Analysis: The Quaker Ideal of Religious Tolerance

Date: 1675

Author: Penn, William

Genre: petition; political tract

Summary Overview

As a Quaker, William Penn was subject to religious persecution by the English authorities. The title of the full article, from which this document is taken, is “England’s Present Interest Considered, with Honour to the Prince, and Safety to the People.” This petition begins by criticizing the extreme force that has been used in the enforcement of the laws regarding religious conformity. Examples are given of the “barbarous practices” causing great harm. Penn concludes that the enforcement of these laws has actually caused more division within the country. He also asserts that the government’s pressure for religious conformity had also hurt England’s economic and political relations with other countries. Penn ends with the warning that as long as the government pressed for religious conformity, there will be more antigovernment sentiment than would be the case if religious freedom were granted.

Document Analysis

Religion had been a major point of division within England since the founding of the Church of England in the 1534, over 140 years prior to Penn writing this plea for tolerance. William Penn was a member of a persecuted sect, which meant that this issue was before him each day. By appealing to English common law and common sense, Penn hoped to convince government officials that the best policy was tolerance. The suffering, which the religious persecutions had caused and continued to cause, would end with a policy of tolerance. In addition, the change of policy would not only help the government domestically, but also would strengthen its standing among other European nations. He was not arguing against the Anglican Church as the official Church of England or the Presbyterian Church as the recognized Scottish church; rather, he was arguing against a policy of enforced membership and enforced conformity of belief. He advocated greater unity through diversity of belief.

The full text from which this excerpt is taken is a very long, legalistic documentation of what Penn perceived to be the foundation for religious tolerance in England. In the introductory passage of the document, Penn asks the question regarding the best way to quiet the religious disputes for the best interests of the general society. After the brief answers given in the excerpt printed here, Penn then attempts to demonstrate logically why and how this could be done. In the full text, he begins with a historical examination in the first chapter titled “Of English Rights.” Much of his argument is based upon property rights from which English law derived the concept of personal liberty and freedom. Penn then discusses the system of government and the need for the general population to accept certain types of laws in order for them to be valid. Finally, he concludes his arguments with the role commoners play in the judicial system of trial by jury. At the conclusion of these arguments, Penn states that the people’s rights could not be taken from them without their acceptance. He then goes on to discuss religious rights specifically, demonstrating, to his satisfaction, that the civil government is separate from church affairs. For Penn, this meant that religious freedom should be the norm.

Penn then discusses how a government could maintain a stable society by balancing the interests of many different religious groups. The last half of the excerpt derives from this portion of the tract. Penn promotes religion in general as a practical contribution to society. He closes with a passage titled, “A Corollary,” which summarizes the way to quiet dissatisfaction. The solution is liberty for all, including religious tolerance. The full document is about thirteen times the length of the excerpt printed here.

The question repeated twice in this short segment is: What can be done to unify the diverse population of England in support of the government? Penn sees the English suffering because “there are few kingdoms in the world more divided within themselves.” Thus, Penn believes that the magnitude of the problem confronting society was quite great. However, he is certain that the solution could be much simpler. All that is required is a rational approach to the problem. He is convinced that people need only “deal honestly and plainly with the greatest, in matters of importance to their present and future good.” Rather than ignoring the problems, Penn asserts that it is everyone’s responsibility to consider issues of importance to the society—”a duty indispensable to the public.” He continues that if people do not take the responsibility to attempt to work out solutions to important problems of the day, then not only are they at risk, but the same is true for the entire nation. Thus, Penn’s concerns regarding religion go beyond the traditional question of salvation in some otherworldly sense; rather, he sees religion also as integral to the betterment of society in the present.

As any good apologist does, Penn tries to strike a conciliatory note with his anticipated audience, top-level government and religious officials. Penn notes that the religions’ differences and resulting social strife “renders the magistrate’s task hard.” He suggests that the problems coming from enforcement of the laws are not the reader’s fault, even if in reality they were. The worst problems are, Penn states, the fault of the system that had been put in place to try to make everyone conform to the same religious views or of the local officials implementing the regulations beyond what was mandated. Although Penn presents the situation this way, the top-level officials could not help but see criticism of themselves, even when Penn blames their subordinates.

Penn then goes on to list some of the most severe penalties that have been handed out to those found guilty of not obeying the laws regarding religion. The greatest of these was the death penalty. For over a hundred years prior to the reign of James II, every monarch had authorized the execution of individuals due to charges based on religion. Penn then mentions the thousands of people who have been jailed or had all their possessions confiscated or destroyed by the government. In addition to this, Penn notes the separation of families—”Parents left with out children, Children without their Parents, both without subsistence.” From Penn’s perspective, the strict enforcement of the laws was destroying people’s lives in such a manner as leading to their deaths. Even the smallest amount of money, the “widow’s mite,” was being taken from the poor, while all their resources were destroyed. Many were left without anything, as Penn asserts that for the local official enforcing the law, even “the skillet made part of their prize.”

However, the outrage Penn felt intensified because he saw the laws being distorted in such a way that religious intolerance was even greater than what had been legislated. As regards officials exceeding their authority, Penn had no doubt that many magistrates and officials “have abundantly transcended the severest clause in them.” Penn blasts those who enforced the laws using what is often called “guilt by association.” Some officials believed a person was guilty of the same religious crime as the prisoner, if a person visited someone who had been put in jail for violation of a law regarding religion. As a result, some who visited prisoners would be put in jail with no other evidence. Similarly, if a person visited a sick individual who was seen as a violator of the laws on religion, again the visitor was judged guilty of the same law. Social gatherings were broken up for being religious gatherings, with punishment meted out for the alleged crime. Those who were part of the nonconformist churches had no legal standing when accused of crimes, whether real or imagined, under the laws requiring conformity to religious belief and practice.

In addition to the harm these laws and views did to the relationship between the individual and the government, Penn also argues that these laws were destroying society. The uncertainty of one’s neighbor led to a breakdown of what should be common bonds. Penn blames “informers” who gave information about others for much of the problem. However, he does admire the fact that some did follow the Christian teaching to love their neighbor and helped the families who had had all their resources taken or destroyed because others had informed regarding their religious belief.

The previous problems applied to all who were seen as being outside the norm of the Anglican Church in England. However, one point specifically directed against the Quakers is raised at the end of the list of acts of official malfeasance. This was the transformation of the legally required question of “have you met” (do you agree with) to “will you swear.” One of the beliefs that separates Quakers from others is their literal acceptance of Jesus’ statement not to swear any type of oath. As recorded in Matthew 5:34, Jesus said, “But I say to you, do not swear at all.” Thus, if officials changed the wording from “have you met” to “will you swear,” Quakers could not respond to the question because of their belief against swearing oaths. The official then had an excuse to punish the Quaker for being disloyal, using the rule of praemunire, which is being loyal to some authority other than the king. Penn argues that people who were unwilling to swear an oath were not necessarily disloyal. Quakers and others could be as loyal as anyone else, including government officials who accused them.

Penn then concludes his introduction to this work by maintaining that in England the persecution of those outside the Anglican Church had resulted only in strengthening the dissenting churches. He states, “The more Vigorously a Uniformity is coercively prosecuted . . . the more Inflamed Persons are, and fixt in their Resolutions to stand by their Principles.” Not only that, he asserts that those being persecuted are generally seen more positively by others, which in this case resulted in more people joining the dissenting churches and their cause. He also reminds the authorities that often people had converted to Christianity itself because they had witnessed those who were devoted to their faith, even under extreme circumstances. This, he thought, should be a lesson to those who tried to stamp out Protestant groups that were outside the established church.

In the second part of the excerpt, Penn repeats the question that was the focus of this work. At this point, he gives a three-point answer on the best way to unify the society for the betterment of the nation: “Maintenance of English Rights,” “governing themselves upon a Balance . . . towards the several Religious Interests,” and “A sincere Promotion of General and Practical Religion.” These then are amplified throughout the many pages of text devoted to each part of the answer. The remainder of the excerpt is from the long explanation of the second answer, “Our Superiours governing themselves upon a Balance, as near as may be, towards the several Religious Interests.”

As part of the introduction to that section, Penn refers to his understanding there is an “Inconsistency . . . between the Christian Religion, and a forced Uniformity.” One of the ways he draws attention to this issue is by stating that he is not going to spend time writing about it. By mentioning what he is not going to argue, Penn makes readers spend at least some time thinking about the arguments that others had presented on this issue. The closing phrase, “they were most severely prohibited by Christ himself,” has to do with the use of force. While Quakers were generally against the use of force in any situation, this particular reference had to do with the general Christian understanding that the religion is based upon love. There is no passage in the New Testament where Christ specifically states the church should not be united; rather, what Penn refers to in the prohibition is the use of force to compel members to do something versus the use of love to encourage them to do it. Penn’s assumption—that it was apparent to all with a “free and impartial Temper” that forced uniformity did not work—was itself not obvious, since Penn had to write this plea to get others to reject the use of force.

The last three points in the printed text are from the sixth and seventh sections of Penn’s answer and the first of his responses to objections that might be made against his general line of thought regarding how to balance governmental interests and religion. In the first five sections of the response, Penn discusses the need for wisdom and for mercy, how persecution leads to unrest, the uncertainty of forced faith, and the error of sacrificing liberty for fashionable views. In the sixth, he presents the argument that the negative effects of religious persecution are not limited to those suffering the persecution. He asserts that “peace, plenty, and safety” are the key to domestic tranquility and the attributes that other countries seek in trading and political partners. According to Penn, religious persecution creates an aura of “animosity and contest.” Giving neighbors incentives for spying on one another created divisions that could go beyond the families to the dividing the larger society. Penn reminds the authorities to whom this was submitted, that most people would sympathize with the persecuted, not the persecutor. As a result, he asserts that religious persecution “breedeth ill blood against the government.” In the full text, Penn continues this argument by giving illustrations about the fluctuations in acceptable religious belief as monarchs and governments changed from the time of Edward VI through Charles II.

The seventh section of his argument, advocating a more lenient stance by the government toward all Christian denominations, has to do with events of the Reformation. When various Protestant groups emerged in Europe, some Catholic leaders used physical means, up to and including death, to suppress what they saw as heresy. Protestant leaders had always claimed the moral high ground by saying persecution, imprisonment, and execution were Catholic actions, not Protestant. Penn points out that the Protestant leaders of England could no longer make this argument, if they were taking exactly the same actions themselves. He then argues that if Protestant England felt it proper to do this, then why should not some of the Catholic countries start similar activities against the Protestants?

Imagining an immediate objection to his plea for religious tolerance, Penn raises the specter that religious groups outside the established church might use their freedom to plot overthrow of the government. Penn’s response is that mercy and kindness by one creates mercy and kindness in the other. Repression creates hatred, which is the basis for plots to overthrow the government. According to Penn, the current situation was creating dissatisfaction and political unrest. If the government changed its policy to one of tolerance, Penn claims, “What Dissenter can be so destitute of Reason and Love to common Safety, as to expose himself and Family; by plotting against a Government that is kind to him, and gives him the Liberty he desire.” Peace, safety, and stability would then be the ultimate results of religious tolerance.

Bibliography

Buranelli, Vincent. The King & the Quaker: A Study of William Penn and James II. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1962. Print.

Dunn, Mary Maples. William Penn: Politics and Conscience. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1967. Print.

Penn, William. “England’s Present Interest Considered, with Honour to the Prince, and Safety to the People (1675).” Online Library of Liberty. Online Library of Liberty, 2012. Web. 7 June 2012.