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.
"Have these erika considered the consequences of granting their
petition? If we cease our cruises against the christians, how shall
we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce,
and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make slaves
of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our
lands? Who are to perform the common labours of our city, and of
our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not
more compassion and more favour due to us mussulmen, than to those
christian dogs?--We have now above fifty thousand slaves in and near
Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon
diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If, then, we cease taking
and plundering the infidel ships, and making slaves of the seamen
and passengers, our lands will become of no value, for want of
cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one half; and
the revenues of government, arising from the share of prizes, must be
totally destroyed.--And for what? To gratify the whim of a whimsical
sect, who would have us not only forbear making more slaves, but even
manumit those we have. But who is to indemnify their masters for the
loss? Will the state do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the
erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think
justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And if
we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them
will return to their native countries; they know too well the greater
hardships they must there be subject to. They will not embrace our
holy religion: they will not adopt our manners: our people will not
pollute themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them
as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey
of their pillage? for men, accustomed to slavery, will not work for
a livelihood, when not compelled.--And what is there so pitiable
in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own
countries? Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian states,
governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without
exception? Even England treats her sailors as slaves, for they are,
whenever the government pleases, seized and confined in ships of war,
condemned not only to work, but to fight for small wages, or a mere
subsistence, not better than our slaves are allowed by us. Is their
condition then made worse by their falling into our hands? no; they
have only exchanged one slavery for another; and I may say a better:
for here they are brought into a land, where the sun of islamism
gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor, and they have an
opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine,
and thereby saving their immortal souls. Those who remain at home
have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home then, would be
sending them out of light into darkness.