of our country, and in gaining its Independence.
If mine be the first words of vindication of the founder of my native city, and such as show him to have been in act as in name—a Friend, they are so only because serious and patient and conscientious examination has convinced me that injustice has been done; not censurable injustice, because unknowingly, though carelessly done.
Our whole early history is but a romance, and rarely upon facts. The very first alleged fact—that in 1686—just 200 years ago, there was a Catholic priest resident in Philadelphia, is not true and the Catholic writer who first started that historical tale, is censurable because he perverted the fact upon which he built a story that has its life still longer lengthened as it appears in the recently issued Life of Bishop Neumann.
THE PREVALENT NOTION OF PENN'S CHARACTER.
We Catholics regard William Penn as a religious enthusiast, who contended for Religious toleration or Liberty when he was oppressed, and when given the opportunity to establish a colony, proclaimed as the corner-stone of its structure the principles which he had advocated when oppressed for conscience sake. While policy demanded that none should be by declaration "excepted" from the benefits of the principles he proclaimed, yet he was one loath to have religious liberty construed to cover Roman Catholics, or "Papists;" as we were generally called in those days.
Though not excluding Catholics, we Catholics believe that we were not desired by Penn, that he spoke disparagingly of us for publicly exercising the rites of our Church, that his course and words influenced his followers, and that they thus made our position an un easy one in the Province.
In fact, the Catholic opinion regarding Penn is best expressed in the words of Bishop Gilmour, the present respected Bishop of Cleveland, who, in a public discourse in 1880, said: "Even the gentle Penn had his fling at the Catholics."—[The Debt America owes to the Catholicity. page 8.]
It is against this stain on Penn that I seek to show that there is no justification for any hesitation on the part of Catholics to express admiration of the Founder of Pennsylvania, nor any reason why his followers, "the people called Quakers," to use the old time words, should not be regarded especially as Friends.
But how did the Catholic misjudgment of Penn's character arise? From Watson, the annalist of Philadelphia. He relates that Penn wrote to Logan, in July, 1708, saying: "Here is a complaint against your Government that you suffer public Mass in a scandalous manner. Pray send the matter of fact, for ill use is made of it against us here."
Then, continues Watson: "And in a subsequent letter he returns to it in these terms: "It has become a reproach to me here, with the officers of the Crown, that you have suffered the scandal of the Mass to be publicly celebrated."
This, related by a Protestant, is the basis of the Catholic opinion concerning Penn.
The first extract is well founded. It appears in "The Penn and Logan Correspondence." Though dated 7th month 29th, 1708, Watson and the Catholic writers give the date as July 29th, that in 1708 September was the seventh month. This letter was sent by the hand of the new Governor—Gookin—by Penn to James Logan, his confidential secretary and friend. It speaks generally of such affairs relating to the young colony as were of concern at the time, and such instructions as Penn might be expected to give by the new Lieutenant-Governor whom he was sending to the Province.
Recall Penn's troubles from 1692. Remember, all the settlers were not Quakers. Remember his financial difficulties, the people's ingratitude, the hostility of "the hot Church party," and the efforts to disposess him of his proprietary rights or to prevent him from disposing of them
