.
Order of Contents
Against Not Paying 3
To a Corrupt Purpose or Usurper 6
Scottish Cess 4
.
Against Not Paying Legitimate Taxes
The slogan “Taxation is Theft” is sinful.
See also ‘Commentaries on Matthew’ on 17:24-27 and 22:15-22, ‘Commentaries on Mark’ on 12:13-17, ‘Commentaries on Luke’ on 20:20-26 and ‘Commentaries on Rom. 13’ on verses 6-7.
.
Order of
Quotes 2
Article 1
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Gib
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843)
“This title by conquest, through the people’s after consent, may be turned into a just title, as in the case of the Jews in Caesar’s time, for which cause our Saviour commanded to obey Csesar, and to pay tribute unto him…”
.
p. 59 lt col mid
“Because to be a king is to be an adopted father, tutor, a politic servant and royal watchman of the state; and the royal honor and royal maintenance given to him is a reward of his labors and a kingly hire. And this is the apostle’s argument, Rom. 13:6, ‘For this cause pay you tribute also (there is the wages) for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.’ There is the work. Qui non implet conditionem a se promissam, cadit beneficio [“To him who does not fulfill the condition promised from himself, the benefit falls”]. “
.
p. 68 rt col top
“Argument 5— When Paul commands us to pay tribute to princes (Rom. 13:6) because they are the ministers of God, he lays this ground, that the king has not all, but that the subjects are to give to him of their goods.”
.
1700’s
Adam Gib
.
Article
2000’s
Feser, Edward – ch. 14, ‘Classical Natural Law Theory, Property Rights & Taxation’ in Neo-Scholastic Essays (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2015), pp. 321-57
Feser is a Romanist professor of philosophy and is an Analytical Thomist.
.
On the Ethics of Paying Specific Taxes designated to a Corrupt Purpose or Imposed by a Usurped Authority or Usurper
Order of Contents
Article 1
Quotes 5
.
Article
1600’s
Ascham, Anthony – ch. 1, ‘Whether a man may lawfully and with a good confidence pay taxes to an usurping or an unjust party during the war’ in A Discourse, wherein is Examined what is Particularly Lawful during the Confusions & Revolutions of Government, or How far a man may conform to the powers and commands of those who hold kingdoms divided by civil or foreign wars… (London, 1648), pt. 2, pp. 31-40
Ascham (c. 1614 – 1650) was an English academic, political theorist, parliamentarian and diplomat. He was a presbyterian turned Independent in Church government.
A controversy broke out in 1648 after the execution of King Charles II when the Rump Parliament instituted, with Oliver Cromwell as a leader, a republican government widely believed to be usurping by much of the English nation (including most of the presbyterians). The question came to the fore whether it was moral to pay taxes to this regime. As seen on this page, both sides tended to believe it was moral to pay taxes under such coercion.
For whatever differences one might have with Ascham in general on certain points, he was quite the political theorist and generally solid; one can learn much from him.
.
Quotes
Order of
Ascham
Sanderson
Baxter
Vilant
Fentiman
.
1600’s
Anthony Ascham
The Bounds & Bonds of Public Obedience, or a Vindication of our Lawful Submission to the Present Government… (London, 1649), p. 33 This was more than likely written by Ascham despite it being attributed to Rouse.
“When officers gather taxes for the [usurping] State, they have no commission to demand our declarations of the State’s authority first, but only to receive the money taxed, which this author knows is a truth known to every one.”
.
Robert Sanderson
A Resolution of Conscience (by a learned divine) in Answer to a letter sent with Mr. Ascham’s book, treating how far it may be lawful to submit to an usurped power… (London: 1649), pp. 1-3 GB
“Upon perusal of Mr. Ascham’s book… I find not myself in my understanding convinced thereby of the necessity of lawfulness of conforming unto or complying with an unjust prevailing power, further than I was before persuaded it might be lawful or necessary so to do: viz. paying taxes and submitting to some other things (in themselves not unlawful) by them imposed or required, such as I had a lawful liberty to have done in the same manner, though they had not been so command; and seem to me in the conjuncture of present circumstances prudentially necessary to preserve myself or my neighbor from the injuries of those that would be willing to make use of my non-submission to mine or his ruin. So as it be done with these cautions:
1. Without any violation either of duty to God, or of any other just obligation that lies upon me by oath, law, or otherwise.
2. Only in the case of necessity otherwise not to be avoided.
3. Without any explicit or implicit acknowledgment of the justice and legality of their power: I may submit to the [Greek:] dunamis (to the force), but not acknowledge the [Greek:] exousia (the authority), or by any [of] my voluntary act give strength, assistance or countenance thereunto.
4. Without any prejudice unto the claim of the oppressed party that has a right title, or casting myself into an incapacity of lending him my due and bounden assistance, if in time to come it may be useful to him towards the recovery of his right.
5. Where I may reasonably and bona fide presume, that the oppressed power, to whom my obedience is justly due, if he perfectly knew the present condition I am in, together with the exigence and necessity of the present case, and of all the circumstances thereof, would give his willing consent to such conformity or compliance.
So that upon the whole matter and in short, I conceive I may so far submit to the impositions or comply with the persons of a prevailing usurped power, unjustly commanding things in themselves not unlawful, or make use of that power to protect me from others’ injuries, as I may submit unto, comply with, or make use of an highway thief or robber, when I am fallen into his hands and lie at his mecy.”
.
Richard Baxter
Christian Directory (London, 1673), pt. 4, ch. 19, title 2, p. 116
Ҥ12. Question 7. May a true man promise money to a robber for the saving of his life or of a greater sum or more precious commodity? Answer:
Yes, in case of necessity, when his life or estate cannot better be preserved: And so taxes may be paid to an enemy in arms, or to a plundering soldier (supposing that it do no other hurt which is greater than the good). Any man may part with a lesser good to preserve a greater: And it is no more voluntary or imputable to our wills than the casting of our goods into the sea to save the vessel and our lives.”
.
William Vilant
A Review & Examination of ‘The History of the Indulgence’ (London: Cockerill, 1681), p. 228
“The paying of money to the clerks [related to the Scottish third Indulgence of 1679]… These clerks seek it not by the prelates’ authority, but upon the [civil] council’s appointment, backed with charges of horning [being declared a rebel and having civil protections taken away]; and whether it be rather eligible to [choose to] pay a little money, or to be put to the horn and taken with caption, let any sober person judge.
The scruples that the author [John Brown of Wamphray] and some others have put in the people’s heads about paying of stipends to the conformists and sessors [tax assessors and collectors] have wasted some peoples’ estates and tends to waste their consciences; for when they are quartered on and eaten up and plundered, they are driven to do what they thought sinful [i.e. to pay the tax]; and this disposes them to do things that are truly sinful upon temptations; and when they are by necessity driven to pay, they who wait for their halting, allege they have no conscience; and if they were put to it in other things, they would do all that would be required of them.”
.
2000’s
Travis Fentiman
“Editor’s Extended Introduction”, “The 3rd Indulgence &
Wamphray’s Arguments” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 150-51
“[John Brown of] Wamphray argues, ‘2. If the Council’s act or grant… be sinful, then the giving of this bond [by the indulged]… must be much more sinful…’ Yet it is plain, though an authority sin in giving commands, it is not necessarily sinful for one to keep, or promise to keep, those commands (otherwise there would be no such thing as passive obedience, but there is). [Richard] Baxter had previously, rightly argued at length¹ against the view Wamphray puts forth; Baxter’s position was precisely the indulged ministers’ viewpoint.²
¹ Baxter, Five Disputations, 5th Disputation, ch. 12, ”It may be very sinful to command some ceremonies, when yet it may be the subjects’ duty to use them when they are commanded,” pp. 460–63.
² Bairdie: “your indulged ministers, looking upon these statuted rules, at least ways, as unjust upon their matter, have never embraced nor observed them, except it be in some civil points (inflicted on them as penal), and that only so far as they judged might be lawfully submitted unto, however unjustly imposed.” Balm from Gilead, p. 77.
Saul unjustly required 100 Philistine foreskins for David to marry his daughter. David gave 200 (1 Sam. 18:17–27) and could have promised to do so in that broken and declining Church. The king of Babylon sinfully exacted from king Zedekiah of Israel an oath to serve him. Zedekiah broke this oath and would not serve him in that broken and declining Church-state. God condemned Zedekiah for it, seeing as he should have kept the sinfully exacted service (Eze. 17:11–19).
The magistrates sinfully required Christ to pay an Erastian, tribute tax upon the Church (Mt. 17:24–27). Christ, speaking of his example as a precedent for all his disciples for all history, chose the lesser material evil (or rather fulfilled the highest good attainable), submitted to this bondage, here declined the exercise of his (and our) Christian liberty and publicly gave that bond while verbally testifying privately (not publicly) that He was not so subject (Mt. 17:24–27). Is this a protestatio contraria facto, “a protestation contrary to fact,” as the non-indulged censured the indulged with?³ Did Jesus compromise his authority or the exercise of his ministry? Pilate’s court sinfully determined Christ to be crucified (Jn. 19:15–16). Christ willingly took up his cross (Jn. 19:17); He had power to lay down his own life (Jn. 10:15), as we do (Jn. 15:13), for his sheep. Therefore the Father loves Him (Jn. 10:17).
³ Wodrow, History, 2.179 & 492. Was the protest God told Samuel to make against the people’s desires having their own human king contrary to the fact when Samuel, per God’s direction, facilitated, anointed and enthroned king Saul for them? (1 Sam. 8:9)”
.
On the Ethics of Paying the Scottish Cess Near & During the Killing Times (1678 – 1680’s) & After (Post-1689 during Toleration)
Order of Contents
Intro
Quotes 4
.
Intro
The cess was a certain Scottish tax that came to be used in 1678 for supporting the military putting down outlawed field meetings for the worship of God by resisting and non-conforming presbyterian ministers and people. Its formal purpose as civilly enacted, per Vilant below, was to support resisting foreign invasion.
The issue for these same presbyterians was whether to voluntarily pay this tax or suffer the penalties of not doing so, which typically were much worse than paying it. The consequent issue of whether to commune with the ministers and Christians that did pay it shortly followed.
William Vilant was a minister who had taken the Indulgence, that is, was permitted to minister and preach in a parish church upon certain (minimal) civil restrictions. Wodrow and M’Crie were historians of the period. M’Crie offers a brief summary of the issues.
Robert McWard (a protege of Rutherford who was exiled to Holland) has a tract arguing against paying the cess, but it is not recommended: A Testimony against Paying of Cess to an Unjust & Unlawful Government or Wicked Rulers (n.d.) in McWard, A Collection of Tracts… (Dalry: Gemmill, 1805), pp. 215-88.
.
Quotes
Order of Quotes
Before 1689
Vilant
Wodrow
M’Crie
After 1689
Walker
.
Before 1689
1600’s
William Vilant
A Review & Examination of ‘The History of the Indulgence’ (London: Cockerill, 1681), pp. 599-610
“[Indulged Minister:] ‘…they charge these [indulged] ministers with preaching the lawfulness of paying that tribute declared to be imposed for the bearing down of the true worship of God, which they [the government] falsely termed seditious conventicles.’
[Non-Indulged] Preacher: ‘Sir, before ye speak anything as to the paying of that tribute, I desire that ye would consider that there were several ministers who preached against the paying of it, and I hope ye will not be rash in giving your opinion in that matter.’
Minister: ‘I wish those who preached against the paying of it had made less haste and had conferred with their [ministerial] brethren, and heard what they had to say from Scripture and reason e’re they had adventured to preach such a new doctrine, that subjects should not pay a tribute which was concluded by a meeting of the [parliamentary] estates of the nation, and for an end which is unquestionably good, the resisting of foreign invasion.
It’s, I suppose, a new doctrine that subjects should not pay tribute; and the preaching of new doctrines is dangerous; it has been the rashness of some that they were too hasty to preach their own private and very singular opinions; it were good, [if] ministers of the gospel would forbear to say anything to the people in preaching but that of which they might say, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ They should have considered what danger they exposed the people to by this doctrine: for either those who believed this doctrine would persist in refusing to pay, and this would expose them to be eaten up by soldiers; or they being distressed, would at length pay it, though they thought it unlawful, and this would debosh and waste their consciences and prepare them to do other things which they thought unlawful; and this would encourage those who differed from them in other things to take the same method in pressing them to conform to them; and some of the poor people who have stood out long, and at length yielded to pay, have exposed themselves to the scorn and derision of those who uplifted that cess.
Preacher: Seeing they declared that this cess was imposed to bear down the true worship of God, how could any with a good conscience pay it?
Minister: Any who reads this part of the band and had not seen the act of the Convention of Estates, would think that they had declared that it was for bearing down the true worship of God; now there are no such words in the act of Convention. Again, any who had not seen the act might think that if their words were true, that then the Convention of States were for bearing down whatsoever was the true worship of God, or that there was no true worship of God but in these meetings which the magistrate calls seditious conventicles. We should not make either words or things worse than they really are; and we should at least deal as fairly with the magistrate as with other men.
It has been reported by persons of honor and of great candor that the motion of setting up prelacy (which has been the cause of the sad suffering of presbyterians) in Scotland, did not come of the king’s majesty, but was repelled by the king, when first moved by some Scotsmen; and if they who moved it had not vehemently insisted and strongly alleged that it would be easily effectuated and would be acceptable to the people of Scotland, the King would never have set up prelacy in Scotland. And any favor that has been showed to non-conformists has principally flowed from the king himself, as Dr. [John] Owen in his Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet’s Sermon declares.
And in some places of his Majesty’s dominions, presbyterians have the public worship of God without any disturbance, which shows that the king does not look upon all the meetings of presbyterians for the worship of God as seditious conventicles; so that suppose that were said (which yet no judicious person will allege) that there were no true worship of God except in these meetings which are called conventicles, it would not be alleged that it were the magistrate’s design to bear down the true worship of God, seeing these meetings in several places of these kingdoms are not suppressed; and if some preachers had not vented doctrines which were really seditious at some of those conventicles, presbyterian ministers and people who designed nothing but the preaching and hearing of the Gospel of peace would not have been molested as they were; but the seditious turbulent doctrine of some did breed much trouble to others who were innocent.
It cannot be denied that there were some meetings where such doctrine was taught by the preachers and applauded and practiced by [the] hearers, that it was no wonder that the magistrate called them seditious. And if the contrivers of this bond had set themselves to devise a way to confirm the magistrate in calling conventicles seditious, they could not have fallen upon a more effectual way than this contrivance, which is indeed seditious and will readily be imputed to many who abhor the seditious designs and principles which are in this bond.
As for the reason why this cess should not be paid, viz. because it’s declared to be imposed for an ill end, they who are free to pay it will retort: It’s imposed for a good end, viz. to put the kingdom in a posture of defense against invasion; and therefore it should be paid. I know a judicious gentleman who said he would pay his cess for that end which was unquestionably good, viz. the resisting of foreign invasion. If an ill design intended by those who lay on a cess render the paying of it unlawful, then suppose a magistrate should impose a cess for twenty necessary ends and uses, if there were but one ill end designed by him in imposing it, it would be unlawful for subjects to pay that which is necessary for twenty good ends and uses, which were very absurd. If the payer have no ill design in paying, the magistrate’s ill design in imposing will not vitiate the act of him that pays.
Suppose a robber say to a travelling man, ‘I and my men must live, and therefore I require you to give me out of your hand so much money to maintain me and my men, or else I will kill you, and take all the money ye have;’ the traveler would not be guilty of the abusing of the money to maintain robbers; he gives it not for that end, but to preserve his life; and gives a part to preserve the rest.
Christ commanded to give tribute to the Roman emperor, which was exacted by the Romans to maintain the government over the Jews, which was destructive both to their religious and civil liberties. Paul directs to give tribute to those who were then magistrates, who were heathen idolaters. Now the Lord has declared in his Word that every unrenewed man serves diverse lusts and pleasures, and makes provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts of it; they are idolaters, make their belly or their riches, or their pleasures their god; they act from carnal principles and for carnal ends.
They who pay the cess are not certain that the magistrate will employ it for bearing down conventicles; they may put it to some other use; they might get some other thing to do with it; but we are certain that heathen rulers, idolaters and every unrenewed man will serve his lusts with the tribute or rent, or debt that is paid to him; or with the alms that is given to him in his distress; and yet subjects are commanded to pay tribute to heathen ungodly emperors; and tenants and debtors should pay their rent and debts to ungodly landlords and creditors, though they declared when they were requiring it that they had a mind to misemploy it to some ill use; if the declaration of the magistrate, that he will abuse the tribute, make it sure that he will abuse it, and so bar subjects from paying, the declaration of the God of truth, that every ungodly, unrenewed man will abuse what is paid to him, or given him out of charity, is much surer; and so men would be bound up to pay or give anything to any person that were in an unrenewed state; and thus we should be obliged to defraud ungodly men in not paying them their debts; and to let heathens, pagans, and ungodly poor people starve; because we know from the Scripture that they will make what they get provision for their lusts which they serve and offer it to some idol-lust; this were a new method of effectuating what some of the furious Anabaptists designed, to kill all the wicked, that there might be none but saints in the world.
I shall subjoin the words of the author of the exercitation concerning usurped powers, who was supposed to be Mr. [Charles] Herle [but was Edward Gee], ch. 3 [pp. 22-23]:
‘2. Payment of taxes and bearing other impositions for the usurped power, where and while we are under his compulsive power: because such contributions may and will be taken whether I will pay them or not; and I yield them under his enforcement as a ransom for my life or liberty, or somewhat ese, that is better to me than the payment; and consequently I am to choose the parting with it, as the less evil, rather than with that which is better; which to lose, is to incur a greater evil for avoiding of a less.’
In this point Mr. [Antony] Ascham the aforenamed author, [A Discourse, wherein is Examined what is Particularly Lawful during the Confusions & Revolutions of Government, or How far a man may conform to the powers and commands of those who hold kingdoms divided by civil or foreign wars, 1648] pt. 2, ch. 1, p. 35, determines well, had he not contradicted (as I understand him) that he delivers in this and the next chapter, with that assertion of his, pt. 1, ch. 6, p. 25, distinguishing rightly betwixt that which cannot be had, nor the value of it, unless I actually give it; and that which may be taken, whether I contribute it or not: Of this latter kind is [the] paying of taxes in this case.
‘Herein I am but morally passive, as a man that is fallen into the hands of a pack of bloody thieves, and being demanded it, takes his purse out of his pocket and delivers it to them; though with his own hand,’
says the author,
‘he puts his purse into their hands, yet the law calls that not a gift, nor excuses the thief for taking it, but all contrary; or a man apprehended by a party of the invading enemies or usurper’s army, walks or rides along with them to their muster or battle, when as he cannot escape them; and otherways they would draw him.
But it is commonly objected thus: Objection: This payment or other charge is taken and will be used to an evil use, as to maintain usurpation. Answer:
But that is beyond my deliberation, not in my power to prevent: It will not be avoided by putting them to force it from me, but rather more gain will accrue to them and damage to me; if I stand out, my denying will be made an occasion to them to take more. This cause is like that of entering into a covenant with those, that in covenanting, we know beforehand will swear by a false god; wherein divines resolve the party swearing by the true God, participates not in his sin that swears by a false one; inasmuch as he communicates with him in the covenant, not in the oath taken in his part, and provides thereby for his necessary security; and thus did Abraham and Jacob in their respective covenants with Abimelech and Laban. (Augustine to Publicoram, Epistle 154; Gen. 21:31-33)
I shall add the words of another presbyterian minister, Edward Gee, minister in Lancaster, in his excellent Treatise of the Divine Right & Original of the Civil Magistrate, published anno 1658, [ch. 10, sect. 8] p. 368, where he is showing what may be lawfully done by people under the power of a usurper. He says:
‘2. And therewithal such as are peculiarly arising from that state of subduedness, as the necessity that is incumbent to do, or part with, the thing required for the avoidance of greater loss or suffering to come; if the subject detect it, or the greater conveniency, safety or emolument, which there is to oneself, to his neighbor or to the public in doing them, in denying, as the circumstances of the imposal lie, though were it not so imposed, it would not be eligible [able to be chosen]; though we are obliged to nothing jussu ejus, or upon the intuition of his command, yet we may do many things, eo jubente, he commanding; and should do, eo premente, he enforcing them; and we have many things to do, ipso seu volente, seu nolente, whether he will, or forbid the doing of them, etc.’
By which passages it appears that those godly learned presbyterians in those treatises which they wrote of purpose to maintain the king’s authority when he was thrust from it [by Oliver Cromwell], and to show that the subject might do nothing which might prejudge his right or which might be interpreted to be an owning of the title of the then usurpers who had forced the king out of his dominions; yet they show that taxes might be paid to the usurpers and that they who paid it were not accountable for the abuse that the usurpers made of it, which lets us see how far they would have been from refusing to pay tribute to the rightful magistrate though imposed for some wrong end. And I cannot but here take notice how constantly and courageously presbyterians owned the king’s authority when he was thrust from the exercise of it and how careful they were that subjects might do nothing which might be prejudicial to his title when he was violently dispossessed of his kingdoms.
I shall not speak of the testimonies they gave in preaching and in print against the usurpers upon the account of their usurpation and for asserting of the king’s title. I wish their loyalty had been better remembered; but any suffering they have met with since will not make them repent of their constant adherence from a principle of conscience to their allegiance and covenanted duty to their rightful sovereign… Mr. Rutherford used to keep family-fasts, to pray for the king in his distress. There is no loyalty comparable to that which is founded upon the Word and covenant, and the principle of conscience bound by the Word and oath of God. The late king [Charles I] advised those who were desirous to befriend him in his straits, to preach the obligation of the [Solemn League and] Covenant, which binds to maintain his person and authority.
The new principles of confusion, which are opposite to the magistrate’s authority and to the paying of tribute to rulers, are directly opposite to and inconsistent with the principles and practices of presbyterians; and seem to have been devised by Jesuits, and then craftily conveyed into the heads of weak people, distempered with sad suffering; or having zeal without knowledge, that they might at once render those people ridiculous, and expose their possessions as a prey, and their lives to the sword and their profession of religion to contempt and scorn; as if it made men frantic, and deprived them of the use of common reason and sense.
I heard from a godly and learned minister that he heard a great zealot against the paying of the cess say that whatever was unlawful for a man to do voluntarily was unlawful for him to do upon legal or physical constraint; and another said, If men on constraint might pay cess, which they should not voluntarily do, without legal and physical constraint feared to follow, then the three children might have worshipped Nebuchadnezzar’s image, because they were under constraint. And when it was answered that there were some actions in the substance of the fact sinful, that no constraint could make lawful, such as idolatry; and some which outward circumstances made lawful or unlawful: that distinction was denied; such is the ignorance of some of those teachers.
Another made the paying of the cess like the offering of children to Moloch. It’s a great pity that well-meaning people, who from a principle of conscience are willing rather to suffer than to sin, should be misguided by ignorant men and drawn into needless calamities to the ruin of their families and the reproach of religion.”
.
1700’s
Robert Wodrow
History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland (1721-1722), 2.491-92
“This act divided those who were already disjointed, and the debates upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of paying the [Scottish] cess [in 1678] here imposed, were not few. Upon the one hand it was strongly urged that the payment of this cess was an active concurring with the persecutors in their bearing down of the Lord’s work in the land; and it was said it was much the same whether this was done by the sword or the purse.
Upon the other side it was reasoned that since violence was both expected and used, it appeared more advisable by a piece of money to preserve themselves and their families alive, and their substance in their hands for better uses, than by an absolute refusal to give an occasion, and afford a legal pretext to the collectors’ cruelty, to destroy all and take as much as would raise and maintain two armies. It was added, that paying cess in this case was not spontaneous, but involuntary and forced, and therefore to be excused, a person in such circumstances being rather a sufferer than an actor; and though it would be certainly sinful in a merchant, to throw his goods into the sea in fair weather, yet it becomes his duty to lighten the ship that he may save his life in a storm.
Some of very good parts and great piety were upon both sides of this debate, and the heats and heights among ministers, preachers, and people were not small. The banished ministers in Holland [Robert McWard & John Brown of Wamphray] were warmly against paying this assessment; and such ministers here who were of the same sentiments preached against the paying of it, and some of the hearers violently pressed ministers to preach against it, while those of the other side asked how they would keep it and much more out of the soldiers’ hands?
Against paying it the example of one of the primitive Christians was much urged, who having rashly demolished an idol temple, chose to suffer martyrdom before he would rebuild it.
These who were for paying it, as the lesser evil of suffering, were silent till the clamor and heat was a little over and used to declare that if in their judgment they had been against paying it, they would have advised people to retire and leave the country. Some few did pay it with a declaration and chose the middle way betwixt paying it without any testimony against what was evil in it and refusing to pay at all.
Among these the forementioned Quintin Dick in Dalmellington was one. And it will not be unacceptable to some of my readers to set down from his own papers his exercise and practice in this matter in his own words.
‘In the year 1678, the king, by an act of the convention of estates, did impose upon the subjects a cess to be paid, and by the act did signify the reasons for which he imposed it; and among others this is one, for levying and keeping up of forces to suppress these meetings called conventicles.
The act with this qualification did beget in many a reluctance to give obedience; and amongst others, having made it my work in my place and station (as a witness to the interest of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ) to keep at distance from all manner of sinful compliance or accession to the overthrow of his work and worship in Scotland, I judged myself deeply concerned how to carry in this case: especially, when by the holy and sovereign dispensation of God, for his own holy and wise ends, He has made it the sad lot of the honest ministers and professors in Scotland at this time to be under a spirit of division and rent, to that measure, that though all were for bearing witness to one and the same cause and interest, yet they could not agree in one and the same method and way of entering their testimony.
In this hour of darkness, being much perplexed how to carry without scandal and offence, I betook myself to God for protection and direction: for protection, that I might be kept from any measure of denying of Christ, or giving ground to persecutors to think or say that I had contributed any thing for the overthrow of Christ’s work: and for direction that I should not he found to stave off my trouhle upon any grounds, hut such as might he clearly war ranted from the word of God.
And after much liberty in pouring out my heart to God, I was brought to weigh, that as my paying of it might be by some interpreted a scandal, and a sinful acquiescence in the magistrate’s sinful command; so upon the other hand, my refusing to pay it would be the greater scandal, being found to clash against a known command of God, of giving to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom; and knowing that Christ Jesus, for that same very end, to evite offense, did both pay tribute Himself and commanded his followers to do it, I could see no way to refuse payment of that cess, unless I had clashed with that command of paying tribute unto Caesar.
So to evite the scandal of compliance on the one hand, and disobedience to the magistrate in matter of custom on the other, I came to a determination to give in my cess to the collect of the shire of Ayr where I lived, with a protestation against the magistrate’s sinful qualification of his commands, and a full adherence unto these meetings of God’s people, called conventicles, which in the act he declared his design to bear down, as the protestation itself, signed by my hand more fully bears in a paper by itself.
I had no sooner done this, but I was trysted with many sharp censures from many hands, among which this was one, that my protestation was only to evite sufferings, and could be of no weight, being protestatio contraria facto [a protestation contrary to fact]. But being truly persuaded, that it is the magsitrate’s right to impose and exact cess and custom, I could have no clearnes to state my sufferings in opposition unto so express a command of God.
And as to the magistrate’s sinful qualification, having so openly declared and protested against it, I conceive the censure of this to evite suffering, is altogether groundless; seeing the enemy has subscribed with my hand before witnesses, a resolute adherence to that which they say this tends to overthrow; and if he mind to persecute upon the ground of owning conventicles, he has a fair and full occasion against me, under my hand: but if he intend to state my suffering upon refusing to pay cess to the magistrate, I have no clearness to ex pose myself, or give him ground to found my sufferings upon such a refusal.
And when my subtle adversary seeks grounds to state my trouble upon my opposition to any of the commands of God, I absolutely hold it for duty to own these commands, by paying of Caesar’s due, and to obviate his subtilties by a clear protestation against sinful qualifications. So whatever has, or shall be the censure of friend or foe, this I say to the praise and glory of my God and my guide, I have met with from Him much comfort, peace of mind, and rest in my conscience:
‘Thou hast holden me by my right hand, thou shalt guide me with they counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.”
A few months ended this debate practically, and all were forced to pay this imposition one way or other. We shall, in the progress of this history, meet with many instances of the severities of the soldiers in exacting cess from good people who scrupled to pay it. I shall only give one instance this year out of many. James Graham of Claverhouse, with a numerous party of soldiers, came and quartered upon Gilbert M’Meiken in new Glenluce parish, for a good many days, without paying any thing; and when they went off, though they had consumed ten times the value of the cess, they carried with them three horses worth ten pounds sterling. John Arrol who commanded the party, was killed next year at Drumclog, and had his bowels tread out by a horse.”
.
1800’s
Thomas M’Crie,
The Story of the Scottish Church: from the Reformation to the Disruption (London: Blackie & Son, 1875), p. 326
“It will be necessary, however, to return to the west country [of Scotland], where the invasion of the Highland host [in 1679] was succeeded by oppressions which at length exasperated the country people to resistance. Among these we may notice the imposition of the cess, as it was termed, a tax raised expressly for maintaining the army intended to put down field-conventicles.
A more odious tax can hardly be conceived. That they should not only be severely fined and punished for attending these meetings, but compelled to pay for the means of suppressing them, was such an outrage on the feelings of the people, that we might be prepared to hear it would be almost universally resisted.
Yet the greater part submitted to the tax, contenting themselves with a protest against its use; thus declaring their readiness to suffer for religion if they should be called to account, and at the same time avoiding even the appearance of evil by refusing the magistrate’s just right to levy cess and custom on the subjects.
This, however, proved another “bone of contention;” the stricter and more rigid of the Presbyterians considering that by paying the cess they shared in the guilt of the purpose to which it was avowedly applied. The ministers who were banished to Holland loudly inveighed against the practice; and it was no doubt very easy for them, placed at a distance from the scene of oppression, as it may be for us who are free from all such exactions, to protest against those who yielded to them.
But much may be said in behalf of those who submitted against their will to an imposition which they could not resist, and which, had they resisted, would have been wrested from them with the loss of all they possessed.
On the other hand, the principles upon which some of the Presbyterians afterwards resisted the impost, and which are vindicated at great length in the Hind let Loose [by the Cameronian Alexander Shields], were founded on the tyrannical character of the governors, and necessarily led to the casting off all allegiance or submission to the civil government.”
.
On Paying the Cess after 1689 during Toleration
Patrick Walker
Six Saints of the Covenant in 2 vols., ed. David H. Fleming (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), vol. 1, Alexander Peden’s Life, Postscript, p. 143
“The Gibbites in 1681, and Russelites in 1682, and for some years, did maintain the same unhappy principles and practices [as the later M’Millianites after 1689]; and stated their testimonies against paying of excise and customs, and other fool things, not only for themselves, but separation from all that durst not go their lengths, even when imprisoned together going as far from us as the walls of the prison would allow them, and stopping their ears when we went about publick worship three times a day, which was our ordinary in each room…
It is a piece of demented infatuation to make little or no difference betwixt that period [before 1689] and this [period after 1689 during toleration], and to follow the same methods that the Lord’s people were obliged to take against tyranny and defections.”
.
.
.
Related Pages