THE PURITANS
The Puritans were heroic in their resistance to unjust taxes. They knew that only parliament could assess taxes, and when a despotic Charles attempted to both rule and raise taxes without benefit of Parliament, he plunged the nation into a civil war in which he lost his head to the executioner's axe. The great British historian, Lord Macaulay, tells us,

"The government of England was now, in all points but one, as despotic as that of France. But that one point was all important. There was still no standing army. There was therefore no security that the whole fabric of tyranny might not be subverted in a single day; and if taxes were imposed…for the support of an army, it was probable that there would be an immediate and irresistible explosion…The ancient princes of England…had sometimes called on the maritime counties to furnish ships for the defense of the coast. In the room of ships money had sometimes been accepted. This old practice it was now determined…not only to revive but to extend. Former princes had raised ship money only in time of war: it was now exacted in a time of profound peace. Former princes…had raised ship money only along the coasts,' it was now exacted from the inland shires. Former princes had raised ship money for only the maritime defense of the country: it was now exacted…and expended…for any purpose." (History of England, Vol. I, pp. 91-92).

But English Puritans had no intention of financing their own destruction, "and at the head of those who refused to pay stood the name of John Hampden." Having refused a peerage from the despotic court saying, "I could be content to lead, but for fear to draw on myself that curse in Magna Charta which should be read twice a year against those that do infringe it." (Green, History of the English People, Vol. 3, pp. 176-177). Hampden, a relative of Oliver Cromwell and a bosom friend to those other Parliamentary champions of liberty, Pym and Eliot, thrilled all England with the news of his resistance as he appealed to the law. When a bench of servile and court appointed judges asserted the legality of this tax, "the king at once made their opinion public in the faith that all resistance would cease. But the days were gone by when the voice of the judges was taken submissively for law by Englishmen." But "what Hampden aimed at was a discussion of this great inroad on its freedom" (ibid. p. 178). As Hampden awaited trial there were other "trumpets of sedition" dragged before the infamous Star Chamber. "The four culprits listened with defiance to their sentence of imprisonment for life; and the crowd who filled the Palace Yard…groaned at the cutting off of their ears, and 'gave a great shout' when Prynne urged that the sentence on him was contrary to law. A hundred thousand Londoners lined the road as they passed on the way to prison; and the journey of these 'Martyrs'…was like a triumphal progress…but the real danger…(to the king) lay in the effect which was being produced in England at large by the trial of Hampden," where "the cause of ship-money was solemnly argued for twelve days before the full bench of judges" and "it was proved that even the show of legality had been taken from it by formal statute, and by the Petition of Right" (ibid. p. 1821.) Hampden was convicted by a slim majority, "and Charles looked for the Puritans to give way. But keener eyes discerned that a new spirit of resistance had been stirred by the trial . . . amid the exultation of the Court . . . Wentworth saw clearly that Hampden's work had been done. Legal and temperate as his course had been, he had roused England to a sense of the danger to her freedom" (ibid. p. 283).

GIVE UNTO CAESAR
Unlike their Puritan ancestors, today's Christians, when reflecting on unjust taxes, usually conclude with patiently and piously intoning with utter finality that the scriptures obligate us to "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". The same scripture, however, also commands us to "give unto God the things that are God's". We are not to give unto Caesar the things that are God's. Thus Paul exhorts us to "render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour" (Rom. 13:7). But what is God's and what is Caesar's? And what is due whom? Clearly, pious platitudes will not suffice here but rather a careful scriptural discernment. Christians who have been allowing Caesar to tell them what is due to Caesar might well have been guilty of robbing God. Instead, we should let God tell us what is his due and the proper due of the civil government that he ordained.

THE TITHE
The tithe is not a voluntary gift that some dedicated Christians give to their Lord. Rather, the tithe is a tax that all men are obligated to give to their Creator. As Malachi stated it, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation" (Malachi 3:8-9). The tithe is God's tax; it is God’s income tax. It is tax not on the land, but on the increase thereof. It is a tax on income as God taxes the increase of his creation. As Paul exhorts the Corinthian Christians, "Now concerning the collection…let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (I Cor. 16:1-2). It is a tax on income, and those who are prospered more do pay more. But it is an equitable and a just tax in that it is the same for all. It is not a graduated tax and has no plundering or leveling effects. A mere ten percent tax for the use of God's creation, the source of all our bounty, is extremely reasonable and fully recognizes the axiom that "the laborer is worthy of his reward" and leaves all men equally with 90% of the fruits of their labor.

The tithe is God's tax to support God's social order. The social fabric of Christian civilization was once supported by the tithe. All education was once private Christian education and was supported by the tithes of God's people. All forms of private charity, hospitals, orphanages, etc., were done in the name of Christ while financed by the tithe. Churches, seminaries, mission groups, were all maintained by the faithful tithing of the people. The tithe, God's tax, was fundamental to the maintenance of Christian civilization. It was so important that, "The tithe was for centuries legally collected, i.e., the state provided the legal requirement that tithes be paid to the church.^* When Virginia repealed its law which made payment of the tithe mandatory, George Washington expressed his disapproval in a letter to George Mason, October 3, 1785. He believed, he said, in 'making people pay toward the support of that which they profess.' From the 4th century on, civil governments began to require the tithe, because it was believed that a country could only deny God his tax at its peril. From the end of the 18th century, and especially in recent years, such laws have disappeared under the impact of atheistic and revolutionary movements. Instead of freeing men from an 'oppressive' tax, the abolition of the tithe has opened the way for truly oppressive taxation by the state in order to assume the social responsibilities once maintained by the tithe money. Basic social functions must be paid for. If they are not paid by a responsible, tithing Christian people, they will be paid for by a tyrant state which will use welfare and education as stepping stones to totalitarian power." (Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 57.) Rushdoony's Institutes are a classic equal to Calvin's and of great practical use to today's Christians in facing the issues and problems of this age.

THE INCOME TAX
In 1913, almost 300 years after the landing of the Pilgrims and 137 years after the founding of the Republic, America submitted to the curse of the Marxist income tax, an income tax that was as alien to the faith of our forefathers and the nation that they founded and as radical a departure from historic Christian civilization as it was unscriptural. A people who had robbed God and denied him his tax and had failed to tithe to support the Christian social order which their forefathers had bequeathed to them, were now being robbed by Caesar through the income tax to finance a new social order, that of Karl Marx. It was Marx, that prophet of the overthrow of Christian civilization, that called for a heavy, progressive income tax in the Communist Manifesto back in 1848, in order to replace and repeal the tithe, the pillar of Christian society, and to finance his statist program of anti-Christianity. As Samuel warned the Israelites when they sought a king other than Jehovah, an ungodly state will appropriate the tithe to itself as an earmark of its tyranny (1 Samuel 8:15-17).

The tithe is not particularly Jewish or merely an Old Testament institution, as some Christians mistakenly and disastrously contend. Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedek long before the founding of the Hebrew State and the promulgation of the law from Sinai's heights. The tithe is an inherent part of God's creation order and affects all men. The question is not, is there a tithe, but rather, to whom will it be paid? Men will pay a tithe, and they will be taxed to support some social order. The increase of God's creation will be taxed, but will it be given to God by just and faithful stewards or will it be exacted from an apostate people to finance the tyranny of a socialist totalitarian welfare state? Marxism is Anti-Christ, and the Marxist income tax is designed to rob God of his portion of the increase of his creation and offer it to the Anti-Christ.

God's income tax is equitable. He that receives more pays more. As scripture saith, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required", which is confirmed by the parable of the talents. It is clearly just that he who receives, by the gracious providence of God, a greater share of the bounty of God's creation is under greater obligation to God and is under greater obligation to maintain a productive, godly social order. All men pay an equal share and all men are left an equal and generous share. The Marxist income tax, by contrast, is neither just, equitable nor reasonable. It is designed not to maintain but rather to be destructive of God's social order. Marx called for a heavy graduated income tax. It was designed to overthrow a productive order, to have a socially chaotic leveling effect and to rob the workman of his hire. Like a destructive two-edged sword it undermines free enterprise and private property and penalizes productive effort, while it finances every form of tyranny and depravity. It taxes God's creation to destroy God's social order with an avenging greed that consumes and extorts as much as 90% of the fruit of one's labor.

THE JUST TAX
There is a just and scriptural tax that is due unto Caesar as his righteous due. Basically the Bible establishes two taxes. The one is the tithe that is paid to God to support the social order. The other is the poll tax that is paid to the government to support the civil state, the civil order. The poll tax is the scriptural tax to finance the scriptural functions of government. That it is such a reasonable and almost insignificant tax only goes to demonstrate the limited nature and functions of divinely ordained civil government. The poll tax is a simple head of household tax paid by all adult males. Thus it recognizes the institution of the family and that the man, as head of the family, represents the family as a unit to the state and pays the taxes for the family. For the state to tax women and children directly would be destructive of the family, and God's taxes are designed to maintain, not overthrow, his institutions. The poll tax is an equitable and just tax. It is the same for all. As the scriptures declare concerning it, "The rich shall not give more, and poor shall not give less". Rich or poor, all men pay exactly the same amount. As we shall see, contrary to modern liberal thought, this is extremely just and also very beneficial. The poll tax can never get very high because it must always be kept low enough so that even the poor can afford to pay it. In this it is a very real restraint on tyranny and sets a very proper limit to government.

The history of the poll tax starts with the founding of the Hebrew Republic. As we have seen, Abraham paid tithes, but he paid no poll tax. Abraham was under no civil government, and as long as the patriarchal form of government continued, there was no need of the poll tax. But Israel came out of Egypt as a nation, and the civil government that God instituted over them at Sinai was financed by a poll tax. The poll tax, also known as the atonement money or temple tax, has often failed to be identified as a civil tax because it is associated with the tabernacle or later the temple. However, the tabernacle or later the temple was not only the place where Jehovah was worshipped as God, but also the seat of civil government where Jehovah ruled as King over his people. It was in the tabernacle that the federal government of the twelve tribes met, and in New Testament times it was in the temple that the Sanhedrin met as the civil government of Israel. The poll tax is first found in Exodus 30, where the people are numbered and taxed, each adult male paying exactly one half shekel. The poll tax can then be traced throughout the Old Testament to the New, where it was twice recognized and affirmed as legitimate by Christ himself. In Matt. 17:24-27 we find that Christ himself paid the tribute money, which was a poll tax to support the civil government of Israel, the Sanhedrin, which was still tolerated and allowed a certain limited amount of home rule under the Romans. Thus Christ, who would certainly not have compromised the truth in the matter, recognized the legitimacy of a poll tax to finance the civil order, even as he demurred at himself having to pay it. As Spurgeon says in his commentary on Matthew, "Should Jesus pay redemption money for himself to God? Should he, who is himself the King's son, come under poll tax to his Father?" Thus the tax that Christ himself acknowledged and paid was the same scriptural, equitable and just poll tax that had ever financed the Hebrew Republic, a tax that was still the same for all and still the same reasonable, original amount, as evidenced by the coin, undoubtedly a shekel, that sufficed to pay the half shekel for both Christ and Peter.

JUSTICE
Taxes must be just. For the state, which is charged under God to enforce his law and administer justice on earth, to resort to an unjust tax would be a contradiction and a denial of the proper function of the state, justice. Justice demands that all men be equal before the law. Justice demands that all men receive equal protection of the law and receive equal protection of their life, liberty and property. Thus, if all men stand in the same relationship to their civil government and all men receive the same benefits of that civil government, then justice demands that all men pay the same amount to support that civil government. If the state can have no double standard in benefits, it can have no double standard in assessing taxes. Thus, only the poll tax is a just manner of financing a just civil order.

For the liberal, a just tax means "equality of sacrifice" (Ibid. p. 97) in terms of the Marxist dictum, "from everyone according to his ability". Historically this has meant the plundering of the rich, whose property rights are consistently violated. This is a far cry from justice. And the liberal who demands discriminatory taxation also calls for discriminatory benefits from the state. Thus we have special programs for students, poor, minority groups, elderly, handicapped, etc. This also is a far cry from just equality before the law. But then the other half of that Marxist dictum is, "to everyone according to his need". Socialist taxation seeks neither justice nor equity. Rather, "in the 20th century, taxation began to serve as an instrument of social and economic change. Thus taxation no longer serves simply to support civil government but also to reorganize society in terms of leveling and equalitarian concepts…Increasingly the function of taxation is to re-order society. By means of property, inheritance, income, and other taxes, wealth is confiscated and redistributed…The power to tax in the modern world is the power to destroy. It is no longer the support of law and order. The more taxes increase . . . the less law and order men have, because taxation serves the purpose of promoting social revolution. As such, modern taxation is eminently successful." (Ibid. pp. 98, 283-284)

TO PAY OR NOT TO PAY
Christians are not anarchists. No Christian should object to paying taxes in support of a godly civil government. The Pilgrims who fled to America fled a tyranny that included, among other things, unjust taxation. Yet when once established on these shores they willingly taxed themselves, but the tax they imposed was a poll tax. As William Bradford records, "Towards the maintenance of government and public officers of the said colony, every male above the age of sixteen years shall pay a bushel of Indian wheat, or the worth of it, into the common store" (Of Plymouth Plantations, p. 133). As we have already seen, Christ himself set an example by paying a poll tax in support of his civil government.

Thus the question is not a matter of whether or not to pay taxes, for we are not to rob Caesar. But what is Caesar's proper due? Here we must closely examine Christ's words. The Pharisees had tempted Christ with the question, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" The tribute referred to was the Roman poll tax, which was paid in tribute money of Roman coinage. Thus Christ's answer, rather than a blank check to give Caesar what he demands, can be construed to say no more than to give Caesar back his own Roman coins that he had minted with his own superscription and give the civil government the poll tax which it is due, no matter how odious that government may be to the citizen. It does not teach unlimited submission to Caesar regarding taxes, but rather it upholds God's law, requiring us to sustain divinely ordained civil government with the scripturally appointed tax for that purpose. Christ also reminded us to render "unto God the things that are God's". The income tax is God's, and not Caesar's! For the state to tax income, the increase of God's creation, is to rob God and claim his creation as its own. Caesar's greed, not content with a mere poll tax, has lusted after God's tithe and then expanded it to multiple proportions. Total taxation in America has been estimated as high as 70%, with the federal budget alone accounting for one third of the Gross National Product. Caesar's taxes are so impoverishing the people that they are robbing God of his due even as Caesar exacts his claims by payroll deduction, ensuring that he, at least, will get his portion even if God does not. Thus there is nothing in Christ's teachings to compel us to submit to Caesar's usurpations, but there are very serious warnings about robbing God of his just and righteous due.

THE CONSTITUTION
So alien is an income tax to our constitutional republic that it required a constitutional amendment to implement it after it had already been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the last century. But it would seem a basic political axiom that the constitution can not be amended to destroy the constitution, and granting unlimited taxing power to raise unlimited finances is certainly destructive of a constitution that had the limitation of government to scriptural bounds as its chief purpose. Nevertheless, even if one granted a quasi-legality to the income tax itself, the method of its collection is a massive violation of all constitutional right. It has been estimated that there are over 50 violations of the United States Constitution in the Internal Revenue Service Code.

For instance, to resort to withholding tax by payroll deduction is unconstitutional in that (1) it represents a bill of attainder prohibited in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1; (2) it deprives the citizen of his property without due process of law, prohibited by Amendment 5; (3) it represents involuntary servitude on the part of the employer, who is compelled to calculate and collect the tax on behalf of the government, in violation of Amendment 13. Being required to file a 1040 form with the I.R.S. under penalty of perjury and which can be used against you in a criminal prosecution is a violation of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination or testifying against one's self. Being required to keep records and to submit them to the I.R.S. upon demand is both involuntary servitude and a violation of the 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Almost everything that the Internal Revenue Service does is unconstitutional. While the Constitution establishes a separation of powers, the I.R.S. makes its own laws, administers them, and enforces them in their own tax courts. Such unconstitutional and despotic tribunals bypass all the constitutional protections built into the regular judiciary. Here one's accusers are also one's judges, and one is held to be guilty till he can prove himself innocent of the charges against him. Here there is no due process, jury trial, the right to confront one's accusers and be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations. Here one is merely informed that he is guilty of owing so much in back taxes, interest and penalties, and to defend oneself or even to investigate these charges is to antagonize one's judges. Here a branch of the executive dispenses illegal warrants, summons and subpoenas. Here there is only Soviet justice, where the verdict is in long before the trial, which is only held so that the victim will have an opportunity to confess and submit.

THE APOSTLE PAUL
But what of the Constitution? Should Christians submit to such massive and persistent breaches in their constitutional rights? The example of the Apostle Paul in this regard is very clear indeed. Paul knew his rights both as a Roman citizen and as an Israelite and never failed to use all his constitutional rights to good advantage whenever he could. When Paul was unconstitutionally cast into the Philippian jail he refused his liberty till the magistrates came and apologized for violating his rights (Acts 16:37). Again, in Acts 22, when Paul was arrested and to be scourged, he stood on his constitutional rights as a Roman citizen. And when on the following day Paul was examined by the Sanhedrin and was unconstitutionally smitten, he appealed to the law of Moses and rebuked the high priest for violating his rights under the Hebrew Republic (Acts 23:1-3). And finally, in Acts 25 Paul exercises his constitutional right to appeal unto Caesar when he could get no justice from the local Roman governors. In the providence of God, who called and prepared Paul for his mission, Paul had been born a Roman citizen, and Paul used this to great advantage in his labors for the Lord and in maintaining his liberty to serve as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Today's Christians might well take heed, too, that they use all the constitutional rights and liberties that God has given them to the best advantage of their calling in the service of their Lord and Savior.

THE MORAL ISSUE
No Christian should object to a scriptural tax to finance a godly social order. Neither can a Christian be held responsible for money extracted from him by a thief at gunpoint. But can a Christian willingly submit to a tax which has as its purpose the overthrow of Christian civilization and the establishment of an anti-Christian order? Can a Christian willingly pay to finance evil when God, the Bible, and the Constitution all concur that he is under no moral or divine obligation to do so? The commandment declares, "Thou shalt not kill", but our tax money financed 278,000 abortions last year at the federal level alone. The tax-funded foreign aid program finances and subsidizes some of the most murderous regimes of the Communist empire. Through the income tax we are suicidally financing our own destruction.

TAX REVOLT
The present generation of Americans has produced a surprising number of tax rebels; men who on constitutional principles refuse to pay the income tax. Techniques vary, but most are effected by a legal objection to the methods of the I.R.S. Representing themselves, due to the extensive corruption of the legal profession, they have sought to challenge the I.R.S. in the courts in defense of their constitutional rights. Some have won incredible victories, others have been railroaded into prison. One man was declared insane and locked up in a federal penitentiary for the criminally insane. Some were denied the right to quote either the Bible or the United States Constitution in the courtroom. Until recently, the I.R.S. either ignored the rebels who consistently sought a confrontation in the courts, or they sought to prosecute them on a technicality that would evade a court test of the constitutional issue involved. However, the recent conviction of a leading tax rebel, whose Supreme Court appeal was denied, by court rulings that directly dealt with and yet denied the constitutional protections sought, marks a new judicial crackdown reminiscent of the bought judges and packed bench of Charles I.

CONCLUSION
In times of unscriptural tyranny, tyrants have usually found that Christians were trumpets of sedition. Indeed, just prior to the Revolutionary War, colonial governors complained to England that the pulpits were fountains of sedition. From the Puritans of John Hampden's day to their sons at the Boston Tea Party, Christians have ever been the nemesis of unjust taxation. Unfortunately, today's Christians are better known for their submission to evil. Their defense of the faith is strictly limited to their simple gospel of John 3:16. Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Dispensationalist alike are characterized by an appalling and utter disregard for God's law. Preferring pious prattle of love and grace, Biblical terms that can only be defined in terms of God's law, they, like the Pharisees, make the law of God of none effect. While Christ likened publicans (I.R.S. agents) to heathens and harlots, their concept of sin has no room for those who rob God and presume to tax for themselves the increase of his creation. While Christ drove the money changers from the Temple, they prefer to wrest the scriptures to their own destruction as they piously intone that we are to submit, since the powers that be are "ordained of God". John Hampden refused to finance either evil or his own destruction, and his legal and temperate resistance roused England to a defense of her liberties. Both those who keep God's law and those who scorn it will inevitably reap their own reward. God's law is the only foundation for LIBERTY, and the Divine Lawgiver has said, "All they that hate me love DEATH".

Through the income tax the federal government is subsidizing and thus bringing under its control every facet of our lives. And like an evil Midas the federal gold (?) corrupts everything it touches. The income tax will continue to build the Kingdom of the Beast until the Christians learn to love God's law enough so that they, too, declare, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price" of robbing God!!! Then, and then alone, will we be blessed with liberty under law in a godly social order. AMEN.