AMERICAN PATRIOTISM FARTHER CONFRONTED.

73

ism and servile subjection, in such a manner as to give you and our readers an equal detestation of both these unconstitutional extremes.

After throwing away all your first letter upon an useless question,* and beginning the second with an idle report,t you step into the tribunal of the reviewers, and condemn my Vindication before have refuted one of my arguyou ments. As if you were both judge and jury, without producing one true witness, you authoritatively say, "Instead of argument, I meet with nothing but declamation; instead of precision, artful colouring; instead of proof, presumption; instead of consistency, contradiction; instead of reasoning, a string of sophistries." Page 24.

To support this precipitate sentence, you represent me as saying things which I never said. Thus you write: "One while you tell us that our constitution guards our

* This useless question is, whether Mr. Wesley had, or had not, forgotten the title of I know not what book, which he had recommended to some of his friends, and which, through forgetfulness, he asserted that he had never seen; till upon perusing the book, he discovered and owned his mistake. Mr. Evans diverts the reader's mind from the true question, by setting before him eight letters, which passed between Mr. Wesley and others, about that insignificant particular. For my part, I admit the public acknowledgment which Mr. Wesley has made of his forgetfulness, rather than Mr. Evans's insinuation that he is not "an honest man ;" and I do it, 1. Because it is best to be on the safer side, which is that of charity. 2. Because it is highly improbable that a wise man, except in case of forgetfulness, would deny a fact, which a number of proper witnesses can prove, and are inclined to prove, against him. And, 3. Because experience constrains me to sympathize with those whose memory is as treacherous as my own. On a Sunday evening, after preaching three times, reading prayers, and being all day in a crowd, or hurrying from place to place, my mental powers are so incapacitated to do their office, that, far from being able to recollect the title of a book which I have seen some months before, I frequently cannot, after repeated endeavours, remember one of the texts on which I have preached that very day. Now Mr. Wesley lives all the year round in the hurry and crowd in which I am on my busy Sundays; and he is between seventy and eighty years of age; a time of life this, when even the men who enjoy uninterrupted rest find that their memory naturally fails. If Mr. Evans considers this, he will not be surprised that his first letter has not had its intended effect upon me.

The idle report I mean is, that my Vindication "has received many additions and corrections from the pen of a celebrated nobleman." This is a mistake. I find indeed some errors of the press, which injure the sense of my book; but I do not discover one addition in it, except that of two words; and if Mr. Evans will be pleased to inspect my manuscript, he will see that the few little negative emendations in it were made by Mr. Wesley's own pen.

properties," &c., "against the tyranny of unjust, arbitrary, or cruel monarchs; then you preach up with great solemnity," &c., "that their subjects have no more right to resist, than children or scholars have a right to take away paternal or magisterial authority." Page 25. I desire, sir, you would inform me where I advance such a doctrine. Far from "preaching it up with great solemnity," I abhor and detest it. If a Nebuchadnezzar commanded me to worship his golden image, I would (God being my helper) resist him as resolutely as did Shadrach. And suppose the king and parliament were to lay a tax upon me, in order to raise money for the purchasing of poison wherewith to destroy my fellow-subjects, I would resist them, and absolutely refuse to pay such a tax.

When you have made my doctrine odious by lending me principles which I never advanced, or drawing consequences which have not the least connexion with my sentiments; you prejudice the public against my book, by insinuating that I contradict myself where it is plain I do not. Thus you say, "In one letter you tell us, the colonists are on a level with Britons in general; in another, that they were never on a level with England." Page 26. This last sentence I spake of the colonies as dependent legislatures, and not of the colonists: and both sentences in their place are perfectly consistent. For although not one of the colonies was ever on a level with England (an independent kingdom) with respect to supreme dominion; yet all the colonists are on a level with Britons in general, with respect to several particulars enumerated just before, as appears by the whole argument, which runs thus: "The mother-country and the parliament-house are as open to them" (the colonists) "as to any free-born Englishman: they may purchase freeholds, they may be made burgesses of corporate towns, they may be chosen members of the house of commons, and some of them, if I mistake not, sit already there. The colonists are then on a level not only with" (absent) "Britons in general, but with all our members of parlia

ment who are abroad." Vindication, page 23. Had you, sir, quoted my words in this manner, your readers would have seen, that there is something in my letters besides

contradiction and sophistry; but it is far easier to shuffle the cards, than to win the game.

Permit me, sir, to produce another instance of your polemical skill: you say, "Your reasoning upon the quotation I made from the very learned judge Blackstone is equally conclusive, &c. In a free state, says judge Blackstone, every man who is supposed a free agent, ought to be in some measure his own governor; and therefore a branch, at least, of the legislative power should reside in the whole body of the people. You reply, Your scheme drives at putting the legislative power in every body's hands." Page 24. No, sir, this is not my reply, but only a just inference which I naturally drew from my solid answer. My reply runs thus: "But who are the whole body of the people? According to judge Blackstone, every free agent. Then the argument proves too much ; for are not women free agents? yea, and poor as well as rich men?” Vindication, page 16. This, and this only, I advanced as a reply to judge Blackstone's argument. I cannot therefore help being surprised at your mistake. You keep my real answer to your argument out of sight: you render me ridiculous by producing, as my answer, what is not my answer at all; and, before you conclude, you make me amends for this piece of patriotic liberty by calling me “one of the most unmeaning and unfair controvertists.” The reader's patience would fail, were I minutely to describe the logical stratagems of this sort by which you support your cause, which, I confess, stands in need of all manner of props.

However, in your second letter, you come to the question, which is, "Whether the colonists, as good men, good Christians, and good subjects, are bound to pay moderate, proportionable taxes, for the benefit of the whole British empire, when such taxes are legally laid upon them by the supreme protective power, that is, by the three branches of the British legislature.”

In my "Vindication of the Calm Address," I have produced the arguments which induce me to believe, that the doctrine of such taxation is rational, scriptural, and constitutional; and in your reply, you attempt to prove

that is contrary to reason, scripture, and the constitution. Let us see how your attempt is carried on; and,

First, how you disprove the reasonableness of the taxation I contend for.

Page 27, you say that you do not deny "the necessity and propriety of subjects paying taxes." But in not denying this, sir, do you not indirectly give up the point? Do you not grant, that, as the colonists are not protected by the king alone, but by the whole legislative power of Great Britain, they are not under the jurisdiction of the king alone, but of all the British legislature. Now, if they are not the subjects of the king, as unconnected with the British parliament, but as constitutionally connected with that high court, which supplies him with proper subsidies to protect his American dominions, it is evident that they owe taxes to the king and the British parliament; for you yourself acknowledge "the necessity of subjects paying taxes" to the supreme power which protects them. But which tax have they, of late, consented to pay? Has it been a tax upon tea, or upon stamped paper?

Should you reply, that they have offered to pay taxes to the king and their provincial assemblies, I reply, that this is not paying capital tribute to whom capital tribute is due; for capital tribute is due to the capital protective power; and the capital power that protects the colonists is not the king and the regency of Hanover, or the king and the Irish parliament, much less the king and a provincial assembly, but the king and the British parliament. Had the Americans got their wealth under the protection of the Irish; had the Hanoverian fleets kept off the Spanish ships from the American coasts; or had squadrons of American men-of-war beat off the French fleets, I would not hesitate a moment to affirm, that the colonists ought to pay proportionable taxes to the king and the Irish parliament, to the elector and regency of Hanover, or to the king of British America and the American assemblies. But, when all this has been done for the colonists by the king and the British parliament, I confess to you, sir, that, setting aside the consideration of the love and duty which colo

nies owe to their mother-country, I cannot see what law of gratitude, equity, and justice the colonists can plead to refuse paying the king and the British parliament moderate and proportionable taxes.

Page 36. you indirectly appeal to the case of "the patriots of Charles's days," who refused to pay the tax called "ship-money:" but their cause was far better than that of Americans. The ship-money was demanded by the king alone; but the king alone is not the supreme legislative power that protects the subjects of Great Britain, because he can make no laws, and of consequence raise no taxes, without the concurrence of the parliament. The patriots of the last century were not then absolutely bound, either by the law of God, or the law of the land, to pay a tax which had not the sanction of the legislative power; a money-bill passed by the king alone, being no law at all according to the British constitution. But a proportionable money-bill, as the stamp act, a bill passed by the complete legislative power of Great Britain, is every way binding in all the dominions of Great Britain. Whoever resists such a law, breaks off with the legislative power, affects independence, and commences a petty sovereign.

66

I have said that a rightful "sovereign has a right to live by his noble business;" and because I have observed, that in England the sovereign, that is, the legislative and protective power, is the king and his parliament, you suppose I have poured shame upon the cause I defend. So," say you, page 25, "a member of parliament, instead of vacating his seat, ought to have a place provided for him, upon his becoming a member of the legislature.” No, sir, your inference has no connexion with my doctrine. If you had said that every member of parliament, while he attends the parliament, has a right to a public maintenance suitable to his share in the legislature, you would have said what I mean, and what no unprejudiced person will deny. If the king and parliament ordered that all the attending members shall be honourably entertained during the session, at the expense of the public, and that a proper sum shall be annually raised to discharge this expense, what Briton would be so niggardly, ungrateful, and unjust,