 now are, and when sedition or resistance to taxes was repressed 
 with a firmer hand, Mr. John Brown abode as quietly “ among 
 the sheep, to hear the bleating of the flocks'' at Biggar, as ever 
 Reuben did in the land of Gilead, or Dan and Asher by the 
 shores of the great sea. It was not till the times had become 
 more revolutionary—when agitation stalked throughout the 
 country, and resistance to taxation became a passport to 
 celebrity, that Dr. J ohn Brown stood forth as a voluntary martyr 
 in a cause which he had so tardily, and under such inglorious 
 circumstances, so publicly espoused. It might be from a want of 
 “mental fortitude'' to avow his sentiments, or it might possibly 
 be from a want of perspicacity to discern that “tyranny and 
 wrong,'' of which he now expresses his hatred. But, assuredly, 
 he is the very last person who ought to reproach his neighbours 
 for “keeping in the back ground,'' especially now, when all the 
 merit of self-devotion is lost in the vulgar applause which every 
 mob-orator, and every self-seeking agitator bestows on the 
 minister who teaches, on “ Christian principle,'' the lawfulness 
 of rebellion, and the duty of “following out principles to their 
 fair and practical consequences.'' 
 
 Without entering farther at present into the consideration of 
 your revolutionary and Neological discourses, I shall proceed 
 in my next to fulfil the promise I made in my fourth letter, to 
 expose the hollowness and absurdity of the distinction you make 
 between paying taxes for general and for specific purposes.— 
 I am, &e. 
 
LETTER Y. 
 
 TAXES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTS. 
 
 March 2, 1838. 
 
 Sir,—T he artifice practised in your “ documents” first 
 published respecting your refusal to pay the Annuity Tax, has 
 been noticed both in the Scottish Guardian and Presbyterian 
 Review ." “Mr. Haldane's first letter/' it is said in that Review, 
 
 “ is given, and Dr. Brown's long reply to it. The second let¬ 
 ter is withheld, though the remarks which it called forth are 
 published. It might be a mere cowardly feeling which prompt¬ 
 ed the withdrawment of documents so hard to grapple with; 
 but what will our readers think of the ingenuousness of with¬ 
 holding them in a work which professed f to lay the whole 
 documents before the public."' In those documents which 
 you have appended to the second part of your lectures respect¬ 
 ing civil obedience, although my fourth letter does not appear 
 among them, you refer to it as follows : “ Since writing the 
 above I have seen Mr. Haldane's letter of yesterday. Into 
 the general argument with respect to the limitations of civil 
 obedience, and of their legitimate application to the payment 
 of tribute as a particular species of obedience, I intend to go 
 fully in the lectures which I have announced. Nothing stated 
 by my opponents seems to me in the slightest "degree to shake 
 the doctrine contained in my first letter.'' In my fourth let¬ 
 ter, the insertion of which, in these documents, although you 
 thus refer to it, you have prudently omitted, I distinctly stated 
 the grounds of the duty of paying tribute ; but notwithstanding 
 what you have said in your lectures, these grounds still remain 
 unanswered. It was very convenient then, no doubt, simply to 
 assure your readers that nothing therein stated seemed to you in 
 the slightest degree to shake the doctrine you supported. To 
 that letter I now refer, if not for your sake, at least to induce 
 the perusal of it by those who feel themselves interested in this 
 discussion. It will there be seen that your doctrine is not 
 merely shaken, but completely overthrown. In the close of it 
 I adverted to the only limitation you contend for in paying tri¬ 
 bute, which you find in the distinction between general and 
 specific taxes, and to what you deem to be the proper mode of 
 refusing to pay it, namely in the way of “ a passive resistance.'' 
 Your sophistry on these points I promised to expose. To do 
 so I shall now proceed in my present and subsequent letters. 
 
31 
 
 It is obvious that you feel the pressure of the difficul¬ 
 ties of your situation. In attempting to palliate your resist¬ 
 ance to the Annuity Tax, you are constrained to advocate 
 principles which not only oppose the doctrine of Scripture, but 
 are subversive of Civil Government and social order—principles 
 which, if carried out to their legitimate results, would absolve 
 the subject from the obligation of submitting to every public 
 impost, and place the magistrate at the mercy of every turbu¬ 
 lent demagogue, and every capricious or ill-regulated conscience. 
 It therefore argues some skill in polemical strategy, that you 
 have so far extended the line of your defence, which may have 
 the effect of distracting the attention of your opponents, and 
 covering your retreat in a cloud of dust. 
 
 I have already exposed some of the erroneous principles, 
 which in both of your discourses you avow in regard to civil 
 obedience, and the subtle casuistry with which they w T ere incul¬ 
 cated, and also your attempt to limit the apostolic injunctions 
 to the local and peculiar circumstances of the Roman Chris¬ 
 tians. I have likewise noticed your denunciations against your 
 brethren who shrink from the din of political strife, and are too 
 deeply occupied with the concerns of eternity, and the duties of 
 their spiritual office, to mingle in the ranks of political agita¬ 
 tion. My present object is to show the fallacy of your distinc¬ 
 tion between general and specific taxes, which is the only ground 
 on which the defence of your conduct in not paying the Annuity 
 Tax now rests. 
 
 You admit that all general taxes, legally imposed, ought to 
 be paid without hesitation. But you strenuously contend that 
 specific taxes must be paid, or not, only after a due considera¬ 
 tion of the merit or demerit of the purposes for which they are 
 designed. When you resorted to this distinction, it is plain 
 that you must have been reduced to great extremity. Common 
 sense and common honesty alike revolt against it, and the feel¬ 
 ing of mankind will tell you that it can only be of service in 
 the schools of sophists. Indirect taxes are indeed generally 
 less unpopular than direct property or capitation taxes. But 
 few thinking men have ever ventured to assert, that, in a moral 
 point of view, this could make any difference when considered 
 in reference to the objects for which they were collected. It 
 is important, however, to expose the sophistry which lurks in 
 your distinction, and to demonstrate the extent of your error 
 in asserting that to submit to a specific impost, whose destina¬ 
 tion we conscientiously disapprove , is as sinful as to employ our 
 hands in the commission of actual sin. Than such a proposition 
 none can be more unfounded. The difference between paying 
 such a tax and sinning with our hands is as clear as noon-day. 
 
32 
 
 The destination of a tax may be sinful while its payment is 
 lawful. The guilt of a sinful destination rests upon those by 
 whom it has been determined; but the tax-payer has no con¬ 
 cern with its appropriation, and is absolved by the law of God 
 from any further inquiry than that which concerns the lawful¬ 
 ness of the authority by which it is levied. The Government 
 demands payment of the tax, but requires from its subjects no 
 sanction of the purposes to which it is applied. These are to 
 be determined by a higher jurisdiction than that of the indivi¬ 
 dual tax-payer, and whether we live under the despotism of an 
 oriental Sultan, or under the benignant sway of a limited mo¬ 
 narchy, or under the more lawless rule of a wild democracy, 
 still, in each of these cases, the amount, the nature, as well as 
 the ultimate destination of the public imposts, are all fixed by 
 a superior power, that leaves the most scrupulously conscientious 
 subject no such apology as that which you plead for, in refusing 
 to render "tribute to whom tribute is due.” "It is monstrous,” 
 you say, " to suppose that, by any mere human arrangement, 
 not only may what was not duty become duty, and what was 
 not sin become sin; but what was sin become duty, and what 
 was duty become sin.” In this statement is not the spirit 
 of the sophist again discerned amidst the cloud in which he 
 seeks to confound things that differ ? If taxes be employed by 
 Government for purposes immoral or impious, the payment by 
 the subject neither sanctions the immorality nor impiety. It 
 was never duty to commit impiety, and no " human arrange¬ 
 ment” can justify its guilt. But it is no " human arrange¬ 
 ment which has ordained the payment of tribute, and therefore 
 it must ever be criminal to resist this ordinance of God. Ex¬ 
 treme supposititious cases may indeed be conjured up to distress 
 the feelings, or perplex the judgment of those who desire to 
 obey the Divine precept in its plain interpretation. But surely 
 it is no symptom of a good cause, when you are reduced to 
 search for arguments drawn even from subjects too sacred and 
 too solemn to be irreverently bandied about as weapons of con¬ 
 troversy. To suppose, as you do, a specific tax levied to defray 
 the expenses of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ, may 
 appear in your own estimation a very clever and ingenious 
 supposition, and one likely to place your opponents on the 
 horns of a dilemma. But so far from producing any such effect, 
 most men will turn from it with feelings of mingled indignation 
 and disgust. The same appeal would equally apply to the pay¬ 
 ment of general taxes, in whose appropriation were included 
 those spectacles at which Christian martyrs were thrown to the 
 lions. But in regard to all taxes, it is plain, in spite of your 
 sophistry, that there are always two parties who have each sepa- 
 
33 
 
 rate and distinct duties to discharge. To the subject belongs 
 the duty of paying what the ordinance of God has taken from 
 him and given to his rulers; to the rulers, on the other hand, 
 belongs the high and solemn responsibility of rightly appropri¬ 
 ating their revenue. If, therefore, sin be committed in its 
 application ; if it be made to subserve purposes of immorality, 
 impiety, or irreligion, still these purposes are no more recog¬ 
 nised by the tax-payer, who only discharges the debt due to his 
 Government, than the criminal and ungodly purposes to which 
 a landlord or a creditor may apply his rent or debt, are recog¬ 
 nised by you when you have paid his ‘lawful demand. It is 
 unnecessary to insist that employing the hands in the commission 
 of sin must, in all cases, and in every circumstance, be sinful. 
 
 Your whole argument is based on the utterly fallacious and 
 absurd idea that the payment of a tax is a voluntary act . You 
 employ the terms “ voluntary” and “ giving” in reference to 
 taxes, in almost every page of your discourse. By the use of 
 such terms you may beguile the simple, but you have never 
 ventured fairly to grapple with my argument on the subject, or 
 attempted to overthrow the principle that the payment of taxes 
 is not to be regarded as a voluntary act, but is placed in Scrip¬ 
 ture on the footing of a debt. All your arguments, all your 
 suppositions, even the most revolting of them, are dissipated in 
 a moment when tried by this test. The fact that you have not 
 even dared to confront me on this ground, is the strongest ac¬ 
 knowledgment you could make of your inability to refute this 
 principle which I advanced on the authority of God's holy 
 Word. But while you have neither ventured manfully to meet 
 my argument, nor candidly to acknowledge its force, you have 
 not scrupled to cite a passage from “ The Philosopher of 
 Malmesbury,” in such a connexion as to intimate that, in my 
 opinion, as well as in his, there are cases in which it is not sin 
 to employ the hands in committing sin. Is it truth, Sir, that 
 requires so dishonest a defence ? 
 
 In order that what follows may be fully understood, permit 
 me to repeat what you have said in your first letter regarding 
 general taxes. “ I consider Christians,” you observe, “as 
 bound to pay conscientiously and cheerfully all taxes imposed 
 for general purposes by the Government under which they 
 live. If the Government misapply the revenue thus raised, 
 for that misapplication they, not their subjects, are respon¬ 
 sible. Even where the imposts themselves are, in their esti¬ 
 mation, exorbitant or unjust, it is their duty to pay them.” 
 You here admit that the application of general taxes must be 
 made on the exclusive responsibility of Government. If this 
 were not the fact, what a source of perplexity would be opened 
 
34 
 
 to every conscientious individual! But if this be the case in 
 regard to general taxes, on what pretence can it be alleged, that 
 in the case of specific taxes the responsibility is transferred to 
 the subject ? You confound things that differ when you affirm 
 that the payment of a specific tax appropriated to a sinful pur¬ 
 pose, is the same as sinning with our hands. You, on the 
 other hand, distinguish things that have no essential difference, 
 when you assert that it is the duty of subjects to pay all taxes 
 for general purposes, while you argue for a limitation in regard 
 to specific taxes. As it is upon this distinction that you ground 
 your defence of your refusal to pay the Annuity Tax, it is 
 necessary still further, not only to expose its fallacy, but its 
 absurdity. 
 
 Perplexed by the unbending and peremptory character of the 
 precept, you cast about for any method of reconciling your con¬ 
 duct in resisting a legal impost with the Divine law. Like your 
 predecessor in the same line of argument, the Jesuit Escobar, 
 you invent a nice distinction, and lay down a principle which, if 
 it were admitted, would at once absolve the consciences of 
 thousands from all farther care as to the payment of taxes. 
 You allege that we must not pay a tax which is to be appro¬ 
 priated to a sinful purpose; and although you find nothing in 
 the Bible to justify this exception to the general law, yet you 
 argue for it with a confidence which seems to be exactly in the 
 inverse ratio of its truth. Being persuaded, however, that this 
 principle will carry you rather too far, and being desirous to 
 show that there are some bounds to your disobedience, you 
 invent another distinction, which, instead of supporting your 
 argument, will prove nothing better than a broken reed to pierce 
 your hand. You consider yourself at liberty to refuse payment 
 of a particular tax, appropriated to a particular object, but you 
 will not withhold a general tax, levied for a general purpose. 
 You quarrel with the Annuity Tax, because it is apropriated 
 to the payment of the Edinburgh Clergy. This is an object 
 which you consider sinful , and you will go to prison rather than 
 obey the law which demands tribute for such a purpose. If 
 this were a sound principle, and it were incumbent on you, as a 
 preliminary to its payment, to inquire into the use for which any 
 tax is appropriated, it would be equally your duty to investigate 
 all the purposes for w r hich general taxes are applied. This in¬ 
 deed, you deny, but where is the consistency of your denial ? 
 
 If a specific tax is to be refused because its purpose is sinful, 
 a general tax ought to be refused because a part of its purposes 
 is sinful. A tax for general purposes includes all the purposes 
 for which it is employed, and one sinful particular purpose will, 
 on this ground, contaminate the whole. If a particular tax to 
 
35 
 
 support Juggernaut ought to be refused, a general tax, of which 
 the support of Juggernaut is one object, ought likewise to be 
 refused. Your casuistry is mere sophistry. 
 
 You tell us that the rulers only, and not the subjects, are 
 responsible for the “ misapplication” of a general tax; but it is 
 no misapplication of a general tax to apply it to each of all the 
 various purposes for which it is raised. If one of its objects be 
 the support of Juggernaut, it is no misapplication of that por¬ 
 tion of it that is given to this particular purpose. It is a sinful 
 application of the money, but not a misapplication of the tax. 
 The tax is applied according to its avowed purpose. But, Sir, 
 if the subject partakes of the sin of the application of the speci¬ 
 fic tax, he partakes also of the sin of the application of the 
 general tax. He has no more control over the one than he has 
 over the other. If he ought to refuse the one he ought to re¬ 
 fuse the other. If it would be sinful to contribute to a fund 
 whose specific object was to distribute the Apocrypha with the 
 Bible, it would be sinful to contribute to a fund one of whose 
 objects was to distribute the Apocrypha with the Bible. We 
 have no more right to contribute to a fund whose application is 
 partially evil, than to one entirely evil. There is no essential 
 difference, then, in this respect, between a specific and a general 
 tax. Both general and specific taxes are to be paid without in¬ 
 quiring as to their ultimate destination. The Scriptures make 
 no distinction between them, and the payment of them implies 
 no approbation of that destination—no more sanction of their 
 application, as has been observed, than the payment of a debt. 
 
 You not only admit, but assert, that it is the duty of subjects 
 to pay general imposts that are “ unjust.” But is not an un¬ 
 just tax a sinful tax ? And if, in paying a general tax which I 
 know to be unjust and sinful, I have no participation in the sin 
 or injustice, by what casuistry will you prove that I am guilty of 
 the sin of a specific tax? If the payment of the tax implies 
 any approbation, in both cases I am equally guilty. If the 
 payment in the one case does not imply my approbation, neither 
 does it in the other. Your limitation on this subject is not 
 merely unsound, it is absurd. 
 
 If a tax is levied for one specific object to which you object, 
 would you not equally object to it, if it were levied for many 
 evil purposes ? And if this must be your determination, if you 
 would maintain only a decent appearance of consistency, will 
 you affirm that if any single good or indifferent purpose be 
 associated with the evil purposes, then the tax will become justly 
 due, so that if nine-tenths of the amount is appropriated to the 
 purposes of an Established Church, and one-tenth to the defence 
 
 c 
 
36 
 
 of other civil purposes of the State, the tax will become pay¬ 
 able, although the nine-tenths could not have been justly levied 
 without the addition of the remaining tenth. Into what absurdity 
 would not this line of argument conduct you ! But is this a whit 
 more absurd than to maintain that a general tax is to be paid 
 without regard to its appropriation, while the object of any one 
 particular tax is to be carefully sifted. Can anything be more 
 preposterous than to admit the principle, that the appropriation 
 of the Annuity Tax in favour of the Protestant Clergymen of 
 Edinburgh, is to be questioned and quarrelled with, while the 
 Assessed Taxes are to be submitted to without hesitation, 
 although a part of them is actually employed in educating 
 Popish Priests at Maynooth, and another portion is expended 
 in the very idolatrous [salutes at Malta, in Canada, and else¬ 
 where, to which you make such pointed allusion. No, Sir, 
 your principle is either good to the whole of its extent, or it is 
 unsound at the core. You must either admit the propriety of 
 paying tribute without question as to its object, or you must 
 follow out your principle to its utmost bounds, and assume to 
 yourself the prerogative of sitting in judgment on every tax 
 which affects you, for the purpose of determining whether you 
 will submit to it or noL If you refuse tribute because the whole 
 of it is to be applied for an object you dislike, you cannot with 
 any consistency submit to it when any portion of it is to be de¬ 
 voted to what is objectionable. If you once begin to calculate 
 in this manner, it can make no difference whether nine-tenths 
 or one-tenth, nine-hundredths or one-hundredth are appropriated 
 to purposes of evil. Your principle is either good for all cases, 
 or it is utterly unsound, worthless, and absurd. On this subject 
 you shall hear farther in my next letter.—I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 TAXES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTS-CONTINUED. 
 
 March 6, 1838. 
 
 Sir, —In vain do you endeavour to shelter yourself behind 
 the distinction which you draw between general and specific 
 taxes. If you will pay a general tax because only a part of the 
 produce is applied to what you consider sinful purposes, and 
 refuse a specific tax because it is wholly appropriated to objects 
 which you condemn, do you not perceive that you stand upon 
 
37 
 
 a most unstable and rotten foundation. What, Sir, is this 
 another of your novel maxims in Christian morality, that a man 
 may do indirectly what he dare not do directly ? That he may 
 safely support that which he deems evil, provided it is dex¬ 
 terously mixed up with that which is good ? If I had not known 
 the manner in which you acted seven years ago, I should have 
 been at a loss to understand from whence you had derived this 
 absurd maxim. But, be assured, it is just as bad to do evil 
 indirectly as it is to do evil directly. If it be right to object 
 to a specific tax because it is wholly appropriated to purposes of 
 which you disapprove, it is equally your duty to object to a 
 general tax of which you partially disapprove. Christian morals 
 will not admit of your refined distinctions. 
 
 If, again, you object to pay the Annuity Tax, because it is 
 appropriated to a religious purpose, for which you hold that 
 Government has no right to legislate, this objection will equally 
 apply to taxes levied for general purposes. These you deem 
 yourself bound to pay, although they should be “ unjust.” But 
 if Government has no right to levy taxes for religious purposes, 
 it can have no right to levy taxes for unjust purposes. If the 
 one object exceed its delegated powers, so must the other. But 
 an invincible answer to the objection you make on this ground 
 is found in the fact that the Apostle, writing by the Spirit of 
 God, enjoined on all Christians the duty of paying tribute under 
 a Government that employed a part, and a very considerable 
 part of its revenue, in the support both of idolatrous worship 
 and of those horrid orgies and other inhuman spectacles which 
 polluted their temples, disgraced their triumphal processions, 
 and turned into a Golgotha even their most splendid public 
 theatres. If God peremptorily commanded Christians to pay 
 tribute, although it was partly dedicated to “immoral and im¬ 
 pious purposes” of the most atrocious character, can it be 
 imagined that we are exempt from the payment of taxes em¬ 
 ployed for the maintenance of the worship of the true Jehovah ? 
 If you farther urge that it is unjust to exact tribute from you 
 for the purpose of supporting a mode of religious worship in 
 which you do not participate, while you defray the expense of 
 your own religious services, this objection is at once obviated 
 by the fact that Christians, under a Pagan Government, were 
 not, on this account, exempted from the payment of tribute. 
 When, therefore, you refuse to pay a tax to the existing 
 Government under any of the above pretexts, you are resisting 
 the will of God written as with a sun-beam in his Word, and 
 promulgated in circumstances which place the duty in the 
 strongest light. Had the Apostle been directed to write on 
 the subject of tribute under such a Government as ours, how 
 
38 
 
 much more plausibly might Christians, residing in heathen 
 countries, have argued that it never could be the purpose of 
 God that they should contribute for the support of idolatrous 
 rites. Yet, even in that case, such reasoning would have been 
 utterly fallacious, since the duty of paying tribute is enjoined 
 in so peremptory a manner, and without any exception or limi¬ 
 tation, either expressed or implied. But how completely are all 
 such refuges of lies swept away when the existing state of things 
 at the period when the Apostle wrote, is taken into view. 
 
 When the Apostle commands us to pay tribute to Govern¬ 
 ment, he must include tribute of every kind, since no kind is 
 exempted in the Scriptures. The precept enjoins the payment 
 of specific as well as of general taxes, for it makes no distinction 
 between them. Men have no more right to forge an exception 
 than they have to make a Bible. They who, by doing so, 
 make void the command of God, do it at their peril. 
 
 Although it is not material to my argument, and I will not 
 rest it even in the least degree upon anything but the unerring 
 Word of God, I may here remark, that special taxes for the 
 support of idolatrous worship and other “impious and immoral” 
 heathen ceremonies, actually did subsist in the time of the 
 Apostles. In one of the most recent works devoted to the 
 history of the Athenians, Mr. Lytton Bulwer traces the different 
 sources of their revenue, and observes as follows:—“ The 
 State received the aid of annual contributions, or what were 
 termed Liturgies , from individuals for particular services .” 
 He then enumerates three different species, and concludes— 
 “ These three ordinary Liturgies had all a religious character ; 
 they were compulsory on those possessed of property not less 
 than three talents.” Now as the Apostle taught the same 
 doctrine, and gave the same commandments “everywhere and 
 in all places,” both the Roman and Athenian Christians, while 
 they might mourn over the superstition of their rulers, and the 
 use to which special taxes were appropriated, must still have 
 paid the exaction with a cheerful obedience to the will of God. 
 You admit that the precept in your text “refers to the existing 
 tributes of the Roman Empire,” and the Apostle makes no 
 exception either as to civil or religious tribute. All were to 
 be paid, and you have not been able to produce a single 
 instance of these tributes being refused by any of the early 
 Christians. 
 
 But are not you, Sir, in the habit of paying a tax for a 
 specific object which, in your estimation, is obtained in a man¬ 
 ner that is sinful, and which, consequently, on your principle, 
 you ought not to pay ? The Post Office revenue is partly 
 made up of the profits of Sunday travelling. When, therefore. 
 
39 
 
 your "conscientious convictions” prevent you from paying the 
 Annuity Tax, do they prevent you from paying postages of 
 letters brought to you in this way. If not, where is your con¬ 
 sistency ? Do you imagine that if these convictions do not 
 operate uniformly, you can obtain credit when you plead them ? 
 If you will go to prison rather than pay the Annuity Tax, let 
 us hear that it is your practice never to pay postage for a letter 
 which has been conveyed to you by post on the Sabbath-day. 
 
 Were it lawful or incumbent on every tax-payer to resist the 
 payment of taxes according to his own peculiar views of the 
 propriety of their application, the consequences would not only 
 be pernicious, but subversive of civil society. " I cannot,” you 
 observe, "see how any man can consistently pay taxes levied 
 avowedly for the support of an unjust war.” Now there 
 never is a war when war-taxes are not levied. Suppose, then, 
 a property tax exacted as hitherto in the event of a war, before 
 a Christian could conscientiously pay what was thus imposed 
 for a specific purpose, he must ascertain whether the war is one 
 of aggression or defence, whether necessary or unjust. From 
 all such perplexing questions, in the goodness and mercy of 
 God, he has delivered his people, by promulgating a distinct 
 and general law, subject to no exceptions and no limitations. 
 They are thus relieved from all inquiry into cases so complex 
 that for the great body of Christians it would be impossible to 
 discover the path of duty, while a few designing men might 
 mislead them to the ruin of the country. But according to the 
 clear Apostolic precept—equally plain to the learned and the 
 unlearned—the most knowing and the least informed believer 
 pays, in obedience to the King of kings, the tribute demanded 
 bv the Government under which he lives, and thanks God that 
 the responsibility of its application rests in other hands. 
 
 The sentiments contained in the following extract from a 
 sermon, to which you refer in terms of high approbation, most 
 explicitly condemn the principle for which you contend, and the 
 course*which you now pursue. "As to our duty, my brethren, 
 who are the subjects of Civil Government, one thing must at 
 once be evident to you; that it cannot be the province of each 
 individual to judge for himself what taxes he is to pay, and 
 what to decline. It has been very truly observed, that the 
 precept to pay taxes should be considered by Christians as a 
 blessing. Had not the precept been given expressly, con¬ 
 scientious men might have thought it necessary to know first 
 how the money was to be applied, and to refuse wherever they 
 disapproved of the expenditure. This would have given 
 occasion to endless trouble and contention. But now, in 
 consequence of the express precept, all occasion of scruple or 
 
40 
 
 uneasiness is removed. And, as of old, Christians were per¬ 
 mitted to buy whatever was sold in the shambles, asking no 
 questions for conscience* sake; so now whatever is imposed as 
 a tax it is our duty simply to pay, and owe no man anything, 
 but to love one another/* 
 
 Your mistaken view, from first to last, on this subject con¬ 
 sists, as I formerly observed, in supposing, that in some way or 
 other, tribute is a voluntary contribution, which is to be paid or 
 withheld, according as you approve or disapprove of its destina¬ 
 tion. On this supposition you would divide all responsibility 
 of its application with those by whom it is levied. But this view 
 of the case, which leads you to distinguish between general and 
 specific taxes, we have seen to be unscriptural, fallacious, and 
 absurd. The command by Him to whom the silver and the 
 gold belong, and to whom you owe all that you possess, requires 
 you to pay what is exacted by the subsisting Government, which 
 is his ordinance. It is consequently no longer yours, nor in 
 the smallest degree under your control, any more than the 
 money due to your creditor, to whom you are individually in¬ 
 debted. When you have made this payment you have done all 
 that God requires, and as far as concerns your personal respon¬ 
 sibility, you have nothing farther to consider or care for. You 
 plead that “no Dissenter is morally bound to pay this (Annuity) 
 tax, for no tribute is due from him to the City Clergy .** Cer¬ 
 tainly no tribute is due from you to them. The tribute de¬ 
 manded of you is due to the Government, and therefore every 
 one of whom it is required, Dissenter or not, is bound to p&y 
 it. The duty to do so rests on the authority of God, and 
 whether or not it may appear to us to be right in itself, his com¬ 
 mand is to be obeyed. When God commanded the Israelites 
 to extirpate the Canaanites, it was their duty implicitly to obey. 
 Without that command such conduct would have involved the 
 deepest criminality, and yet when they failed in this duty, they 
 were justly punished for their disobedience. 
 
 The Scriptures contain a clear and precise rule for the guid¬ 
 ance of Christians respecting tribute, such as the weakest of 
 them can never mistake, if they simply attend to the law with¬ 
 out indulging a spirit of subtle casuistry. But listening to 
 sophistry like yours, the great body of them would be led by 
 speculations that will vary in their results according to the times 
 in which they live, and the systems of political economy which 
 predominate, so that Christianity would in this respect put on 
 as many phases as the moon. Beware, Sir, as to what you are 
 doing, you are breaking the commandments of God, and teach¬ 
 ing others to do the same. 
 
 The discussion of this question is of deep and permanent 
 
41 
 
 interest. It affects principles which have been received and 
 acknowledged since the first introduction of Christianity, and 
 rules of Christian practice which are intimately connected with 
 the progress of the Gospel. It is, indeed, a matter of com¬ 
 paratively little moment, that an individual like yourself, in 
 Edinburgh, resolves to go to prison rather than pay his Annuity 
 Tax. In ordinary times we should smile at your folly, or pity 
 your error. Charity would desire to regard your conduct, not 
 as the offspring of faction, but as the result of a clouded judg¬ 
 ment. But your conduct assumes quite a different character 
 when viewed in connection with the circumstances of the times 
 in which we live. Your scruples of conscience were never 
 exhibited to the world, when you would have stood nearly alone 
 in your refusal to pay any tax. They were allowed to slumber 
 when the political horison was undisturbed, and the demagogue 
 and agitator were frowned upon in society. These scruples 
 have at length been awakened amidst the din of political strife, 
 and the tumult of contending parties ; amidst the agitation pro¬ 
 duced by men who clamour for the repeal of the union with 
 Ireland, and cheer on those revolutionists who are at length 
 actually in arms to dismember the Empire. Never was there 
 a more unfortunate period for a man to exhibit himself as sud¬ 
 denly impelled in a new direction. The time, the circum¬ 
 stances of your change, are also peculiar, that they naturally 
 lead us to look with closer attention to the grounds on which 
 they are founded. You put yourself at the head of a party. 
 Cost what it may you declare that you are determined to resist, 
 and whether your going to jail might be the occasion of popular 
 tumult, or whether it might be regarded with indifference or 
 ridicule, you do not care to inquire. Placing yourself in an 
 attitude of defiance, you publicly proclaim that you, at all 
 events, will no longer, in this case, pay the tax which the Go¬ 
 vernment of your country demands—you prove that you will 
 not obey the divine precept, to render tribute to whom tribute 
 is due. 
 
 These are the circumstances that render it important that 
 your principles should be fully examined, and their hollowness 
 extensively exposed. If your conduct were followed generally, 
 society could not subsist. Every tax might find conscientious 
 opponents, and Government would be reduced to a perpetual 
 warfare with its subjects. Besides, your principles would 
 materially interfere with the progress of the Gospel in heathen 
 or unenlightened countries. No Christian, whether acting as 
 a missionary or a trader, could live in Turkey were he to prac¬ 
 tise your theory of considering the purposes for which taxes are 
 levied. The first Christians would never have been able to 
 
42 
 
 maintain their blameless character had they refused to pay 
 tribute because it was to be applied either in whole or in part 
 to idolatrous purposes. They would have been prosecuted, 
 and justly, as rebels, not persecuted as Christians. They would 
 have been punished for resisting the laws of their country, and 
 not for introducing a new religion. But imitating the conduct 
 of their blessed Master, and obeying his commands, they dis¬ 
 armed their adversaries of any just ground of complaint, and it 
 was equally true of them, as of Daniel, that no fault could be 
 found with them except in regard to the law of their God. 
 
 The distinction between taxes for general and those for spe¬ 
 cific purposes, in respect to an obligation to pay them is, as I 
 have stated, the sole ground on which your resistance to the 
 Annuity Tax rests. I care not although you had been success¬ 
 ful in establishing the other pleas to which you have resorted 
 for your vindication. Had you succeeded as completely as you 
 have signally failed in what you allege respecting the early 
 Christians and Covenanters, and were the Quakers all on your 
 side, what would it avail ? “To the law and to the testimony: 
 if they speak not according to this word,, it is because there is 
 no light in them” The “seat,” to borrow your own ex¬ 
 pression from a former defence, which you have not forgotten, 
 of another instance of your turn for jesuitical sophistry,—the 
 “seat,” the only seat on which you rest in this discussion, is that 
 fallacious and untenable distinction which I have now exposed. 
 This seat being taken from under you, your fall is inevitable. 
 In my next letter I shall unmask that flimsy disguise to which 
 you attach so much importance, and which, under the name of 
 passive resistance, might in some measure serve to conceal the 
 evil of your pernicious example. 
 
 I terminated a former letter by directing your attention to 
 one who was your predecessor in the inculcation of the same 
 doctrine with you respecting the payment of tribute. I con¬ 
 clude the present letter by informing you that you have got a 
 contemporary who agrees with both of you, and seems to 
 have studied in the same school of casuistry. A recent 
 London newspaper contains the following article of intelli¬ 
 gence “At the petty Sessions of Coleshill, last week, a 
 plumber and glazier was summoned for not having paid his 
 highway rate. Being called upon for his defence he argued, 
 that as he did not keep even a cat or a dog to travel on the 
 Queen's highway, it was exceedingly unjust that he should 
 be compelled to pay towards keeping it in repair.” This, 
 Sir, is a modern authority decidedly in your favour. It exactly 
 suits your argument, and is a most apt illustration of what, 
 could it be established, would be its result. Here is a tax for 
 
43 
 
 a specific purpose, which this glazier reckons unjust, and 
 against which accordingly, like you, he enters his protest. And 
 why should he not be heard as well as Escobar ? Why should 
 he not be allowed to plead his “ conscientious convictions” as 
 well as Dr. John Brown ?—I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 PASSIVE RESISTANCE. 
 
 March 9, 1838. 
 
 Sir, —It is the inspired maxim of the wisest of men that 
 “ the way of transgressors is hard.” Every step that you have 
 taken in defence of your resistance to the Annuity Tax, affords 
 a striking illustration of the difficulties which thicken around 
 your advance in the devious path of error. Besides your so¬ 
 phistical distinction between general taxes, and those levied for 
 specific purposes, you have provided for yourself one more 
 covert, under which you seek to disguise your disobedience to the 
 law of your country. You allege that your resistance is pas¬ 
 sive, and, therefore, is not criminal. But this refuge will not 
 avail you. Instead of shielding you from blame, it can only 
 add the shame of unmanly evasion to the guilt of your original 
 offence. 
 
 The expression passive resistance , though not now first in¬ 
 vented, has been brought into notoriety by Mr. Daniel O’Con¬ 
 nell, and is associated with some of the darkest pages in the 
 modern history of Ireland. It is a mode of rebellion against 
 lawful authority worthy of the source from which it proceeds; 
 but that you should have been, in any particular, the imitator 
 or disciple of a turbulent Popish agitator, is a melancholy exhi¬ 
 bition of the progress of evil. Passive resistance, Sir, is a con¬ 
 temptuous defiance of the majesty of law; it is rebellion, not 
 perhaps more ineffectual, and certainly not less criminal, because 
 it is not, in the first instance, accompanied with open violence. 
 It may be the snare of weakness or of folly ; it may also be the 
 refuge of cowardice, which quails before the sword of justice; 
 but it may likewise be the mask under which the man of deceit 
 conceals his purposes of treason and revolt. It is resistance to 
 Government of a most dangerous and embarrassing description. 
 Every one knows that sullenness in a child is more perplexing 
 and distressing than any other kind of opposition to parental 
 authority. Now, sullenness in a child is precisely that kind of 
 
44 
 
 disobedience which is analagous to passive resistance in a subject. 
 
 Passive resistance is, in effect, a contradiction in terms. Al¬ 
 though denominated passive , it is real and actual resistance. 
 Resistance of every kind implies opposition, which is the con¬ 
 trary of inaction. Resistance, of whatever description, or how¬ 
 ever denominated, comes under the sweeping anathema of the 
 Apostle against all who withstand the ordinance of God. If a 
 regiment were ordered to advance, and every man in it stood 
 still, it would be actual disobedience, of which punishment would 
 be the consequence. When the fleet mutinied at the Nore, and 
 the men declared that unless their demands were complied with 
 they would not “lift an anchor,” was not this disobedience? 
 When the mutiny was suppressed, the last penalty of the law 
 was exacted, and the ringleaders suffered death. The conduct 
 of Saul, when he forbore to fulfil the Lord's vengeance against 
 Amalek, might be excused on the ground of his disobedience 
 being passive. But mark the stern rebuke of Samuel, and ob¬ 
 serve the distinction he expressly makes between active rebellion 
 and passive stubbornness : “ For rebellion is as the sin of witch¬ 
 craft, and stubbornness (passive resistance) is as iniquity and 
 idolatry: because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, 
 he hath also rejected thee from being king.” Passive re¬ 
 sistance resembles what Dr. Johnson called “ defensive pride.” 
 But pride or resistance to lawful authority, in whatever form, are 
 both denounced in Scripture as abominable in the sight of God. 
 
 You are indignant at your conduct being characterised as 
 rebellion, but is not resistance to the law of the land rebellion ? 
 You glory in your resistance, but, because you are pleased to de¬ 
 scribe it as passive , you flatter yourself you can evade the obloquy 
 and punishment of actual guilt. Were you indeed to add 
 violence to your stubbornness, this would, no doubt, aggravate 
 your sin. But in either case, the resistance is real, and will 
 subject you to punishment, not merely from man, which you 
 may escape, but from God. The command is not that we shall 
 not resist in a certain manner, but that we shall not resist at all. 
 
 You give it as your opinion, that the man who peaceably 
 submits to the penalty of the law as truly respects it, and sub¬ 
 mits to the power as he who fulfils it. “ Many,” you say, 
 seem to think a man a violator of the law, a rebel, an enemy 
 of good order, one whose principles and conduct lead to an¬ 
 archy and bloodshed, who even on conscientious principles 
 declines active obedience to the magistrate,—will not obey 
 the law merely because it is the law, though at the same time 
 he is perfectly willing, if ‘ the ruling powers' see meet, to bear 
 whatever penalty the law allows them to inflict. No well in¬ 
 formed man, to whatever religious sect or political party 
 
45 
 
 he may belong, if he is not in a passion, can talk or write such 
 absurdity. He who, when he cannot conscientiously actively 
 obey a command of a Government, which he yet in his judg¬ 
 ment approves of as a good Civil Government upon the whole, 
 quietly and patiently takes what he cannot help thinking a 
 wrong, is certainly not a bad subject. He honours the law 
 by submitting to it when he cannot obey it. Because it is 
 law he honours it,—because it is law, which he cannot obey 
 without sin, he declines complying with it.” Is it possible, Sir, 
 that the large congregation to whom you delivered your dis¬ 
 courses, could sit patiently to listen to your perversion of the 
 passage of Scripture which you took for your text, teaching 
 them in what way they might disobey it without guilt, and to 
 hear you gravely propound sentiments so fraught with “ absurd¬ 
 ity” as those now quoted. But not satisfied with proclaiming 
 them in your discourses, you must introduce them once more 
 in your notes and illustrations. u As every law proposes an 
 alternative, by acquiescence in either part of which the law is 
 obeyed, and the authority of the lawgiver reverenced, the man 
 who peaceably submits to the penalty of the law when his con¬ 
 science forbids him to follow its prescription, as truly respects 
 the law, and submits to the power, as the man who chooses the 
 other part of the alternative.” This is casuistry worthy of a 
 whole conclave of the disciples of Loyola. It confounds obedi¬ 
 ence and disobedience, and in fact asserts that where violence is 
 not resorted to, there can be no breach of the law ! 
 
 You here represent the suffering of the penalty of the law as 
 obedience to the law. The penalty is not a fulfilment of the 
 law, but punishment for the non-fulfilment. You support your 
 opinion by the authority of “a high church writer,” who asserts 
 that “ obedience has always an alternative.” But obedience 
 has no alternative as obedience. Does the man who suffers 
 death for murder, honour and fulfil the sixth commandment ? 
 Do they who endure everlasting punishment for not obeying 
 the commandments of God, honour and truly respect the law 
 and reverence the lawgiver ? The man who refuses to obey a 
 law, but submits to the punishment, does not honour the law, 
 he dishonours it all in his power, and is forced to submit to the 
 punishment. So far from honouring and truly respecting the 
 law, when his conscience forbids him to follow its prescription, 
 as you confounding right and wrong, and in defiance of every 
 sound principle affirm, he rebels against it, and condemns it as 
 an unjust and sinful law; and instead of submitting to the power 
 as you also affirm, he tramples, by his disobediecne, on the 
 authority of the power. Besides, if the law is sinful, its sanction 
 or penalty is also sinful, and we ought not to honour it in its 
 
46 
 
 sanction or penalty, more than in its requirement. On your 
 principle, the transported felon is a most respectable character ; 
 he has only chosen an unpleasant alternative. It is disgusting, 
 Sir, to deal with such paltry sophistry. Your arguments here, 
 as in other places, resemble those of the Pharisees, by which 
 you make void the law of God, as irreverently and as grossly as 
 they did by their traditions. 
 
 But let us observe the manner in which, in the exercise of 
 your passive resistance , you prove yourself “ not a bad subject,” 
 by “ quietly and patiently” taking what you cannot help think¬ 
 ing a wrong, honouring and respecting the law, and reverencing 
 the authority of the lawgiver. The moment the law prescribes 
 for you, and its penalty is exacted, you give vent to the most 
 outrageous expressions, in a letter which you publish for wide 
 circulation. “While I take joyfully,” you say, “this spoiling 
 of my goods, I abhor the injustice, and despise the meanness 
 of the system, by one of the ‘ beggarly elements' of which I am 
 legally robbed of my property.” Passing these virulent invec¬ 
 tives against the system you oppose, violent in' the extreme, and 
 indecent as they are in whatever light you view it, you declare 
 yourself to be legally robbed of your property. And this, ac¬ 
 cording to you, is honouring and truly respecting the law, and 
 submitting to the powers, and reverencing the authority of the 
 lawgiver ! You appear. Sir, to understand neither what you 
 say, nor whereof you affirm, nor to know what manner of spirit 
 you are of. 
 
 The spendthrift and the miser, in refusing to discharge their 
 personal debts, often have recourse to passive resistance. There 
 are persons of whom it is said, they never pay a debt but by 
 compulsion. They do not rise up against their creditors with 
 arms in their hands, but they withhold what they owe, and in 
 order to bring odium on those to whom their money is due, 
 they will either oblige their creditors to send them to prison, or 
 to distrain their goods, so that, like you in respect to the An¬ 
 nuity Tax, they stigmatize the one “ as violence done to their 
 persons,” and the other, as “ the spoiling of their goods,” by 
 which they are “ legally robbed of their property.” 
 
 You may shrink from the thought, that in any case you would 
 carry your resistance so far as to resort to violence; but the 
 man who dares to avow his resistance, in any form, to a special 
 command of God, and to brand the Government as guilty of 
 legal robbery , when it exacts from him a legal impost, knows 
 little of his own heart, if he imagines that he would stop if he 
 had a prospect of success at what he calls passive resistance. 
 In you, Sir, we see the progress of the principle of resistance. 
 You once thought that protesting against the Annuity Tax was 
 
47 
 
 sufficient. The leaven has, after a little time, produced in your 
 mind a greater degree of fermentation. You now see you were 
 wrong. You had not gone far enough to produce the desired 
 effect. You already begin to utter “ great swelling words of 
 vanity,” about “jeoparding lives in the high places of the 
 field,” while you indulge in the most violent invectives; and, 
 I doubt not, that with a little more time, and a better oppor¬ 
 tunity, the principle of your resistance will be more fully de¬ 
 veloped, and your principles carried out “ to their fair practical 
 consequences. 
 
 Your conduct by inducing many to follow your example, is 
 likely to be extensively mischievous; but, acting on your prin¬ 
 ciples what disorders must ensue? Under their prevalence 
 Government could not hold together. Anarchy would be the 
 result, and we should discover too late, that even for the main¬ 
 tenance of civil liberty, it would have been a far better, and a 
 far wiser course to have obeyed the Divine command, without 
 torturing our ingenuity to invent plausible limitations and ex¬ 
 ceptions to its authority. 
 
 This passive resistance, this newly discovered power in the 
 science of rebellion, considering the extent to which it is now 
 carried, bids fair to produce, at no distant period, bloodshed and 
 civil war. It has been practised with great success in Ireland. 
 Hitherto it has been chiefly, though not exclusively, confined to 
 tithes ; but that man must be wilfully blind who cannot see that 
 it is applicable to any other demand to which he may feel disin¬ 
 clined, whether made by Government, or by a landlord or 
 creditor. In. many of those cases in Ireland, in which the lives 
 of the people, or of the police, have been sacrificed in tithe en¬ 
 counters, it was not they who refused payment who committed 
 the actual outrage. Like yourself, perhaps, they resolved to be 
 quiet, but the bells of the Popish chapels rung out to assemble 
 the multitude; rioting, violence, and slaughter succeeded. The 
 blood spilled in such encounters assuredly lies at the door of the 
 persons who proclaimed, as you do, their intention to go to prison 
 rather than submit to the precept “ to render tribute to whom tri¬ 
 bute is due.” It also cries aloud for vengeance against those 
 by whom this plan of opposition to Government has been or¬ 
 ganized and encouraged. When Christians become converts 
 to the doctrine of passive resistance to the laws of their country, 
 and in doing so, scruple not to pervert the Scriptures, it seems 
 to forebode the approaching overthrow of all authority and rule. 
 
 In my two preceding letters I have exposed the hollowness 
 and absurdity of your distinction between the obligation of pay¬ 
 ing taxes for general, and those for specific purposes. I have 
 now exhibited the dishonourable and dangerous subterfuge to 
 
48 
 
 which you resort, under the denomination of passive resistance, 
 a mode of procedure to which you attach so much importance, 
 that, in your protest, you have introduced it over and over 
 again. Your conduct. Sir, in this affair, is much worse than 
 many, even of those who disapprove of it, are aware; and more 
 disgraceful to the Christian name, and hazardous to the peace 
 of mankind, than has been generally imagined. I marvel not 
 that you have striven so hard, though in a way not very honour¬ 
 able, to prove that you are acting in accordance with the 
 example of the early Christians. But their whole conduct, in 
 relation to the subject in question, demonstrates as with a sun¬ 
 beam, that they would have held such proceedings as yours in 
 utter abhorrence. With what indignation would they have 
 spurned at your attempt to prove that they were guilty of direct 
 disobedience to the Divine law, in a matter in which their sub¬ 
 mission to its authority was most exemplary. The man who 
 seeks to vindicate his refusal, in any form or under any limita¬ 
 tions, to pay tribute to the Government under which his lot is 
 cast, has “ broken a hedge” which God has set around one of 
 his principal restraints on human depravity. He may sport 
 himself with his own deceivings, but he is trampling under foot 
 the law of Christ, and for this he must answer. 
 
 You take credit for your willingness to pay the penalty an¬ 
 nexed by the laws of your country to their violation. But if 
 you shall be sent to prison for your disobedience, do not enter 
 it with the expectation of being speedily released through the 
 interference of friends, who may be already prepared to come 
 forward and pay the tax which you have refused. In one view, 
 this would only be a pitiful farce, deserving of contempt, if, after 
 a few days or hours of confinement, you should march out in 
 mock triumph amidst the shouts of the mob, as one who had 
 suffered for conscience* sake, and worn the crown of martyrdom. 
 In another point of view, an exhibition like this, would furnish 
 a melancholy example of conduct, in the last degree unchristian 
 and unprincipled. For would it not argue the vilest hypocrisy 
 if a man were found to denounce the payment of the Annuity 
 Tax as sinful, and, at the same time, to take advantage of the 
 wilful commission of this sin by others ? The same principle 
 will apply should you permit your friends to pay the tax in order 
 to prevent your incarceration, or to purchase your goods when 
 distrained, to save you from loss. Such paltry and criminal 
 proceedings could not fail to excite a feeling of indignation in 
 all who know the difference between right and wrong, between 
 honesty and hypocrisy. Instead, then, of betaking yourself to 
 any of these criminal and disreputable shifts, if you will incur 
 the penalty, by all means meet it like a man. If immured in a 
 
49 
 
 1 
 
 prison, to which the violated laws of your country have con¬ 
 signed you, remain in that confinement, till, after serious con¬ 
 sideration, you are convinced of the evil of trampling on the 
 ordinance of man and the ordinance of God. In experiencing 
 the painful effects of the one, you may be led to ponder the 
 more serious and awful consequences of the other. But better 
 would it be, and more honourable to yourself and the character 
 of the religion you profess, were you at once to retrace your 
 steps, and, by submitting yourself, give to others an example of 
 submission to the Divine will. 
 
 But it is now reported, Sir, that you are about to quit your 
 present residence, and get beyond the reach of the Annuity 
 Tax, by removing yourself out of the bounds of the Royal¬ 
 ty.* Is it credible that you should act such a part after 
 the example that you have set to your congregation? You 
 have instructed your people to resist the payment of it as 
 a matter of conscience—a part of Christian duty. You 
 have proclaimed yourself a self-devoted martyr in the cause 
 of resistance, one who is ready to endure bonds and im¬ 
 prisonment, and the spoiling of his goods, nay, even death itself, 
 rather than submit to the Annuity Tax. Having done this 
 deliberately and publicly, not, it is to be presumed, in mere 
 bravado, who would have anticipated that you were to become 
 a fugitive from the field, and were about to steal away from 
 your flock, whom you had, by your example and your precepts, 
 urged to share your post of danger ? Even if you had been 
 invited to retire from the lists which you had so pompously 
 entered, might it not have been expected that you would have 
 replied with somewhat of the spirit of a martyr, like Nehemiah 
 of old, “ Should such a man as I flee V* May it not be asked, 
 is it well to leave those whose circumstances do not permit to 
 desert the scene of trial, to encounter the storm which you have 
 raised ? Does it evince a proper spirit, proper feeling, proper 
 regard to duty, to stimulate others to engage in a quarrel from 
 which you, who began it, ignominiously retire ? If there was 
 something very sinful in your exhortations to resist the Annuity 
 Tax, must it not also be held sinful and highly disgraceful to 
 desert the field in such a crisis, and abandon your flock to those 
 consequences which you professed yourself willing to encounter ? 
 It really appears, Sir, so ridiculous for Dr. John Brown, first to 
 assume the character of a martyr, and then to fly the field, that 
 of this report which has been circulated it may in the meantime 
 be said, as of many other reports, that it wants confirmation. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 * This actually took place; Dr. Brown removed as soon as lie had an 
 opportunity, and has continued to reside beyond the bounds of the Royalty.