It is a tenet of the Quakers, on the subject of government, that the civil magistrate has no right to interfere in religious matters, so as either to force any particular doctrines upon men, or to hinder them from worshipping God in their own way, provided that, by their creeds and worship, they do no detriment to others.  The Quakers believe, however, that Christian churches may admonish such members as fall into error, and may even cut them off from membership, but this must be done not by the temporal, but by the spiritual sword.

This tenet the Quakers support, first, by reason.  Religion, they say, is a matter solely, between God and man, that is, between God and that man who worships him.  This must be obvious, they conceive, because man is not accountable to man for his religious opinions, except he binds himself to the discipline of any religious society, but to God alone.  It must be obvious again, they say, because no man can be a judge over the conscience of another.  He can know nothing of the sincerity or hypocrisy of his heart.  He can be neither an infallible judge, nor an infallible correcter of his religious errors.  “The conscience of man, says Barclay, is the seat and throne of God in him, of which he alone is the proper and infallible judge, who, by his power and spirit, can rectify its mistakes.”  It must be obvious again, they say, from the consideration that, if it were even possible for one man to discern the conscience of another, it is impossible for him to bend or controul it.  But conscience is placed both out of his sight and of his reach.  It is neither visible nor tangible.  It is inaccessible by stripes or torments.  Thus, while the body is in bondage, on account of the religion of the soul, the soul itself is free, and, while it suffers under torture, it enjoys the divinity, and feels felicity in his presence.  But if all these things are so, it cannot be within the province either of individual magistrates or of governments, consisting of fallible men, to fetter the consciences of those who may live under them.  And any attempt to this end is considered by the Quakers as a direct usurpation of the prerogative of God.

This tenet the Quakers adopt again on a contemplation of the conduct and doctrines of Jesus Christ and of his apostles.  They find nothing in these, which can give the least handle to any man to use force in the religious concerns of another.  During the life of Jesus Christ upon earth, it is no where recorded of him, that he censured any man for his religion.  It is true that he reproved the Scribes and Pharisees, but this was on account of their hypocrisy, because they pretended to be what they were not.  But he no where condemned the devout Jew, who was sincere in his faith.  But if he be found no where to have censured another for a difference in religious opinions, much less was it ever said of him, that he forced him to the adoption of his own.  In the memorable instance, where James and John were willing to have