paper, and demanded another meeting of the Baptists, in which the grievances of the Quakers might be heard. The paper was called "William Penn's just Complaint against, and solemn Offer of a public Meeting to, the leading Baptists." This demand after much opposition was complied with, and a second meeting appointed. When the parties met, there was much noise and rioting. The Baptists were clamorous against "The Christian Quaker and his divine Testimony vindicated."—" If," cried they, "Christ was the Light within, where was his manhood?" and they made so much noise, that they obliged as it were the Quakers to sustain a controversy on this point. This having been acceded to, the tumult subsided, and the meeting passed into silence, decorum, and good order.

I can no where find any printed account of this controversy; but as there is extant the fragment of a very curious letter written by William Penn to George Fox on this occasion, I shall make an extract from its contents. "Thy fatherly love," says he, "and tender care I do with all gentleness and true respect receive; but thou shalt understand

the

the occasion of our answer, wherein we stated that the holy manhood was a member of the Christ of God.'

"The question was, 'If the manhoood were a part of Christ?' To this we must either have answered nothing, or only a Scripture, or in the terms of the question, or as we did.

"If we had answered nothing, we had gratified the enemy, stumbled the moderate,

and grieved friends.

"If a Scripture, it had been no way satisfactory; for the question, they would have said, was not about the text, but about the understanding of it; and they would have charged us with so wresting it to a mystical sense, as to shut out the person that appeared in the flesh; so that, if we had answered them in any of those Scriptures, they would have asked in all probability, What man do you mean? the spiritual and heavenly man? the new creature or creation? or that outward man, that was outwardly born of the Virgin in Palestine, and was there outwardly crucified? If we had said No, we had been lost. That they would have put a mystical construction on our

words,

words, if we had not answered them plainly, that is, by what we understood by the Scripture rather than by the Scripture itself, I have cause to believe, because the same person that proposed the question thus expounded, after the meeting, our belief in Christ, that he was born of a virgin, that is, of a virgin-nature and spirit; crucified, that is, slain by sin in us; rose, that is, rose up to rule us, and the like,'-making the people believe, that we denied that person, that outwardly appeared, to be the true Christ.

"Further, if we had answered in the terms of the question, we had taken Christ into parts, whereas I cried twice to them, 'Christ is not to be divided into parts.' But they still pressed the question, six thousand people, I believe, being present, and many of them were desirous of an answer. Upon this, Friends consented that it should be answered them, that the manhood was a part of Christ.' But I feared the word part, and chose rather to say that we believed the holy manhood to be a member of the Christ of God, and my reasons for so doing were these: First, What needed we to grant more than was asked? Friends only desired to

have us grant that the manhood was a part of Christ, in order to overthrow T. Hicks's attempts to prove us no Christians; and that was of so great moment in that solemn and great assembly, as tongue cannot utter. Secondly, Since we were willing to go no further in our confessions than they asked at our hands, this was my reason for rejecting the word part for member, to wit, that a body may be taken into members without breach of union, but not into parts. A member divides not: parts divide. Christ is called the head, that is, the most noble member, the Church the body, and particulars are styled members of that body. Now calling these members divides them not into parts. Thirdly, I did not say, it was but a member, and I often repeated, that it was of and belonging to Christ, and in my confession at the close I said, that we believed in Christ, both as he was the man Jesus, and God over all blessed for ever. And I am sure that Paul divides him more than we did, Rom. ix. 5, since he makes a distinction between Christ as God, and Christ as man. Now if that hold, the one was not completely Christ without the other, as said these Baptists. Therefore

Therefore G. K. said, that he was most excellently called so as God, less excellently as man, and least excellently as to his body. We might truly say then, that the body was a member or belonging to the true Christ; and if we had said more, we had gone too far, as I have learned. But, blessed be the Lord! I have not sought to comprehend or imagine; but as I am furnished upon the occasion, so it goes. I value the invisible touches and feeling of heavenly virtue and life beyond it all, nor am I delighted with these matters: but, dear George, I confess I never heard any Friend speak so fully as to Christ's manhood as thyself. I think so

much in print in our name as a people would remove much prejudice, and the contest would come more to power against power, than words against words; only we must remember, that Christ is said to have been in the wilderness, and to have brought the people out of Egypt. If so, then he was Christ before he was born of the Virgin, and the apostle says that Christ is God, and that all things were made by him; though doubtless the great and glorious appearance might by way of eminency most properly

deserve