|
THE
GREAT CASE OF LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE
William
Penn
1670
William
Penn was born in London in 1644. George Fox, the founder
of the Society of Friends or Quakers, converted him
from Anglicanism. Penn was sent to jail for his beliefs.
He spent two years in confinement and wrote extensively
on religious freedom. This essay was written during
one of his imprisonments. Penn argues that "liberty
of conscience" is not "a mere Liberty of Mind" but a
liberty to "exercise" religion. He contends civil restraint
and persecution of religion carries an "evident claim
of [civil] Infallibility" and "enthrones Man as king
of conscience King Charles II owed Penn‘s father a large
debt, and decided to repay it by giving the family a
grant of territory in North America, called Pennsilvania
in honor of William's father, an admiral. In 1682, Penn
arrived in America and established one of the most civilly
liberal colonies. He returned to England to work for
the persecuted Quakers. In 1686, through his influence,
all persons imprisoned on account of their religious
beliefs were released.
RJ&L
Religious Institutions Group
*
* * *
Pg.
186
THE
great case of Liberty of Conscience, so often debated and
defended (however dissatisfactorily to such as have so little
conscience as to persecute for it) is once more brought
to public view, by a late Act against Dissenters, and Bill,
or an additional one, that we all hoped the wisdom of our
rulers had long since laid aside, as what was fitter to
be passed into an act of perpetual oblivion. The kingdoms
are alarmed at this procedure, and thousands greatly at
a stand, wondering what should be the meaning of such hasty
resolutions, that seem as fatal as they were unexpected.
Some ask what wrong they have done? Others, what peace they
have broken? And all, what plots they have formed to prejudice
the present government, or occasions given to hatch new
jealousies of them and their proceedings? being not conscious
to themselves of guilt in any such respect.
For
mine own part, I publickly confess myself to be a very hearty
Dissenter from the established worship of these nations,
as believing Protestants to have much degenerated from their
first principles, and as owning the poor despised Quakers,
in life and doctrine, to have espoused the cause of God,
and to be the undoubted followers of Jesus Christ, in his
most holy strait, and narrow way that leads to the eternal
rest. In all which I know no treason, nor any principle
that would urge me to a thought injurious to the civil peace.
If any be defective in this particular, it is equal both
individuals and whole societies should answer for their
own defaults; but we are clear.
*
* * *
Pg.
187
The
terms explained, and the question stated.
First,
By Liberty of Conscience, we understand not only a mere
Liberty of the Mind, in believing or disbelieving this or
that principle or doctrine; but 'the exercise of ourselves
in a visible way of worship, upon our believing it to be
indispensably required at 'our hands, that if we neglect
it for fear or favor of any mortal man, we sin, and incur
'divine wrath.' Yet we would be so understood to extend
and justify the lawfulness of our so meeting to worship
God, as not to contrive, or abet any contrivance destructive
of the government and laws of the land, tending to matters
of an external nature, directly or indirectly; but so far
only as it may refer to religious matters, and a life to
come, and consequently wholly independent of the secular
affairs of this, wherein we are supposed to transgress.
Secondly,
By imposition, restraint, and persecution, we do not only
mean the strict requiring of us to believe this to be true,
or that to be false; and upon refusal, to incur the penalties
enacted in such cases; but by those terms we mean thus much,
'any coercive let or hindrance to us, from meeting together
to perform those religious exercises which are according
to our faith and persuasion.'
The
question stated.
For
proof of the aforesaid terms thus given, we singly state
the question thus;
Whether
imposition, restraint, and persecution, upon persons for
exercising such a liberty of conscience as is before expressed,
and so circumstantiated, be not to impeach the honour of
God, the meekness of the Christian religion, the authority
of Scripture, the privilege of nature, the principles of
common reason, the well-being of government, and apprehensions
of the greatest personages of former and latter ages?
First,
Then we say, that Imposition, Restraint, and Persecution,
for matters relating to conscience, directly invade the
divine prerogative, and divest the Almighty of a due, proper
to none besides himself. And this we prove by these five
particulars:
First,
if we do allow the honour of our creation due to God only,
and that no other besides himself has endowed us with those
excellent gifts of Understanding, Reason, Judgment, and
Faith, and consequently that he only is the object, as well
as the author, both of our Faith, Worship, and Service;
then whosoever shall interpose their authority to enact
faith and worship in a way that seems not to us congruous
with what he has discovered to us to be faith and worship
(whose alone property it is to do it) or to restrain us
from what we are persuaded is our indispensible duty, they
evidently usurp this authority, and invade his incommunicable
right of government over conscience: 'For the Inspiration
of the Almighty gives understanding: And Faith is the gift
of God,' says the divine writ.
Secondly,
Such magisterial determinations carry an evident claim to
that Infallibility, which Protestants have been hitherto
so jealous of owning, that, to avoid the Papists, they have
denied it to all but God himself.
Either
they have forsook their old plea; or if not, we desire to
know when, and where, they were invested with that divine
excellency; and whether Imposition, Restraint, and Persecution,
Were ever deemed by God the fruits of his Spirit. However,
that itself was not sufficient; for unless it appear as
well to us that they have it, as to them who have it, we
cannot believe it upon any convincing evidence, but by Tradition
only; an anti-protestant way of believing.
Thirdly,
It enthrones Man as king over conscience, the alone just
claim and privilege of his Creator; whose thoughts are not
as mens thoughts, but has reserved to himself that empire
Pg.
188
from
all the Caesars on earth: For if men, in reference to souls
and bodies, things appertaining to this and the other world,
shall be subject to their fellow-creatures, what follows,
but that Caesar (however he got it) has all, God’s share,
and his own too? And being Lord of both, both are Caesar's,
and not God's.
Fourthly,
It defeats God’s work of Grace, and the invisible operation
of his eternal Spirit, (which can alone beget faith, and
is only to be obeyed, in and about religion and worship)
and attributes mens conformity to outward force and corporal
punishments. A faith subject to as many revolutions as the
powers that enact it.
Fifthly
and lastly, Such persons assume the judgment of the great
tribunal unto themselves; for to whomsoever men are imposedly
or restrictively subject and accountable in matters of faith,
worship and conscience; in them alone must the power of
judgment reside: But it is equally true that God shall judge
all by Jesus Christ; and that no man is so accountable to
his fellow-creatures, as to be imposed upon, restrained,
or persecuted for any matter of conscience whatever.
Thus,
and in any more particulars, are men accustomed to intrench
upon Divine Property, to gratify particular interests in
the world; and (at best) through a misguided apprehension
to imagine 'they do God good service,' that where they cannot
give faith, they will use force; which kind of sacrifice
is nothing less unreasonable than the other is abominable:
God will not give his honour to another; and to him only,
that searches the heart and tries the reins, it is our duty
to ascribe the gifts of Understanding and Faith, without
which none can please God.
Source:
Select Works of William Penn. To Which is Prefixed a Journal
of His Life. (1771).
|
