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 amalgamation 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 6 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 him; 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, and sound an alarm 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 exultingly 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 persuasion 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 determination 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 Word 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 'themselves 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 re'.venger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Where

'fore 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. Render, therefore, to all their dues: tribute to 'whom tribute is due ; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honour, to whom honour."

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 question 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 congregation! 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 Christians? Can any thing 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 argument. 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 tremble 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 conduct which you have adopted, and the deliberate purpose which you have avowed.

I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

ROBERT HALDANE.

LETTER II.

THE CONDUCT OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS RESPECTING THE PAYMENT OF TRIBUTE.

To the Editor of the Edinburgh Advertiser.

November 24, 1837.

SIR, Dr Brown's defence against the charges contained in my letter of the 13th instant appeared in your last paper. In the second edition of that paper, you inserted a notice from me to the effect, that, notwithstanding all he had said, he had not exonerated himself from my charge of his having violated the divine law, as I should afterwards prove. This proof I reserve for a future occasion. At present, I shall only notice some of those remarks in his letter which apply to myself personally, together with what he has advanced respecting the testimony of Tertullian, in reference to the payment of taxes by the early Christians.

Dr Brown concludes his letter by observing, that I have got my answer, and if not satisfied, I may, uninterrupted and unreproved by him, rail on. If the answer he has published be all he intends to make, or is capable of making, much better would it have been for him to have remained silent. Nothing, however, in my letter justifies his accusing me of railing against him. When any one unjustly charges another with railing, it is easy to judge which is the railer. In the same sentence, he observes that I have barred the door on all direct communication. He probably refers to the duty enjoined-Matt. xviii. 15, "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his 'fault between thee and him alone." That command refers exclusively to personal offences, whether private or public, and not to such a case as the one now in question. Between Dr Brown and me there is no personal offence; it is his conduct in violating the divine law that I have impugned. When Peter was to be blamed, Paul withstood him to the face before them all. Dr Brown remarks, that I made my charges against him without proof. My proof was the express declaration of one of