A Liberal Civil Religion: William Penn's Holy Experiment

A Liberal Civil Religion: WilliamPenn’s Holy Experiment

Christie L. Maloyed

Civil religion is often viewed with suspicion. It is frequently por-trayed as a form of fanatical patriotism that imposes a worldviewon citizens, actively discourages dissent, and is used to justify ques-tionable activities undertaken in the name of the state or nation.Opponents of civil religion fear that it poses a danger to politicalfreedom because it is seen, as William McKay has recently argued,as “a form of dangerous idolatry.”1 America in particular has beenmarked by a tradition of civil religion, sanctifying its politicalcode and institutions while secularizing religious faith to encouragecitizens to better serve their nation. Elements of this debateover civil religion and the appropriate role of religion in a religious-tolerant society remain lively today. From the place of prayer at highschool graduations to the hanging of the Ten Commandments onthe walls of public buildings to debates over the definition of mar-riage, the degree to which the state should protect or promote reli-gious values remains a heated question.

Historically associated with the republican tradition of politicalthought, civil religion refers to an attempt to impose a particularset of religiously derived beliefs, norms, and values on a societyin order to foster a shared sense of communal and political

CHRISTIE L. MALOYED (BA, Emory & Henry College; PhD, Texas A&M University)is assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Kearney.She has coauthored an article published in American Journal of EducationalHistory. Special interests include civil religion, civic education, and politicsand literature. Various versions of this article were improved by commentsfrom the anonymous reviewers and from several colleagues, including Cary J.Nederman, Daniel Betti, Mary Elizabeth Sullivan, Brad Goodine, PeytonWofford, and especially J. S. Maloy. An earlier draft was presented at the 2008Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association. The authorthanks Edward J. Harpham for providing feedback at that conference andAndrew Murphy for helpful suggestions on revising that draft.

Journal of Church and State; doi:10.1093/jcs/css055# The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the J. M. DawsonInstitute of Church-State Studies. All rights reserved. For permissions, pleasee-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

1. Wilfred M. McClay, “Foreword,” in Civil Religion in Political Thought: Its Peren-nial Questions and Enduring Relevance in North America, ed. Ronald Weed andJohn von Heyking (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2010), vii.

Journal of Church and State Advance Access published June 22, 2012 at U

niversity of Nebraska K

earney on September 21, 2012

http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

values. Given this necessary inculcation of social values, civil reli-gion has been viewed as antithetical to liberal values, especially adedication to liberty of conscience, in cases in which an individual’spersonal religious beliefs are given privileged status over the valuesand beliefs of the community.

Although Ronald Beiner has argued that “there is such a thing as aliberal civil religion,” he notes that it remains an intellectualparadox with few political thinkers attempting to promote liberalvalues alongside a civil religion.2 One historical exception that hasbeen overlooked in this regard is William Penn. Often treated as apatron saint of religious tolerance, Penn has most often been iden-tified as a liberal thinker who championed the causes of religiousand civil liberty. Penn, however, was a practically driven thinker,drawing from many, and sometimes inconsistent, political tradi-tions, including liberal, republican, Leveller, and Quaker thought.Penn’s political project in establishing the Pennsylvania colony isbest understood as an attempt to bring together these disparate tra-ditions to establish a liberal civil religion, one that protects religiousliberty and simultaneously promotes a particular set of civicvirtues.

Penn’s attempt to enshrine within a constitutional frameworkboth protections for liberty of conscience and dedication to a setof particular religiously driven political values was innovative forhis time. The liberal elements of Penn’s thought have often been rec-ognized; giving attention to the elements of civil religion in histhought sheds light on both Penn’s political thought and, morebroadly, the civil religion tradition.

Civil Religion

Civil religion often refers to the use of religious language andthemes to encourage political allegiance or more generally dedica-tion to the common good. Robert Bellah famously described it as“a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacredthings and institutionalized in a collectivity.”3 Historically, civil reli-gion has been associated with republican government, ranging fromthe civil religion of the Roman Republic through the thought ofMachiavelli to Rousseau’s Social Contract. Because civil religionattempts to create a shared narrative and ethos whereby all citizens

2. Ronald Beiner argues that Montesquieu and Tocqueville are the two primaryexceptions. See Ronald Beiner, Civil Religion: A Dialogue in the History of PoliticalPhilosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 418.3. Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus 96 (1967): 8.

Journal of Church and State

at University of N

ebraska Kearney on Septem

ber 21, 2012http://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/

nloaded from

are shaped by its basic tenets, it is seen as inimical to religiousliberty.

Beiner has argued that civil religion is the use of religion for polit-ical ends—namely, it “is the empowerment of religion, not for thesake of religion but for the sake of enhanced citizenship.”4 Con-ceived in this way, he stresses the tension that exists between pro-tecting individual liberty and promoting a unified idea of goodcitizenship: “‘Liberalism’ . . . is the rejection of the idea of empower-ing religion even for the sake of enhancing good citizenship”; hence,“civil religion and liberalism are opposing alternatives within theintellectual world of political philosophy.”5 Therefore, theoristswho have supported versions of civil religion, such as Machiavelliand Hobbes, rarely promote strong protections for liberty of con-science, whereas, those who champion religious liberty, such asLocke and Mill, tend to reject the benefits of civil religion.

Penn is a theorist who does not sit comfortably on either side ofthis dichotomy. On the one hand, Penn is known as one of the sev-enteenth century’s most ardent advocates of liberty of conscience.He wrote numerous political tracts in defense of religious liberty,made repeated appeals concerning toleration directly to Parliament,and was arrested and imprisoned for his cause.6 On the other hand,he was also a champion of the importance of virtue to sustaining agovernment and argued that religion should serve as the foundationof government.7 In his political project in Pennsylvania, he estab-lished a form of government that promoted the use of religion toenhance citizenship and also offered protection for religiousliberty. Nevertheless, he created and approved laws that clearlyprotected Quaker customs, often while ignoring the sentiments ofnon-Quaker colonists. As J. William Frost has argued, Penn effec-tively created a “non-coercive Quaker establishment.”8

4. Beiner, Civil Religion, 2.5. Ibid.6. See especially, Mary Maples Dunn, William Penn: Politics and Conscience(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967); Marvin B. Endy Jr., WilliamPenn and Early Quakerism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977);and Arlin M. Adams and Charles J. Emmerich, “William Penn and the AmericanHeritage of Religious Liberty,” Journal of Law and Religion 8 (1990): 57–70.7. See Mary Maples, “William Penn, Classical Republican,” Pennsylvania Maga-zine of History and Biography 81 (1957): 138–56.8. J. William Frost, “Religious Liberty in Early Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania Mag-azine of History and Biography 105 (1981): 449. In fact, Penn did not necessarilybelieve that establishment was antithetical to the protection of religious liberty,and although he did not choose to create an official establishment in his colony,Quakerism did function as the unofficial establishment. See Andrew Murphy,Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent inEarly Modern England and America (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer-sity Press, 2001), 182.

A Liberal Civil Religion

at University of N

nloaded from

Penn’s colonial project is best understood as an attempt to estab-lish a liberal civil religion, one that protects religious liberty whilealso promoting civic virtue and, more generally, good morals.Although Penn never used the term civil religion to describe hisown project, it is clear that his stated objectives in founding Penn-sylvania shared the same goals as a civil religion—namely, the pro-motion of civic virtue and a common interest through the use ofreligious values. His project can properly be understood as a civilreligion, but it is clearly not the type of civil religion that emergesfrom the republican tradition. Penn shared with the classical repub-licans a concern for civic virtue, but he did not place a high premiumon republican political institutions.9 Moreover, although he pro-tected Quaker values, he also actively recruited other religious dis-senters to join his colony and provided constitutional protectionsfor their political rights. Hence, Penn combined a liberal concernfor rights with a republican concern for virtue.

In part, Penn’s ability to combine these two traditions in a unifiedcivil religion is due to the unusual nature of the Quaker religionitself. Quakers were one of many post-Reformation Protestantgroups to appear in the 1650s amid the aftermath of the EnglishCivil War. They placed a primary emphasis on the individual’sability to experience God directly, which led them to rejectoutward and visible expressions of faith as desirable or even neces-sary. Quakers adopted the “two kingdoms” analogy that wascommon among much of Protestant thought of the time, but inQuaker theology, it was not simply an argument about the need tounderstand the difference between the earthly and heavenly king-doms. As Marvin Endy explains, Quakers “did not want to contrastthe ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ so much as ‘spiritual’ and ‘sinful.’”10

This led Quakers to focus on the preparation of the spirit toreceive God’s revelations directly, with little attention given to therituals associated with most confessions. Consequently, their rejec-tion of the necessity of outward forms of worship and a reliance ondirect communication with God separated them from most tradi-tional Protestant sects, including the Puritans.

Quakers were unusually egalitarian. Formal hierarchies withinchurches were not observed and were considered dangerous.Given that God could guide each person, including both men andwomen, there was no need for formal priests. Because God couldas easily reveal himself to a pauper as a king, each person was

9. Richard Alan Ryerson, “William Penn’s Gentry Commonwealth: An Interpre-tation of the Constitutional History of Early Pennsylvania, 1681–1701,” Pennsyl-vania Magazine of History and Biography 61 (1994): 401–7.10. Endy, William Penn, 78.

at University of N

nloaded from

seen as having inherently equal worth. This led Quakers to call forgreater protection of individual rights and, in some cases, to iden-tify with the radical political policies associated with the Levellers.11

Additionally, their egalitarianism led them to ignore several socialnorms, which raised concerns among other citizens. For instance,Quakers refused to take off their hats or bow to anyone, regardlessof their status. They also refused to use proper titles when address-ing others, including even Mr. or Mrs. They refused to swear oaths,which was particularly problematic in regards to politics.12 More-over, because of their egalitarian views, Quakers refused to partici-pate in practices that might cause harm to others, includingengaging in war.13 As a result, they were often persecuted fortheir beliefs by having their property seized and being imprisoned.

Stephen Kent and James Spickard have argued that Quakerismoffers an alternative model of civil religion to the one most oftenassociated with the American tradition. Whereas the American tra-dition of civil religion identified by Bellah and others emphasizesthe themes of a chosen people who share a special relationshipwith God and who are led by Providence, the Quaker traditionemphasizes the human rather than the American experience.14

Although Kent and Spickard are correct to note the distinctQuaker tradition of civil religion, they often overemphasize the non-political nature of the Quakers. For instance, they claim the Quakerswere opposed to efforts to legislate morality, they were suspiciousof civil institutions, and they tended to abstain from publicaffairs.15 In the case of Pennsylvania, however, both its founderand its Quaker residents were more than willing to legislate

11. William Penn, The Papers of William Penn (hereafter PWP), ed. RichardS. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn, 5 vols. (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1981–87), 1: 388–410. For the connection between Quaker and Levellerthought, see especially Quaker Edward Byllynge’s political tract, “Mite of Affec-tion (1659),” in Early Quaker Writings, 1650–1680, ed. Hugh Barbour andArthur O. Roberts (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1973),407–21. Leveller thought was especially influential in shaping the constitutionand laws of the Quaker-led West New Jersey colony. See Caroline Robbins, “Lawsand Governments Proposed for West New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 1676–1683,”Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 105 (1981): 373–92.12. See Edmund S. Morgan, “The World and William Penn,” Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical Society 127 (1983): 292.13. The Quaker Peace Testimony was developed in response to the social andpolitical upheaval of 1659, but it was neither immediately nor universallyaccepted. See Barry Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution (New York:St. Martin’s Press, 1985), 81–100, 106–11.14. Stephen A. Kent and James V. Spickard, “The ‘Other’ Civil Religion and theTradition of Radical Quaker Politics,” Journal of Church and State 36 (Spring1994): 374.15. Ibid., 378, 379, 382.

at University of N

nloaded from

morality as a means of promoting civic ends, they invested a greatdeal of time into constructing their political institutions, and theyheld an overwhelming majority of the political offices.16

As a Quaker who had suffered political persecution, Penn’s dedi-cation to religious liberty was grounded in both his personal expe-riences and his religious theology. Quakerism taught that truebelief came through the experience of the inner light, not throughlegal requirements for belief, and that the latter would only breedhypocrisy and civil unrest. Therefore the protection of liberty ofconscience was shaped by both religious and political interests.Religion could be used, however, to inspire individuals to virtuousbehavior, and it was within the interest of the government to havereligion as its foundation in order to encourage virtue. Because Qua-kerism was dedicated both to individual liberty and the fostering ofvirtue, Penn was able to use it as a basis for establishing a liberalcivil religion.

Penn’s Political Thought

Penn was an eclectic thinker, drawing support for his argumentsfrom various and often competing traditions of thought, and hiswillingness to draw from diverse sources was driven in part by hisdeep involvement in practical politics. Born into a well-connectedfamily, Penn was able to cultivate a close relationship with theStuarts, several leaders of the Whigs, and also the foremostQuakers. Penn spent the majority of his life working in English pol-itics, attending the royal court, writing pamphlets, and rallying sup-porters to his causes.17 He long hoped to make England a moretolerant place; by 1680 however, Penn began to abandon his hopethat England could be reformed. As John Moretta has described,Penn instead “embraced the idea of a North American haven forQuakers[;] it became an obsession, driving him like no othertaking in his life.”18 This is not to suggest that Penn’s politicalthought and actions were exclusively driven by his religiousbeliefs. As Mary Geiter has argued, the Pennsylvania projectallowed him “to combine his business practice with his religiousbelief.”19 Although Pennsylvania was not exclusively founded onthe basis of religious principles, the pursuit of political, religious,

16. See especially Gary Nash, Quakers and Politics (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1968).17. For a thorough discussion of Penn’s involvement in English politics see MaryK. Geiter, William Penn (London: Longman, 2000), 13–48.18. John Moretta, William Penn and the Quaker Legacy (New York: Pearson,2007), 87.19. Geiter, William Penn, 44.

at University of N

nloaded from

and economic goals should not be viewed as incompatible nor didPenn view them as such.20 In fact, it is precisely Penn’s willingnessto put religion in the service of politics by using religious valuesto encourage political stability and economic activity that demon-strates the elements of civil religion within his thought.

At the center of his political thought is the importance of religiousliberty. Mary Maples Dunn aptly argues that Penn adopted “as analmost life-long particular purpose the case of liberty of con-science.”21 Penn placed religious liberty squarely within the realmof civil rights, and his commitment to liberty of conscience ledhim to advocate religious toleration and denounce the utility of per-secution. At the same time, Penn also maintained a concern for therole of government in promoting civic virtue and believed civil mag-istrates had a role to play in fostering virtue. Most political thinkersof his era chose to emphasize either religious liberty or civic virtue,not both. To understand Penn’s dual dedication to liberty and virtueand, ultimately, his unusual effort to combine these elements into aliberal civil religion, it is necessary to first trace his arguments forprotecting liberty of conscience and his reasons for insisting thatgovernment should use religion as a means to make individualsinto better citizens.

Liberty of Conscience

What distinguishes Penn from other political philosophers of theseventeenth century is that he saw liberty of conscience as an inher-ent right for all individuals, a right that must be politically pro-tected, both in terms of religious belief and religious practice.This stands in contrast with other prominent figures such asHobbes, who was willing to limit religious practice in the name ofsecurity, and even Locke, who advocated toleration more on thegrounds of the inability to coerce an individual’s conscience thanon the grounds of civil rights. In one of his most well-knowntracts, The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience (1670), which wascomposed while he was incarcerated at Newgate prison, Penn devel-oped his understanding of the meaning and origins of liberty ofconscience. For Penn, liberty of conscience included not onlyfreedom of belief but also freedom of worship:

But that plain English, of Liberty of Conscience, we would be understoodto mean, is this; namely, The Free and Uninterrupted Exercise of our

20. See especially Nash, Quakers and Politics, 11–17; and Moretta, William Penn,107–9.21. Dunn, William Penn, 44.

at University of N

nloaded from

Consciences, in that Way of Worship, we are most clearly perswaded [sic],God requires us to serve Him in (without endangering our undoubtedBirthright of English Freedoms) which being Matter of FAITH; we Sin ifwe omit, and they can’t do less, that shall endeavour it.22

Consequently, he argued that it is equally important that the gov-ernment should not coerce belief and also that it should not perse-cute individuals for acts of worship. Penn clearly had in mind manypractices for which the Quakers had been persecuted, but his argu-ments can easily extend to the worship practices of other dissentinggroups.

Liberty of conscience is necessary because God reveals himself toindividuals and requires their worship. To not worship as one is ledto by God, whether by one’s own will or by force, is perilous to one’ssoul: “That if we neglect it for Fear or Favour of any Mortal Man, weSin, and incur Divine Wrath.”23 Hence, the religious adherent isfaced with a difficult, if not impossible, choice under a governmentthat persecutes religion: violate the laws of the state and suffer theconsequences or violate God’s will and potentially suffer eternalpunishment.

Of course, individuals had suffered for holding unorthodox reli-gious beliefs for centuries, but Penn wanted to prove that persecu-tion offered no benefit to either the church or the state. Heoffered extensive reasons to support his argument, including reli-gious, political, and pragmatic concerns. Among Penn’s strongestconvictions was his belief that liberty of conscience is given to indi-viduals by God. For the state to require a particular means of beliefor worship is to dishonor God and to usurp his authority as thegranter of liberty of conscience. Given that God is the ultimatejudge of each individual’s actions, Penn argued that “no Man isaccountable to his fellow Creatures, as to be imposed upon,restrain’d, or persecuted for any Matter of Conscience whatever.”24

The role of Christianity is especially important for Penn because hesaw it as an inherently tolerant religion. He viewed it as “the SoleReligion of the World, that is Built on the Principles of Love.”25

Focusing on the examples of Christ’s life, Penn concluded that“‘tis certain Christ is for Toleration.”26 To behave otherwise is tobe un-Christian, and it is thus necessary for toleration to beextended to all Christians.

22. William Penn, The Political Writings of William Penn, ed. Andrew Murphy(Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002), 82.23. Ibid., 85–86.24. Ibid., 87.25. Ibid., 331.26. Ibid., 333.

at University of N

nloaded from

Liberty of conscience is as much a matter of reason as religion forPenn. When individuals are required to hold a particular beliefagainst their conscience, the enforcer of that law “[e]nslaves hisFellow Creatures, invades their Right of Liberty, and so pervertsthe whole Order of Nature.”27 Penn argued that coercion alwaysproves ineffective: “In short, that Man cannot be said to have anyReligion, that takes it by another Man’s Choice, not his own.”28

Thus he thought it dangerous for the state to require its citizensto subscribe to a particular religion or confession because suchrequirements deny the possibility of actual belief. Because faith isa gift from God that one must receive freely, the person who iscoerced into belief may achieve “[h]ypocrisy, but that is quiteanother Thing than Salvation.”29 Because coercion can neverinspire actual faith, it is unreasonable to have laws requiring anindividual to hold particular beliefs.

One of the chief benefits that a religiously tolerant state gains,Penn argued, is a greater number of content citizens. This isbecause religious intolerance creates a great burden on the stateto prosecute the offenders, and it creates enemies of the stateamong those who are persecuted.30 Furthermore, there are financialbenefits for states that practice religious toleration. Penn arguedthat those citizens who hold earnest religious beliefs are mostlikely to be virtuous, industrious, and productive. When citizens’property is seized and they are incarcerated, the state loses thebenefit of their labor, the industries of the state are disrupted,and poverty is created. Additionally, Penn contended that thestate will also lose the benefit of diverse trade relationshipsbecause foreign nations will not want to engage in trade when astate has such great inner turmoil.31 As a result, the state standsto suffer great financial loss from the persecution of religiousbeliefs.

Liberty of conscience was also a political right, according to Penn,grounded in the English Constitution.32 He opened his Great Casewith an appeal to end persecution and recognize religious liberty,

27. Ibid., 92.28. Ibid., 93.29. Ibid., 130.30. Ibid., 57.31. Ibid., 59.32. Most likely driven by his affiliation with the Whigs, Penn’s emphasis on theEnglish Constitution was rooted in the traditional understanding of the ancientconstitution, especially the Magna Carta, emphasizing the right to property, andshared executive and legislative power between the monarch and Parliament.

at University of N

nloaded from

counting it among “those Freedoms, to which we are entituled [sic]by English Birthright.”33 It was paramount to Penn that Parliamentshould represent the people of England. He viewed the commonersof England as an integral part of government needed to secure thesafety and prosperity of the state. Fundamental to that endeavorwas the recognition and preservation of what Penn considered thethree primary English birthrights: property, legislative power, andjudicial power.34

The ancient constitution defined what the rights of Englishmenwere, but it also indicated how the government should go aboutensuring that those rights were upheld. This included a dedicationto the security of life, liberty, and property, all of which fall underthe purview of secular government. Drawing upon the distinctionemphasized by Quakers between the temporal and spiritualworlds, Penn argued that religious beliefs, which are derived fromdivine rights, do not affect worldly matters such as liberty and prop-erty, which are derived from natural and civil rights:

Certainly, if Religion be an Inward Principle of Divine Life, exerting it selfby Holy Living, and that, as such, it belongs not to the Commission of ourSuperiors, I do with Submission conceive, that there is very little else ofReligion left for them [the magistrates] to have to do with: The restmerits not the Name of Religion, and less doth such a Formality deservePersecution.35

Because religion is inherently internal, it cannot be regulated. Butthis should not be problematic for the state because it has no needto coerce religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, even dissenting ones,cannot be used to deny other citizens their constitutional rights.This is because religious beliefs are based on inward principlesand constitutional rights are based on outward, natural principles.As such, Penn believed that the English Constitution providedliberty of conscience to all citizens.

Persecution, however, remained rampant throughout the 1670s,when Penn vehemently fought for greater toleration in Englandand was frequently incarcerated for his beliefs. He always viewedpersecution as a great evil in society and believed that it occurredbecause of fundamental misunderstandings of what religion isand what it requires. Religion requires individuals to live virtuously.Governments, however, foolishly prefer conformity to virtuousliving. This undermines the appropriate role of government,which is to reward virtue and punish vice. Accordingly, Penn

33. Penn, Political Writings, 79.34. Ibid., 386–87.35. Ibid., 49–50.

at University of N

nloaded from

argued that governments should seek to protect religious groups,given their inherent inclination toward virtuous living, and punishthose ill-mannered individuals who are inclined toward vice. Onlythen can the government serve its true purpose and protect theinterest of the governed.

The Preservation of Virtue

For Penn, the protection of liberty of conscience and the promotionof virtue went hand in hand. Governments that protect religiousfreedom have more religious citizens and hence more virtuous citi-zens. As Moretta has described, Penn’s vision for his colony wasrooted in his belief that Quaker values would lead to enhanced cit-izenship and hence a peaceful and successful colony: “Penn’s visionof Pennsylvania and early hopes for the colony reflected his faith’sdistinctive political radicalism and optimism. Pennsylvania was tobe a largely noncoercive, consensual society, in which a deep spiri-tuality pervaded every aspect of life, especially government.”36 Pennargued that both God and government share an interest in promot-ing virtue, and he thought governments should actively encouragevirtue and punish vice. He did not see a contradiction betweenhaving government legislate on moral matters and requiring protec-tion for religious liberty. In his Address to Protestants (1679), heclaimed magistrates can legitimately punish crimes of impiety forthey are sins against God as well as against government: “This isnot troubling Men for Faith, nor perplexing People for Tendernessof Conscience; for there can be no Pretence [sic] of Conscience tobe Drunk, to Whore, to be Voluptuous, to Game, Swear, Curse, Blas-pheme and Profane; no such Matter. These are Sins against Nature;and against Government, as well as against the Written Laws ofGod.”37

Penn placed virtue as both the foundation of good governmentand the only means by which it can be maintained: “What thenshould be more concern’d for the Preservation of Virtue, than Gov-ernment; that in it’s [sic] abstract and true Sense is not only foundedupon Virtue, but without the Preservation of Virtue, it is impossibleto maintain the best Constitution that can be made?”38 For Penn,government has both a negative and positive role concerning indi-vidual liberty. Drawing from the liberal tradition, he argued govern-ment should protect individual rights, including life, liberty, andproperty; but, he also drew from the republican and Quaker

36. Moretta, William Penn, 109.37. Ibid., 138.38. Ibid., 138-39.

at University of N

nloaded from

traditions and argued government should foster virtue and sup-press vice. As he describes in the preamble to the Pennsylvania Con-stitution, Penn saw the role of government as fulfilling the ends ofreligion:

So that Government seems to me a part of Religion itself, a thing Sacred inits Institution and End. For, if it does not directly remove the Cause, itcrushes the Effects of Evil, and is as such, (though a lower, yet) an Emana-tion of the same Divine Power, that is both Author and Object of Pure Reli-gion; the Difference lying here, that the One is more Free and Mental, theOther more Corporal and Compulsive in its operations: but that is only toEvil-doers; Government it self being otherwise as capable of Kindness,Goodness and Charity, as a more private society.39

Penn’s argument that both religion and government share aninterest in fostering virtue shares a great deal with the republicantradition of political thought, although it is unclear whether Penndrew his ideas from republican or commonwealth thinkers. Cer-tainly Penn was familiar with classical sources as well as Machiavel-li’s Discourses, as is evidenced in his tract No Cross, No Crown, buthe does not draw heavily from them in the bulk of his writings. Hewas also a close personal friend to the republican advocate Alger-non Sidney—he campaigned on his behalf and asked him torespond to drafts of his Pennsylvania Constitution; however, it isunclear how much of Sidney’s political advice Penn actually took.40

The republican theorist he drew the most from was JamesHarrington, and several features of the Pennsylvania Constitutionare drawn from Harrington’s Oceana.41 These include the rotationof political offices so that no position may be held in successiveyears, the division of proposal and approval power regarding legis-lation between the Council and Assembly respectively, and the useof a secret ballot. Nevertheless, Penn drew primarily from Harring-ton’s institutional design, not his overall theory.42 Whereas

39. Penn, PWP, 2:212.40. Jonathan Scott argues that England’s Great Interest is likely a joint work ofSidney and Penn, written while Sidney was staying with Penn, and is aimed atSidney’s election bid. See Jonathan Scott, Algernon Sidney and the EnglishRepublic, 1623–1677 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 216–17.Penn and Sidney apparently had a falling out in 1681 when Sidney sharplycriticized a draft of Penn’s constitution to several of their friends. See Penn,PWP, 2:124–25.41. See Maples, Classical Republican, 139–43; and Ryerson, “William Penn’sGentry Commonwealth,” 404–5.42. Mark Goldie has argued that Harrington employed a civil religion that wasbased on uniting the Greek-Roman tradition with the Christian Apocalyptic tra-dition and that ultimately focuses on overturning the “papal tyranny.” Penndoes not adopt this style of civil religion, however, which relies on excludingCatholics from political participation. Although Penn expressed concerns

at University of N

nloaded from

Harrington emphasized the importance of good institutions andgood laws, Penn was adamant that good laws are not enough toensure good government:

[T]hough good Laws do well, good Men do better: for good Laws may wantgood Men, and be abolished or evaded by ill Men but good Men will neverwant good Laws, nor suffer Ill Ones. It is true, good Laws have some Aweupon Ill Ministers, but that is where They have not Power to escape orabolish them, and the People are generally wise and good: but a looseand depraved People (which is the Question) love Laws and an Administra-tion like themselves.43

A government that is run by corrupt men will produce a corruptgovernment, which inevitably will fail to protect the rights and lib-erties of its citizens. As such, Penn argued that government musthave a role in promoting virtue because it is vital to the protectionof liberty. Penn had the opportunity to combine his dual interestin liberty and virtue in the construction of his Pennsylvania Consti-tution and attempted to design a government that both protectedliberty of conscience and also cultivated civic virtue among itscitizens.

The Holy Experiment

Penn acquired the land that would become Pennsylvania through adebt that Charles II owed to Penn’s father. He saw the colony as anopportunity to achieve in practice what his many tracts had failed toproduce in England—a place where liberty of conscience wouldprevail. In a letter to Roger Mompeson in 1704–05, Penn wrote ofhis intentions for the colony: “I went thither to lay the foundationof a free colony for all mankind, more especially those of my ownprofession, not that I would lessen the civil liberties of othersbecause of their persuasion, but screen and defend our own fromany infringement on that account.”44 Penn considered Pennsylvaniato be a “holy experiment,” and he viewed Pennsylvania as an oppor-tunity to bring together different confessions and allow them to

about Catholics at various points in his life, the First Frame grants politicalrights to anyone who affirms Christ, including Catholics. See Mark Goldie,“The Civil Religion of James Harrington,” in The Languages of Modern PoliticalTheory in Early-Modern Europe, ed. Anthony Pagden (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990), 197–222.43. Penn, PWP, 2:213.44. William Penn, James Logan, Deborah Norris Logan, and Edward Armstrong,Correspondence between William Penn and James Logan, Secretary of the Prov-ince of Pennsylvania, and Others, 1700–1750, ed. Edward Armstrong, 2 vols.(Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1870), 1:373.

at University of N

nloaded from

flourish in order to establish a model that other countries couldfollow.

The colony was to be explicitly devoted to the idea of religious tol-eration. As soon as Penn received the charter for the colony in March1681, he began a wide advertising campaign to encourage settle-ment of the area. Quakers and non-Quakers alike from a variety ofbackgrounds and regions (including Ireland, Holland, Germany,France, and other established colonies such as New York and Barba-dos) responded to his call.45 He also began working on drafts of theconstitution. Penn wanted to publish a copy of the constitution andlaws of the colony as a tool to recruit more settlers. He went throughten drafts, with input offered by several of his close friends, bothpolitical and religious. Ultimately, Penn published the First Frameof Government and Laws Agreed to in England as a single volumein May 1682.

Penn emphasized that he wanted his settlers to have a role inshaping the laws of their government and emphasized the contrac-tual origins of the constitution. He included a broad franchise sothat his settlers would feel a part of the government. Clearly influ-enced by Leveller thought and Quaker radicals, Penn includedvoting and office holding rights for “all landowning, land renting,and urban taxpaying adult Christian males.”46 Nevertheless, Pennwas not a committed Leveller, as is made apparent by the hierarch-ical structure of the legislature and his own role as proprietor.47 AsAndrew Murphy explains, Penn’s “contractarianism was more par-liamentarian than leveling. He saw no contradiction between politi-cal contract theory and its implicit egalitarianism on the one handand hierarchical social or political forms on the other.”48

The contractual nature of the First Frame was aimed at fostering acommon interest among the people. By founding laws upon theconsent of the people, Penn hoped to ensure that governmentwould pursue its appropriate end—namely, the civil interest. Heargued that civil interest is both “the Foundation and End of CivilGovernment.”49 To protect the civil interest of the people, the gov-ernment must ensure peace, protect the people from poverty, andpromote unity.50

45. Edwin B. Bronner, William Penn’s “Holy Experiment” (New York: TempleUniversity Publications, 1962), 27.46. Ryerson, “William Penn’s Gentry Commonwealth,” 408.47. For discussions of Penn’s elitism, see especially Geiter, William Penn, 27–31,116, 154; and Moretta, William Penn, 78, 91.48. Murphy, Conscience and Community, 172.49. Penn, Political Writings, 21050. Ibid., 99.

at University of N

nloaded from

In his thought, Penn makes a clear separation between what con-stitutes civil interest and private interest. As Murphy has argued,Penn effectively creates a division of spheres where the governmentcan legitimately act upon the external aspects of individuals’ lives.51

Government, however, cannot act upon those aspects that are fun-damentally private. Most importantly, for Penn, this prevents gov-ernments from acting upon individuals’ religious beliefs orpractices.

Nevertheless, this dedication to the separation of external andinternal spheres has many curious aspects that demonstratePenn’s interest in blending protection of individual liberty with agovernmental interest in promoting virtue. Although Penn arguesthat government should not play a role in those issues that are inter-nal, in practice there are many instances in which the government’spursuit of promoting civil interest may be seen as conflicting withindividuals’ private lives and beliefs. For instance, freedom tohold diverse religious beliefs was always upheld by Penn, but thefreedom to be nonreligious is questionable at best. In order toserve as a member of the Pennsylvania government, an individualhad to be willing to declare his belief in the divinity of Christ,although there was no requirement to express a dedication to aparticular confession. Obviously, atheists would automatically beexcluded; however, it is not clear to what extent they wouldbe free from formal or informal persecution. Of course, anynon-Christian religious adherent would also be excluded, althoughPenn did not discuss his views toward other major world religions.

Although he never directly discussed the issue of atheism atlength, he does discourage irreligion in his First Frame of Govern-ment. The issue of atheism was directly addressed by the first legis-lature of Pennsylvania, which Penn oversaw and held in high regard.Its members took measures to ensure that certain religious practi-ces, such as the observance of the Sabbath, were enforced “to theEnd that Looseness, Irreligion and Atheism may not creep inunder pretence [sic] of Conscience.”52 By assenting to these laws,Penn made clear that his toleration only extended to those whoheld religious beliefs.

Even among the religious, Penn was willing for the government toregulate a great deal of seemingly private matters in the name of pro-tecting the civil interest. He explicitly argued in the First Frame thatmany regulations are necessary for the civil and religious interest of

51. Andrew Murphy, “The Uneasy Relationship between Social Contract Theoryand Religious Toleration,” Journal of Politics 59 (1997): 378.52. “The Great Law,” in The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania in the Time ofWilliam Penn, ed. Gail McKnight Beckman, 18 vols. (New York: Vantage Press,1976), 1:128.

at University of N

nloaded from

the colony. By regulating questionable activities, the governmentcould ensure that peace and prosperity would be protected. Amongthe behaviors that were considered offenses against God were swear-ing, cursing, drunkenness, duels, stage-plays, card games, dicegames, May-games, revels, bull-baitings, cock-fighting, and bear-baitings, to name only a few, and any other activities that “excitethe people to rudeness, cruelty, looseness, and irreligion.”53

Penn drew directly from his Quaker beliefs in determining manyof the laws to include in his frame of government. In fact, most ofthe limitations that he incorporated into his First Frame of Govern-ment were adopted by the Quaker-dominated legislature in theirGreat Law, and many more were added with his consent.54 Theseinclude prohibitions from working on the Sabbath, taking theLord’s name in vain, and bearing “false witness”; a prohibitionfrom referring to the weeks and months by their “HeathenNames”; and a prohibition from selling alcohol to the natives. More-over, Quaker interests were represented in the type of punishmentsthat were prescribed. Jails would be free and would offer offendersthe opportunity for redemption through hard labor. Penn expectedthat everyone who would move to the colony would also see themerit in accepting these laws as representative of the general inter-est, even though they were clearly based on Quaker preferences.

Government was instituted not only to curb vices and impiety butalso to cultivate virtue. As Penn discussed in the First Frame, theconstruction of good institutions and laws are important but imper-fect safeguards. The state must educate individuals in virtue inorder to cultivate citizens that are dedicated to the law and to thecommon good generally:

That, therefore, which makes a good constitution, must keep it, viz.: menof wisdom and virtue, qualities, that because they descend not withworldly inheritances, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous educa-tion of youth; for which after ages will owe more to the care and prudenceof founders, and the successive magistracy, than to their parents, for theirprivate patrimonies.55

To this end, the First Frame required the establishment of a com-mittee of “Manners, Education, and Art” and required that all chil-dren, starting at age twelve, receive an education in either a tradeor skill as a means to prevent idleness and protect againstpoverty.56 As Vicki Hsueh has noted, Penn’s committees on

53. Penn, PWP, 2:209.54. Frost, “Religious Liberty,” 428–29.55. Penn, PWP, 2:213–14.56. Ibid., 2:217, 224.

at University of N

nloaded from

manners, education, and the arts placed in the hands of governmentthat which was traditionally “the prerogative of parents and fami-lies.”57 Hsueh correctly argues that although Penn was clearly influ-enced by “the examples set by earlier proprietary colonies and bythe civic humanist and republican ideals circulating in theperiod[,] . . . [his] version of these values, as they were outlined inthe Frame, were clearly not in sync with the sentiments of his con-temporaries.”58 Penn goes further than other liberal thinkers of histime in having the government play a direct and positive role inshaping the virtuous character of its citizens; government was notsimply a means to punish vice.

When he designed the laws for his colony, Penn drew directlyfrom his Quaker beliefs in determining those practices that hebelieved would be offensive to God, government, and the civilinterest. His goal was to use government to cultivate a dedicationto the common good by making citizens more industrious, bettereducated, and generally moral, and his understanding of thecommon good was thoroughly Quaker. Because Quakerismstressed the personal relationship between the individual andGod, Penn believed the moral and religious aspects of his constitu-tion and the laws of the colony would not conflict with the set-tlers’ religious liberty.

The true novelty of Penn’s attempt to establish a liberal civil reli-gion shows most clearly when compared with other colonies ofhis era. Penn’s colony was certainly not the first to emphasize theimportance of religious liberty. Both Rhode Island and West NewJersey had protections for religious toleration in their constitutions.For instance, the 1663 Charter of Rhode Island was described as alively experiment built on the proposition that a civil state couldbe best maintained where no person within the colony would be“molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any dif-ferences in opinion in matters of religion.”59 In a similar vein, theCharter of West New Jersey in 1676/7, to which Penn was actuallya signatory, provided that no person shall be “called in question,or in the least punished or hurt, either in person, estate, or privilege,for the sake of his opinion, judgment, faith or worship towards God

57. Vicki Hsueh, Hybrid Constitutions: Challenging Legacies of Law, Privilege,and Culture in Colonial America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 94.58. Ibid., 96.59. “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations—1663,” in The Federaland State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the State,Territories, and Colonies Now or Hertofore Forming the United States of America,ed. Francis Newton Thorpe, 7 vols. (Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1906), 6:3213.

at University of N

nloaded from

in matters of religion.”60 Although Rhode Island limited religioustoleration to Christians, West New Jersey’s charter was broadlywritten so that it could potentially encompass all faiths.

Although both of these colonies provide similar protections forreligious liberty, as was later adopted by Penn in the PennsylvaniaConstitution, they differ from Pennsylvania in that both RhodeIsland and West New Jersey only address religion in terms of protec-tion for liberty of conscience. Neither colony provided any role forgovernment to play in the promotion of religion or virtue. Religionis treated in strictly liberal terms, meaning that government’sprimary role is to protect colonists’ right to worship and believeas their conscience dictated. In contrast, in the First Frame, Pennexplicitly argues that government should protect and promote reli-gion, that one of the main purposes of government is to promotevirtuous behavior, that religion is the best means for governmentto encourage virtue, and that it is the responsibility of governmentto educate citizens in these matters. When compared to RhodeIsland and West New Jersey, Pennsylvania appears to be steepednot only in the liberal tradition of political thought but also toexplicitly promote a form of civil religion based on Quaker values.

The Experiment in Practice: Successes and Struggles

Pennsylvania was known as one of the most pluralistic and tolerantAmerican colonies, but it was not without its struggles.61 AlthoughPenn had hoped to be deeply involved in the governing of his colony,he ultimately spent little time in America. He arrived in October1682 but left for England only a short while thereafter in August1684 in an effort to settle a border dispute with Lord Baltimore.In his long absence (he did not return until 1699), the colony, attimes, fell into bitter religious and political squabbles. As EdwinBronner aptly notes, Penn viewed his colony as one “which had for-gotten that it was established as a utopian community.”62 It isunclear how many of the original colonists shared Penn’s utopian

60. “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey Agreed Upon—1676,” in Federal and State Constitutions, 5:2549. Penn was intimately involvedin launching the West New Jersey colony because he served as a trustee for itsprimary stakeholder, Edward Byllynge. There is debate, however, concerninghow much Penn was involved in authoring the “Concessions and Agreements”for the colony. Caroline Robbins has suggested Byllynge was the primaryauthor, “Laws and Government,” 382–91; whereas Moretta argues the docu-ment was largely Penn’s work in his William Penn, 91–92.61. Sidney Ahlstrom referred to Pennsylvania as “the ‘Keystone State’ ofAmerican religious history.” See Sidney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of theAmerican People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), 212.62. Bronner, Holy Experiment, 109.

at University of N

nloaded from

vision, but it is clear that as more colonists came to Pennsylvania,the interests of the colony diversified.63

There is an inherent tension in the project of establishing a liberalcivil religion: When the established religious values conflict withreligious liberty, how can the dispute be fairly settled? This ques-tion proved difficult to answer when issues of abstract principlesmet practical politics. Divisions emerged both among the Quakersand across religious lines. Within the Quaker community, a divisivedebate rose over the arrest of Scottish Quaker George Keith. Duringhis stint in Pennsylvania from 1689 to 1693, Keith printed materialsquestioning Quaker religious tenets and political choices. Specifi-cally, he called for the institution of more orthodox religious practi-ces, such as instituting a confession of faith and emphasizing aliteral reading of biblical scripture rather than an examination ofthe “inner light” for spiritual guidance. Keith was arrested andexcommunicated from the Society of Friends. Penn was in Englandat the time but was deeply distressed by the episode, which hebelieved was a political, not religious, controversy. Ultimately, theintensity of the schism culminated with Penn’s colony comingunder increased scrutiny from the crown and nearly one-fourth ofthe members leaving the Society of Friends.64 Diversity of religiousand political opinions was found throughout the entire colony, asthe promise of religious freedom, economic opportunity, and secur-ity of property drew religious dissenters from across the Europeancontinent. Many of these colonists held religious beliefs that signifi-cantly competed with the Quaker vision of what a moral govern-ment required.65

The two most contentious examples of inter-religious politicalconflicts were over establishing a militia to defend the colony andthe swearing of oaths, both inherently religious controversies tiedto the Quaker faith. The power to legislate and amend laws was afundamental right essential to ensuring freedom and safety, Pennargued, and he believed the colonists would agree on the basics ofwhat God and the civil interest required. He expected the colonistsat large would support nonviolent diplomatic actions rather thanchoose to arm and maintain a militia, a policy that was consistentwith Quaker pacifist values. Similarly, he expected that non-Quakerselected to the legislature would not have a problem with Quakers

63. Ibid. See also, Sally Schwartz, “A Mixed Multitude”: The Struggle for Tolera-tion in Colonial Pennsylvania (New York: New York University Press, 1987),36–80.64. For details on the “Keithian Schism,” see Murphy, Conscience and Commun-ity, 187–20; Frost, “Religious Liberty,” 432–44; and Moretta, William Penn, 193–96.65. Schwartz, Mixed Multitude, 66–80.

at University of N

nloaded from

choosing to make affirmations rather than swear oaths in court.When the issue of swearing oaths came to a head during Penn’ssecond and last trip to American in 1700, he declared that thefault of the conflict lay with the Anglican’s refusal to yield to theQuaker view, even going so far as to prohibit Anglicans from congre-gating in large groups at election meetings. As Geiter has argued,Penn acted the part of an “enlightened autocrat,” placing limits onthe liberty of the Anglicans because he “viewed the behaviour ofthe churchmen as destabilizing the political and religious fabricof the colony, and took seriously the threat to the relatively peacefulsociety he had created.”66

As Sally Schwartz has argued, it appears Penn gave little thoughtto how his diverse citizenry would peacefully coexist when it cameto these types of contentious matters that divided citizens alongreligious lines.67 Penn believed the reasonableness of his principleswould prevail in uniting the colonists in the cause of supporting thecivil interest of the colony, even if their religious principles differed.Consistent with the model of a civil religion, which places religiousvalues over individual liberty, Penn chose to enforce Quaker princi-ples and morality on the entire colony and even restrict the religiousliberty of other colonists, specifically Anglicans, as a means toencourage, if not outright enforce, stability and unity.

For most commentators on the Pennsylvania colonial experiment,Penn’s dedication to liberty of conscience has been the definingfeature of both the colony and Penn’s political work. As Murphyhas correctly argued, for Penn, “the principle was liberty of con-science.”68 However, Penn also designed a government that pro-moted virtue and defined the common interest along the lines ofQuaker theology. When the demands of conscience divided reli-gious groups along political lines, the Pennsylvania Constitutionappealed to the common interest, understood in Quaker terms. Inthe case of the affirmation controversy, the consequences of favor-ing the Quaker position may have only been ideological, but thedebate over militias affected the safety and lives of those with dif-ferent religious commitments. Although Penn accepted and toler-ated religious diversity, the constitution and laws of his colonyclearly favored Quaker policies, creating in effect a nonestablishedcivil religion.

Penn’s “holy experiment” is noteworthy precisely because hebelieved aspects of a civil religion could fit alongside protectionsfor religious liberty. His civil religion does not give special political

66. Geiter, William Penn, 154.67. Schwartz, Mixed Multitude, 66.68. Murphy, “Uneasy Relationship,” 380.

at University of N

nloaded from

privileges to Quakers nor does it deny political rights tonon-Quakers. Penn never suggests that Quakers are a chosenpeople, honored above all other religious sects, nor does hesuggest that Quakers are fulfilling a special, divine mission. Hisproject, however, does attempt to use religion for political ends.By encouraging specific religious practices rooted in the Quaker tra-dition, such as the observance of the Sabbath, protections for publicmorality, fair treatment of criminals and natives, and education forall children, he believed religion could be used to enhance citizen-ship. Had Penn been willing to restrict liberty of conscience or hadhe been willing to abandon the Quaker-based values enshrined inthe constitution, some of the religiously driven conflicts betweenthe colonists may have been avoided. Rather than choose betweenthese two competing options, Penn attempted a liberal civil religion.Combining a civil religion with the principle of religious toleration isneither impossible nor self-contradictory, but the example of Penn’sexperiment suggests that such an effort cannot result in a tranquilutopia. This is not a failure; rather, it presents a problem with whichboth liberals and republicans are familiar: political contestation. Aliberal civil religion need not be an unsolvable intellectualparadox if its focus is to construct institutions and establishnorms that can facilitate debate across the religious and politicalspectrum.

at University of N

nloaded from

A Liberal Civil Religion: William Penn's Holy Experiment

Documents

Transcript of A Liberal Civil Religion: William Penn's Holy Experiment

La construcción del Estado liberal

holy cross icc

Holy Cross - Parishes Online

William MacDonald

The Modern Social Liberal

Come, Holy Spirit, - Holy Angels Catholic Church

William Hogarth

Resisting Liberal Nationalism

A Liberal Peace in Asia?

Searching for the Holy Grail

Shakespeare William-Otelo

Liberal Barbarism - lucris

William ArchibAld Arnold William Arnold

William Gibson- Neuromante.

HOLY SYMBOLS - WordPress.com

The Holy Panchakshara Part V.pdf

holy-family.pdf - Marxists Internet Archive

HOLY QURAN CORRESPONDENCE - VOL. 2

Name - Holy Cross High School

Holy Matrimony with Holy Mass