238 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Moutesquieu compared him with Lycurgus. Jefferson pronounced him " the greatest lawgiver the world has produced ; the first in either ancient or modern times, who laid the foundations of Government in the pure and unadulterated principle of peace, of reason, and of right."' He had a respect for the freedom of conscience unusual in his own day. His relations with the Indians, his plan for the union of the American colonies are proofs of his far-sightedness in his adopted country, while his scheme for a general European federation, and his advocacy of peace, attest it in the land of his birth. Nor was tliis idealism coufiued to paper. In the constitution which he probably framed for renusylvauia in 1676 he attempted to combine democracy and toleration. In the course of time some of the theoretical devices of the new constitution disappeared, but civil and religious liberty remained secure. That Montesquieu and Voltaire should admire it is intelligible. That Coleridge and Wordsworth should have contemplated emigrating to the land where it was in operation is remarkable. This practical idealism was quite in keeping with the character of the man. To say with William Peuu, " The Tower is to me the worst argument in the world," is one matter, but to act upon it is another. Peun did act as he wrote, and this lends additional weight to his book on " The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience Once more lirietly Debated and Defended," 1671. Perhaps the zeal of the Quaker received some inspiration from the fact that he was in Newgate when he wrote this carefully reasoned plea. To him the sphere of the State and that of the Church were distinct. The business of the State is to protect the property of men, not to save the ir souls. Here, indeed, is the contribution he made to the theory which John Milton and Koger Williams had advocated before him. Penal law s were, therefore, wrong, for they destroyed the security of property. His writings prove, if proof were required, that England was becoming a com- mercial nation. Can such a nation impose a test for all the occupations of life ? Will it not thereby be seriously hampered in the mercantile struggle ? These are practical arguments in favour of toleration, but his pamphlet presents idealistic arguments. As a Q.uaker he held that God gave inner light to man. As this inner light was given to man in sundry stages and in divers manners, how could one man be so presumptuous as to persecute another ? I'enn elaborately demonstrates that the imposition, restraint, and persecution for matters relating to the conscience directly invade the Divine prerogative. Is a proof required of this statement ? At once he tells you that government over the conscience is the incommunicable right of God, ' Haiiiird. '■ lie^ister," xvi. 43.
