[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.