ations of proprietary government seemed very objectionable, and many joined with Franklin and other radicals in the movement. It was always opposed by the more substantial members, and nothing was accomplished till the Revolution solved the problem in an unlooked for way. It has been usually represented that the troubles of the years between 1740 and 1756 were the result of a conflict between the Governor and the Quaker Assembly over the subject of the defence of the Province from French and Indian attack. How much this may have been an effective cause below the surface it is difficult to tell. So far as one can judge from the public records, it was a controversy between proprietary and popular rights and privileges, in which the popular party, almost exclusively Friendly in its representatives though not in its membership,* acquitted itself so as to win success without sacrificing the stability of the government. French invasion was less terrible than the surrender of the powers of the Assembly, and the

A

*Thomas Penn writes to Governor Hamilton, in 1760, referring to a proposed visit of William Logan to England: "You may be assured I will treat him with regard, and show him I have no disregard to those of his profession (the Friends), except on their levelling republican system of government so much adopted by them."

people demanded that the Proprietor should yield. Then they were as liberal as in any other State in supplying the resources for defence. They bought or intimidated the Governors one by one and finally carried the war into England and conquered.

CHAPTER V.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

The strenuous and in the main consistent belief of the early Quakers in religious liberty and the supremacy of conscience was founded on their doctrine of the divine character and authority of the Light by which the conscience was guided and instructed. It was sealed to them by the severe persecutions of England. While they contended that this light would in essential particulars lead all obedient children into closeness of sympathy and substantial similarity of belief, they recognized the varying degree of its acceptance by different people, and were willing to leave the uninstructed to its further operations and the inspired teaching of those who were more fully confirmed in its counsels.

The writings of the English Quakers and of William Penn in particular are replete with expressions against interference by government with the private beliefs of any subjects, and with the actions for which they claimed a conscientious sanction, so long as they were orderly and moral. Penn announced in 1670 that he was "a

friend of universal toleration in faith and worship," and wrote "The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience Briefly Debated and Defended." His main statement is "That imposition, restraint and persecution for conscience' sake highly invade the Divine prerogative." This is amplified by the arguments now so familiar, and illustrated by historical references and quotations from classical and Christian writings in great profusion.

The persecutions of the Quakers were a penalty for the staunch maintenance of principles and practices for which they believed they had the authority of enlightened consciences. They were firmly convinced of their rightfulness, and loudly exclaimed against the injustice of oppression. They, however, unlike the Puritans, generalized from their own case and arrived at the conclusion that they were working for a common liberty, not the establishment of their own ideas of truth. The settlers of Massachusetts had formed a commonwealth in which "truth" was to rule, and "error" to be punished and exiled. They, too, had suffered in England, and had emigrated to secure liberty of conscience for themselves. They had formed a Puritan reservation at great expense of time, treasure and heroic self- ..

66

sacrifice. They must preserve this at whatever cost. There is no room in Christ's triumphant army for tolerationists."* How could they see their State invaded, their laws defied, their ecclesiastical system scorned, by the very agencies they had left England to avoid? If Episcopacy was on one hand to be ruled out, still more necessary was it that they should show to the world that the errors of the Baptists and Quakers had no place there, and so the heretics were sent to Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, and the very persistent Quakers were hanged on Boston Com

mon.

But matters were a little further developed by Penn's time; Quaker theology a little less dogmatic and literal than Puritan; there was more faith in Truth making its own way, and the broader view prevailed.†

• Longfellow's "New England Tragedies."

"Let the tares grow with the wheat, errors of judgment remain till removed by the power of light and conviction. A religion without it is inhuman, since reason only makes humanity. For my part, I frankly declare that I cannot think that God will damn any man for the errors of his judgment, and God forbid that all or most of the world err willingly in understanding."

William Penn to Duke of Ormond, "Academy," January 11, 1896.

Nor did the principle stop with toleration. Pennsylvania was not to be a Quaker Colony where other sects were tolerated. One might as well tolerate the holding of property as of opinion. The principle was not based on the favor of rulers; it was an inherent right. It was not to be toleration; it was to be religious liberty and freedom from all State interference. said Penn, and he placed the maxim in the forefront in all his "Frames of Government," and despite some dissatisfaction at first among a few Quakers* it always remained there.

So

We have seen that the "Fundamental Constitutions" were the products of Penn's wrestling in company with unknown advisers with the problems of government, and that they express, perhaps more nearly than subsequent publications, his own ideas. The first article is worth quoting entire.

Considering that it is impossible that any people or Government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God that which is God's, as well as to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's; and also perceiving the disorders and mischiefs that attend those places where force is used in matters of faith and worship, and seriously reflecting upon the tenure of the new and spiritual Government, and that both Christ did not use force and that He did not ex

*“Pennsylvania Magazine,” Vol. VI., page 467, et seq.