« ZurückWeiter »
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 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 and require that title. As for those gross terms of human flesh and human blood, I never spoke or wrote them since I knew the Lord's truth. And this I must needs say, we have been as poor tossed sheep up and down, much abused, vilified, and belied: but over all God is raising the strong horn of his salvation; and he has magnified his name in all these bustles and stirs; and Truth has manifestly gotten ground, and in no one thing more than our plain confessions of Christ : so much had the Devil roosted and nestled himself in them under their misapprehensions of our words in that particular : and if any weakness attended the phrasing of it, I hope and believe the simplicity in which it was delivered will hide it from the evil watcher." Here the first sheet of the letter ends, the second being lost, and with it all further knowledge of this controversy, as well as of the proceedings of Hicks, or of those who were associated with him on this occasion. ,
The person who next to Hicks gave this year the most trouble to William Penn, was John Faldo. He had produced, as stated in the preceding chapter, his book, called VOL. I.
“ Quakerism no Christianity,” which had been' answered: but in the present year he appeared in print by publishing "A Vindication” of his former work. This brought forward a rejoinder, called “ The Invalidity of John Faldo's Vindication,” from William Penn. Upon this Faldo sent his antagonist a challenge to meet him in public dispute. William Penn, however, declined it. His reason, he said, for so doing was, that the points, upon which he had been challenged, were then in discussion between the Quakers and other people. In his answer, however, to the challenge, he stated, “ that he loved, and therefore that he should at any time convenient embrace, a sober discussion of the principles of religion, for that he aimed at nothing more than Truth’s triumph, though to his own abasement.” Modest as this declaration was, Faldo was not satisfied, but published “ A Curb to William Penn's Confidence,” which the latter immediately opposed by “ A Return to John Faldo's Reply.” After this Faldo did not renew the contest himself: but he became an instrument of continuing it; for he assembled a large council of Divines, by whose advice his first work called “Quakerism no Christianity” was republished. This, the second edition of it, was accompanied by a commendatory preface produced by the joint labours of this learned body. As the work in its first form had attracted so much notice from William Penn, it may be easily supposed that it could not do less in the present. Accordingly he wrote a reply to it, which, on account of the number of clergymen concerned in the preface, he called “ A just Rebuke to one-and-twenty learned and reverend Divines.” After this the controversy ceased between them. I may just observe, with respect to the books written by William Penn on occasion of John Faldo, that Dr. Henry Moore, who was then considered one of the most learned and pious men in the Church of England, passed an encomium upon them. In a letter written to William Penn he exp resses himself thus : “ Indeed meeting with the little pamphlet of yours newly come out, wherein some twenty and odd learned and reverend Divines are concerned, I had the curiosity to buy and read it: and though I wish there were no K 2