his hangings, but his hangings to his
house. It is better that the commonwealth be fashioned to the setting
forth of God's house, which is his church, than to accommodate the
church frame to the civil state" (John Cotton, quoted by L. Bacon,
"Historical Discourses," p. 18).

[139:1] Thomas, "The Society of Friends," p. 239.

[139:2] Corwin, "Reformed (Dutch) Church," pp. 77, 78, 173.

[140:1] Illustrations of the sordid sectarianism of the "Venerable
Society's" operations are painfully frequent in the pages of the "digest
of the S. P. G." See especially on this particular case the action
respecting Messrs. Kocherthal, Ehlig, and Beyse (p. 61).

[143:1] S. G. Fisher, "The Making of Pennsylvania," p. 125; Thomas, "The
Society of Friends," p. 235.

[143:2] "Religion gave birth to wealth, and was devoured by her own
offspring." The aphorism is ascribed to Lord Falkland.

[143:3] Thomas, "The Society of Friends," p. 236.

[144:1] Fisher, "The Making of Pennsylvania," pp. 166-169, 174.

[144:2] It is not easy to define the peculiarity of Penn's Indian
policy. It is vulgarly referred to as if it consisted in just dealing,
especially in not taking their land except by fair purchase; and the
"Shackamaxon Treaty," of which nothing is known except by vague report
and tradition, is spoken of as some thing quite unprecedented in this
respect. The fact is that this measure of virtue was common to the
English colonists generally, and eminently to the New England colonists.
A good example of the ordinary cant of historical writers on this
subject is found in "The Making of Pennsylvania," p. 238. The writer
says of the Connecticut Puritans: "They occupied the land by squatter
sovereignty.... It seemed like a pleasant place; they wanted it. They
were the saints, and the saints, as we all know, shall inherit the
earth.... Having originally acquired their land simply by taking it, ...
they naturally grew up with rather liberal views as to their right to
any additional territory that pleased their fancy." No purchase by Penn
was made with more scrupulous regard to the rights of the Indians than
the purchases by which the settlers of Connecticut acquired title to
their lands; but I know of no New England precedent for the somewhat
Punic piece of sharp practice by which the metes and bounds of one of
the Pennsylvania purchases were laid down.

The long exemption of Pennsylvania from trouble with the Indians seems
to be due to the f