Part 33

There is, however, one late instance of an English merchant, who will not profit by such ill-gotten gain. He was, it seems, part-owner of a ship, which the other owners thought fit to employ as a letter of marque, and which took a number of French prizes. The booty being shared, he has now an agent here enquiring, by an advertisement in the Gazette, for those who suffered the loss, in order to make them, as far as in him lies, restitution. This conscientious man is a Quaker. The Scotch presbyterians were formerly as tender; for there is still extant an ordinance of the town-council of Edinburgh, made soon after the reformation, "forbidding the purchase of prize goods, under pain of losing the freedom of the burgh for ever, with other punishment at the will of the magistrate; the practice of making prizes being contrary to good conscience, and the rule of treating Christian brethren as we would wish to be treated; and such goods _are not to be sold by any godly men within this burgh_." The race of these godly men in Scotland is probably extinct, or their principles abandoned, since, as far as that nation had a hand in promoting the war against the colonies, prizes and confiscations are believed to have been a considerable motive.

It has been for some time a generally received opinion, that a military man is not to inquire whether a war be just or unjust; he is to execute his orders. All princes who are disposed to become tyrants must probably approve of this opinion, and be willing to establish it; but is it not a dangerous one? since, on that principle, if the tyrant commands his army to attack and destroy, not only an unoffending neighbour nation, but even his own subjects, the army is bound to obey. A negro slave, in our colonies, being commanded by his master to rob or murder a neighbour, or do any other immoral act, may refuse, and the magistrate will protect him in his refusal. The slavery then of a soldier is worse than that of a negro! A conscientious officer, if not restrained by the apprehension of its being imputed to another cause, may indeed resign, rather than be employed in an unjust war; but the private men are slaves for life; and they are perhaps incapable of judging for themselves. We can only lament their fate, and still more that of a sailor, who is often dragged by force from his honest occupation, and compelled to imbrue his hands in, perhaps, innocent blood. But methinks it well behoves merchants (men more enlightened by their education, and perfectly free from any such force or obligation) to consider well of the justice of a war, before they voluntarily engage a gang of ruffians to attack their fellow-merchants of a neighbouring nation, to plunder them of their property, and perhaps ruin them and their families, if they yield it; or to wound, maim, or murder them, if they endeavour to defend it. Yet these things are done by Christian merchants, whether a war be just or unjust; and it can hardly be just on both sides. They are done by English and American merchants, who, nevertheless, complain of private theft, and hang by dozens the thieves they have taught by their own example.

It is high time, for the sake of humanity, that a stop were put to this enormity. The United States of America, though better situated than any European nation to make profit by privateering (most of the trade of Europe, with the West Indies, passing before their doors) are, as far as in them lies, endeavouring to abolish the practice, by offering, in all their treaties with other powers, an article, engaging solemnly, that, in case of future war, no privateer shall be commissioned on either side; and that unarmed merchant-ships, on both sides, shall pursue their voyages unmolested[94]. This will be a happy improvement of the law of nations. The humane and the just cannot but wish general success to the proposition.

With unchangeable esteem and affection,

I am, my dear friend,

Ever yours.

FOOTNOTES:

[93] From a small collection of Dr. Franklin's papers, printed for Dilly. _Editor_.

[94] This offer having been accepted by the late king of Prussia, a treaty of amity and commerce was concluded between that monarch and the United States, containing the following humane, philanthropic article; in the formation of which Dr. Franklin, as one of the American plenipotentiaries, was principally concerned, viz.

ART. XXIII.

If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country, then residing in the other, shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance; and all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all others, whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses and goods be burnt, or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted, by the armed force of the enemy into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall; but if any thing is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price. And all merchant and trading vessels employed in exchanging the products of different places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested; and neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue any commission to any private armed vessels, empowering them to take or destroy such trading vessels, or interrupt such commerce.

_A Parable against Persecution, in Imitation of Scripture Language[95]._

1. And it came to pass after these things, that Abraham sat in the door of his tent, about the going down of the sun.

2. And behold a man bent with age, coming from the way of the wilderness leaning on a staff.

3. And Abraham arose, and met him, and said unto him, Turn in, I pray thee, and wash thy feet, and tarry all night; and thou shalt arise early in the morning, and go on thy way.

4. And the man said, Nay; for I will abide under this tree.

5. But Abraham pressed him greatly: so he turned and they went into the tent: and Abraham baked unleaven bread, and they did eat.

6. And when Abraham saw that the man blessed not God, he said unto him, Wherefore dost thou not worship the most high God, creator of heaven and earth?

7. And the man answered and said, I do not worship thy God, neither do I call upon his name, for I have made to myself a god, which abideth always in my house, and provideth me with all things.

8. And Abraham's zeal was kindled against the man, and he arose, and fell upon him, and drove him forth with blows into the wilderness.

9. And God called unto Abraham, saying, Abraham, where is the stranger?

10. And Abraham answered and said, Lord, he would not worship thee, neither would he call upon thy name, therefore have I driven him out from before my face into the wilderness.

11. And God said, Have I borne with him these hundred and ninety and eight years, and nourished him, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me, and couldst not thou, who art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night?

12. And Abraham said, Let not the anger of my Lord wax hot against his servant; lo, I have sinned, forgive me I pray thee.

13. And Abraham arose, and went forth into the wilderness and diligently sought for the man and found him, and returned with him to the tent, and when he had entreated him kindly, he sent him away on the morrow with gifts.

14. And God spake again unto Abraham saying, For this thy sin shall thy seed be afflicted four hundred years in a strange land.

15. But for thy repentance will I deliver them, and they shall come forth with power, and with gladness of heart, and with much substance.[96]

FOOTNOTES:

[95] I have taken this piece from Sketches of the History of Man, written by lord Kaims, and shall preface it with his lordship's own words. See Vol. II. p. 472, 473.

"The following Parable against Persecution was communicated to me by Dr. Franklin of Philadelphia, a man who makes a great figure in the learned world: and who would still make a greater figure for benevolence and candour, were virtue as much regarded in this declining age as knowledge."

* * * * *

"The historical style of the Old Testament is here finely imitated; and the moral must strike every one who is not sunk in stupidity and superstition. Were it really a chapter of Genesis, one is apt to think, that persecution could never have shown a bare face among Jews or Christians. But alas! that is a vain thought. Such a passage in the Old Testament would avail as little against the rancorous passions of men, as the following passages in the New Testament, though persecution cannot be condemned in terms more explicit. _Him that is weak in the faith, receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. For, &c._" B. V.

[96] Dr. Franklin, as I have been told, has often imposed this parable upon his friends and acquaintance, as part of a chapter of Genesis. B. V.

_A Letter concerning Persecution in former Ages, the Maintenance of the Clergy, American Bishops, and the State of Toleration in Old England and New England compared[97]._

SIR,

I understand from the public papers, that in the debates on the bill for relieving the dissenters in the point of subscription to the church articles, sundry reflections were thrown out against the people, importing, that they themselves are of a persecuting intolerant spirit, for that when they had the superiority, they persecuted the church, and still persecute it in America, where they compel its members to pay taxes for maintaining the presbyterian or independent worship, and at the same time refuse them a toleration in the full exercise of their religion, by the administrations of a bishop.

If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not, in their turns, been persecutors and complainers of persecution. The primitive christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practised it on one another. The first protestants of the church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practised it against the puritans: these found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice both here and in New England.--To account for this, we should remember, that the doctrine of _toleration_ was not then known, or had not prevailed in the world. Persecution was therefore not so much the fault of the sect as of the times. It was not in those days deemed wrong _in itself_. The general opinion was only, that those _who are in error_ ought not to persecute _the truth_: but the _possessors of truth_ were in the right to persecute error, in order to destroy it. Thus every sect believing itself possessed of _all truth_, and that every tenet differing from theirs was _error_, conceived, that when the power was in their hands, persecution was a duty required of them by that God whom they supposed to be offended with heresy.--By degrees, more moderate _and more modest_ sentiments have taken place in the christian world; and among protestants particularly, all disclaim persecution, none vindicate it, and few practise it.--We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge of the present character of sects or churches by their _present conduct_ only[98].

Now to determine on the justice of this charge against the present dissenters, particularly those in America, let us consider the following facts. They went from England to establish a new country for themselves, _at their own expence_, where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion in their own way. When they had purchased the territory of the natives, they granted the lands out in townships, requiring for it neither purchase-money nor quit-rent, but this condition only to be complied with, that the freeholders should support a gospel-minister (meaning probably one of the then governing sects) and a free-school, within the township. Thus, what is commonly called presbyterianism became the _established religion_ of that country. All went on well in this way, while the same religious opinions were general, the support of minister and school being raised by a proportionate tax on the lands. But, in process of time, some becoming quakers[99], some baptists, and of late years, some returning to the church of England (through the laudable endeavours and a _proper application_[100] of their funds by the society for propagating the gospel), objections were made to the payment of a tax appropriated to the support of a church they disapproved and had forsaken. The civil magistrates, however, continued for a time to collect and apply the tax according to the original laws, which remained in force; and they did it the more freely as thinking it just and equitable, that the holders of lands should pay what was contracted to be paid when they were granted, as the only consideration for the grant, and what had been considered by all subsequent purchasers as a perpetual incumbrance on the estate, bought therefore at a proportionally cheaper rate; a payment which, it was thought, no honest man ought to avoid, under pretence of his having changed his religious persuasion: and this, I suppose, is one of the best grounds of demanding tythes of dissenters now in England. But the practice being clamoured against by the episcopalians as persecution, the legislature of the province of Massachusets Bay, near thirty years since, passed an act for their relief, requiring, indeed, the tax to be paid as usual, but directing that the several sums, levied from members of the church of England, should be paid over to the minister of that church with whom such members usually attended divine worship; which minister had power given him to receive, and, on occasion, _to recover the same by law_.

It seems that legislature considered, that the end of the tax was to secure and improve the morals of the people, and promote their happiness, by supporting among them the public worship of God and the preaching of the gospel; that where particular people fancied a particular mode, that mode might probably, therefore, be of most use to those people, and that if the good was done, it was not so material in what mode or by whom it was done. The consideration, that their brethren, the dissenters in England, were still compelled to pay tythes to the clergy of the church, had not weight enough with the legislature to prevent this moderate act, which still continues in full force; and I hope no uncharitable conduct of the church toward the dissenters will ever provoke them to repeal it.----

With regard to _a bishop_, I know not upon what ground the dissenters, either here or in America, are charged with refusing the benefit of such an officer to the church in that country. _Here_ they seem to have naturally no concern in the affair. _There_ they have no power to prevent it, if government should think fit to send one. They would probably _dislike_, indeed, to see an order of men established among them, from whose persecutions their fathers fled into that wilderness, and whose future domination they might possibly fear, _not knowing that their natures are changed_.--But the non-appointment of bishops for America seems to arise from another quarter. The same wisdom of government, probably, that prevents the sitting of convocations, and forbids, by _noli prosequi's_, the persecution of dissenters for non-subscription, avoids establishing bishops, where the minds of people are not yet prepared to receive them cordially, lest the public peace should be endangered.

And now let us see how this _persecution-account_ stands between the parties.

In New England, where the legislative bodies are almost to a man dissenters from the church of England:

1. There is no test to prevent churchmen holding offices.

2. The sons of churchmen have the full benefit of the universities.

3. The taxes for support of public worship, when paid by churchmen, are given to the episcopal minister.

In Old England:

1. Dissenters are excluded from all offices of profit and honour.

2. The benefits of education in the universities are appropriated to the sons of churchmen.

3. The clergy of the dissenters receive none of the tythes paid by their people, who must be at the additional charge of maintaining their own separate worship.--

But it is said, that the dissenters of America _oppose_ the introduction of a bishop.

In fact, it is not alone the dissenters there that give the opposition (if _not encouraging_ must be termed _opposing_) but the laity in general dislike the project, and some even of the clergy. The inhabitants of Virginia are almost all episcopalians, the church is fully established there, and the council and general assembly are, perhaps to a man, its members: yet, when lately at a meeting of the clergy, a resolution was taken to apply for a bishop, against which several however protested; assembly of the province, at the next meeting, expressed their disapprobation of the thing in the strongest manner, by unanimously ordering the thanks of the house to the protesters; for many of the American laity of the church think it some advantage--whether their own young men come to England for ordination, and improve themselves at the same time by conversation with the learned here--or the congregations are supplied by Englishmen, who have had the benefit of education in English universities, and are ordained before they came abroad. They do not, therefore, see the necessity of a bishop merely for ordination; and confirmation is among them deemed a ceremony of no very great importance, since few seek it in England, where bishops are in plenty.--These sentiments prevail with many churchmen there, not to promote a design which they think must sooner or later saddle them with great expences to support it.--As to the dissenters, their minds might probably be more conciliated to the measure, if the bishops here should, in their wisdom and goodness, think fit to set their sacred character in a more friendly light, by dropping their opposition to the dissenters' application for relief in subscription, and declaring their willingness that dissenters should be capable of offices, enjoy the benefit of education in the universities, and the privilege of appropriating their tythes to the support of their own clergy. In all these points of toleration, they appear far behind the present dissenters of New England, and it may seem to some a step below the dignity of bishops, to follow the example of such inferiors. I do not, however, despair of their doing it some time or other, since nothing of the kind is too hard for _true christian humility_.

I am, sir, yours, &c.

A NEW-ENGLAND-MAN.

FOOTNOTES:

[97] The above letter first appeared in one of the public papers on June 3, 1772, and seems to have been addressed to the printer. The spirited writer of the _Two letters to the prelates_ republished it in an appendix to that pamphlet, without, however, naming Dr. Franklin as the author, but expressing it to be the production "of a gentleman highly respected in the literary world." B. V.

[98] "Toleration in religion, though obvious to common understanding, was not however the production of reason, but of commerce. The advantage of toleration for promoting commerce was discovered long before by the Portuguese. They were too zealous Catholics to venture so bold a measure in Portugal; but it was permitted in Goa, and the inquisition in that town was confined to Roman Catholics." Lord Kaim's Sketches of the History of Man, Vol. II. p. 474. B. V.

[99] "No person appeared in New England who professed the opinion of the Quakers, until 1656, (i. e. about 36 years after the first settling of the colony), when Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came from Barbadoes; and soon after, nine others arrived in the ship Speedwell from London." They were successful in their preaching, and the provincial government, wishing to keep the colony free from them, attempted to send away such as they discovered, and prevent the arrival of others. Securities, fines, banishment, imprisonment, and corporal punishments were instituted for this purpose, but with so little effect, that at last "a law was made for punishing with death, all such as should _return_ into the jurisdiction _after banishment_. A few were hanged!" See the history of the British dominions, 4to, 1773, p. 118, 120. B. V.

[100] They were to spread the gospel, and maintain a learned and orthodox clergy, where ministers were wanted or ill-provided, administering God's word and sacraments, and preventing atheism, infidelity, popery, and idolatry. B. V.

_On the Slave Trade[101]._

Reading in the newspapers the speech of Mr. Jackson in congress, against meddling with the affair of slavery, or attempting to mend the condition of slaves, it put me in mind of a similar speech, made about one hundred years since, by Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim, a member of the divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's account of his consulship, 1687. It was against granting the petition of the sect called erika, or purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery, as being unjust.--Mr. Jackson does not quote it; perhaps he has not seen it. If therefore, some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech, it may only show, that men's interests operate, and are operated on, with surprising similarity, in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circumstances. The African speech, as translated, is as follows:

"Alla Bismillah, &c. God is great, and Mahomet is his prophet.