"So the question is, First, Whether the civil magistrate hath power to force men in things religious to do contrary to their conscience, and if they will not to punish them in their goods, liberties, or lives? this we hold in the negative"
About this Quote
Barclay’s sentence reads like a courtroom door being slammed shut on the state’s favorite shortcut: coercion. The careful staging matters. He opens with “So the question is” and then itemizes the stakes with almost prosecutorial clarity: goods, liberties, lives. That escalating triad is not ornamental. It’s a map of how “religious policy” becomes material violence, a reminder that persecution isn’t abstract theology but confiscated property, jailed bodies, and executed dissenters.
The subtext is Quaker experience rendered as principle. Barclay writes as a Friend in Restoration-era Britain, when oath-taking, established worship, and conformity tests were enforced with fines and imprisonment. Quakers were singled out precisely because conscience wasn’t a private mood but a public refusal: refusing oaths, refusing tithes, refusing the liturgy. By naming “civil magistrate,” Barclay draws a bright line between the state’s legitimate domain (public order) and a domain it keeps trying to annex (the soul). That phrase “things religious” is doing political work: it limits the magistrate not because rulers are evil, but because their tools are.
His diction is deliberately procedural: “Whether... hath power” sounds like a jurisdictional dispute, not a sentimental plea for tolerance. That’s the rhetorical gambit. If you treat conscience as a jurisdiction the state simply doesn’t possess, persecution becomes not merely cruel, but illegitimate - an abuse of office. The crisp ending, “this we hold in the negative,” has the austerity of a verdict. No melodrama, just a refusal to grant the premise that faith can be governed by punishment.
The subtext is Quaker experience rendered as principle. Barclay writes as a Friend in Restoration-era Britain, when oath-taking, established worship, and conformity tests were enforced with fines and imprisonment. Quakers were singled out precisely because conscience wasn’t a private mood but a public refusal: refusing oaths, refusing tithes, refusing the liturgy. By naming “civil magistrate,” Barclay draws a bright line between the state’s legitimate domain (public order) and a domain it keeps trying to annex (the soul). That phrase “things religious” is doing political work: it limits the magistrate not because rulers are evil, but because their tools are.
His diction is deliberately procedural: “Whether... hath power” sounds like a jurisdictional dispute, not a sentimental plea for tolerance. That’s the rhetorical gambit. If you treat conscience as a jurisdiction the state simply doesn’t possess, persecution becomes not merely cruel, but illegitimate - an abuse of office. The crisp ending, “this we hold in the negative,” has the austerity of a verdict. No melodrama, just a refusal to grant the premise that faith can be governed by punishment.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Robert
Add to List
