« ZurückWeiter »
and obedience; but to say that men must form their faith of things proper to another world according to the prescriptions of other mortal men in this, and, if they do not, that they have no right to be at liberty or to live in this, is both ridiculous and dangerous. He maintains that the understanding can never be convinced by other arguments than what are adequate to its own nature. Force may make bypocrites, but can make no converts; and if, says he, I am at any time convinced, I will pay the honour of it to truth, and not to base and timorous hypocrisy. - He then desires, as many of his enemies have retracted their opinions about him, and as his imprisonment is against the privileges of an Englishman as well as against the forbearance inseparable from true Christianity, that he may receive his discharge. Should this be denied him, he begs' access to the King; and if this should be denied him also, he hopes the Lord Arlington will himself hear him against such objections as may be thought weighty; so that, if he is to continue a prisoner, it may be known for what. He makes, he says, no apology for his letter, the usual style of suppliants, *, VOL. I.
because he conceives that more honour will accrue to the Lord Arlington by being just, than advantage to himself as an individual by becoming personally free."
William Penn, notwithstanding this letter, continued still in prison; when understanding that “ The Sandy Foundation shaken,” which had occasioned such an outcry against him, had been misrepresented, he wrote, by way of apology for it, and to correct any misapprehension about it, a little tract, which, in allusion to the conscious rectitude of his own conduct and the undisguised manner in which he there ex-" plained himself, he called “Innocency with her open Face.” In this new work he reviewed the three subjects which constituted the contents of the former. He argued, as before, against the notion of the impossibility of God pardoning sinners without a plenary satisfaction, which was one of them, and also against that of the justification of impure persons by an imputative righteousness, which was another; and he appealed additionally to the high authority of Stillingfleet, in his late discourse about Christ's sufferings, against Crellius, in his favour. With respect
to the third notion, he maintained that he had been misunderstood. A conclusion had been drawn that, because he had denied one God subsisting in three distinct and separate persons, he had denied the divinity of Christ. He cited, therefore, several passages from Scripture to prove that Christ was God. This doctrine, he asserted, was an article of his own faith; and, as a proof that it had been so, he desired those, who thought otherwise, to consult his “Guide mistaken,” which he had published before “ The Sandy Foundation shaken,” and in which they would find that he had acknowledged both the divinity and eternity of Christ. His enemies, therefore, he said, had been beating the air and fighting with their own shadows in supposing what he himself had neither written nor even thought of. These were concisely the contents of his last work. When it came out, it is said to have given satisfaction. Some, however, of his enemies contended that he had disgraced himself by producing it; that he had read his own recantation in it; and that from a Socinian he had all at once become a defender of the Trinity. They, however, who asserted this, did no
know that he rejected the latter doctrine, merely on account of the terms in which it had been wrapped up by Vincent; terms which, he said, were the inventions of men three hundred years after the Christian æra, and which were no where to be found in the Scriptures. In this respect, that is, as far as the doctrine comprehended three separate Persons in one God, he uniformly rejected it; but he never denied that of the Divinity of Christ, or of " a Father, Word, and Spirit.”
Soon after the publication of “ Innocency with her open Face,” he was discharged from the Tower, after having been kept there on terms of unusual severity for seven months. His discharge came suddenly from the King, who had been moved to it by the intercession of his brother, the Duke of York. It is not known whether William Penn's father, the Admiral, applied to the Duke for this purpose, or whether the Duke out of compliment to the Admiral made à voluntary application of himself: certain however it is, that but for this interference he would have remained in prison. . . .
OF WILLIAM PENN. .
A. 1669-visits Thomas Loe on his death-bed-exhorla
tion of the latter-is sent again to Ireland—writes a « Letter to the young convinced”-procures the discharge of several from prison-returns to England—is l'econciled to his father.
The first place in which we find William Penn after his liberation from the Tower, was at the bed-side of Thomas Loe, who was then on the eve of departing from the world. It cannot but be remembered that Thomas Loe was the person, who, while William Penn was at Oxford, confirmed the religious impressions he had received at Chigwell school. He was the person also who had given a bias to his mind, while in the city of Cork, by which he was disposed, at a time when looking out for some practical system of religion for himself, to fix upon that of the Quakers. Here then we see the master and the disciple brought together, and this at an awful crisis. It must have been a most gratifying circumstance to Thomas Loe, when he considered the imprisonment of William Penn, the undaunted