followed his opponent upon the ground which he took, and exposed his absurdities and contradictions by arguments and illustrations, which have very little, if any, connection with the doctrines of Friends.

It may be fairly admitted that some of the arguments advanced partake more of the metaphysical than the evangelical character. But they were elicited by the questions and arguments of his opponents. In a subsequent period of his life we find William Penn expressing very clearly his disapprobation of the practice to which the theological disputants of that day were too much addicted, and of which the course pursued by Thomas Vincent and his coadjutors is a striking example.

Being intent upon the exposure of Thomas Vincent's notion of distinct and separate personality, he directed his attention in the body of the work strictly to that object. Yet, as if he was apprehensive that his manner of treating the subject might incur the imputation of denying the scriptural doctrine of the three that bear record in heaven, he distinctly repels this imputation in these words: "Mistake me not-we never have disowned a Father, Word, and Spirit, which are One; but men's inventions."

With regard to the other two subjects embraced in the title, it may be observed that the stress of the arguments lay in the impossibility of pardon being extended to sinners without a plenary and rigid satisfaction, and in the justification of sinners by imputed righteousness, while they continued in their sins. To these points William Penn directed his arguments without in the smallest degree invalidating the virtue or benefits to the penitent and returning sinner, of that most acceptable propitiatory sacrifice.

which our Saviour offered upon the cross for the sins of mankind. This is apparent from the work itself, in which he quotes several passages of Scripture where this precious doctrine is clearly enforced; but also from the following extract from a letter which he wrote in reply to some exceptions taken to "The Sandy Foundation Shaken."

"I say that Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for sin, that He was set forth to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world; to declare God's righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, etc., to all that repented and had faith in his Son. Therein the love of God appeared, that He declared his good will thereby to be reconciled; Christ bearing away the sins that are past, as the scapegoat did of old, not excluding inward work; for, till that is begun, none can be benefited, though it is not the work, but God's free love that remits and blots out, of which, the death of Christ, and his sacrificing of himself, was a most certain declaration and confirmation. In short, that declared remission, to all who believe and obey, for the sins that are past; which is the first part of Christ's work (as it is a king's to pardon a traitor, before he advanceth him), and hitherto the acquittance imputes a righteousness (inasmuch as men, on true repentance, are imputed as clean of guilt as if they had never sinned), and thus far justified; but the completing of this, by the working out of sin inherent, must be by the power and Spirit of Christ in the heart, destroying the old man and his deeds, and bringing in the new and everlasting righteousness. So, that which I writ against, is such doctrine as extended Christ's death and obedience, not to the first,

but this second part of justification; not the pacifying [of] conscience, as to past sin; but to complete salvation, without cleansing and purging, from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, by the internal operation of his holy power and Spirit."

The work when it was published gave great offence. Among the offended persons were some of the prelates, of whom the Bishop of London was the most conspicuous. By these men it was made a subject of public animadversion, and an order was procured for the arrest of the author, and his imprisonment in the Tower.

In his new habitation he was treated with great severity. He was not only kept in close confinement, but his friends were denied access to him. He was informed that the Bishop of London had resolved that he should either publicly retract his opinions or die a prisoner. He answered, "All is well. I wish they had told me so before, since the expecting of a release put a stop to some business; thou mayst tell my father, who I know will ask thee, these words: that my prison shall be my grave before I will budge a jot; for I owe my conscience to no mortal man; I have no need to fear, God will make amends for all; they are mistaken in me; I value not their threats and resolutions, for they shall know I can weary out their malice and peevishness, and in me they shall all behold a resolution above fear, conscience above cruelty, and a baffle put to all their designs by the spirit of patience, the companion of all the tribulated flock of the blessed Jesus, who is the author and finisher of the faith that overcomes the world, yea, death and hell, too. Neither great nor good things are ever attained without loss and hardships.

He that would reap and not labor, must faint with the wind and perish in disappointments; but an hair of my head shall not fall without the providence of my Father that is over all."

He wrote a letter to Sir Henry Bennett, Lord Arlington, then principal secretary of state, by whose warrant he was committed to prison. In this letter he denies the charges which had been brought against him, attributes the zeal shown by his persecutors to malice and ignorance, and requests that he may be restored to his liberty, as being imprisoned without just cause or proper examination of his case.

He says: "What if I differ from some religious apprehensions? Am I therefore incompatible with human societies? Shall it not be remembered with what success kingdoms and commonwealths have lived under the balance of divers parties?" "I know not any unfit for political society, but those who maintain principles subversive of industry, fidelity, justice, and obedience;" "but to conceit that men must form their faith of things proper to another world, according to the prescriptions of other mortal men of this, is both ridiculous and dangerous."

"The understanding can never be convinced by other arguments than what are adequate to its own nature. Force may make hypocrites, but it can make no converts." “If I am at any time convinced, I will pay the homage of it to truth, and not to base hypocrisy."

He requests the liberty of presenting his case to the king, and of clearing himself before him of the accusations of his enemies; and, finally, if that request should be denied, that Sir Henry Bennett himself would allow him

an opportunity of vindicating his innocence; but he adds,

I make no apology for my letter, as a trouble, the usual style of supplicants, because I think the honor that will accrue to thee by being just, and releasing the oppressed, exceeds the advantages that can succeed to me."

It appears that his commitment was altogether arbitrary that he was detained as a state prisoner, and not even informed of the accusation on which his imprisonment was founded His request to be brought before the king, or the secretary of state, to be informed of the offence laid to his charge, and permitted to vindicate his innocence, was disregarded. Having waited for some time in expectation of the desired opportunity, he resumed his pen, and produced a small tract, by way of apology or explanation of "The Sandy Foundation Shaken." This he entitled "Innocency with her open Face." In that tract he reviewed the subjects discussed in the former, and explained himself more clearly on some points which had been misunderstood.

Of the cause of his confinement, he remarks:

"That which I am credibly informed to be the greatest reason for my imprisonment, and that noise of blasphemy which hath pierced so many ears of late, is my denying the Divinity of Christ, and divesting Him of his eternal Godhead; which most busily hath been suggested, as well to those in authority as maliciously insinuated amongst the people." He then enters into an argument of considerable length, to prove the Godhead of Jesus Christ, which he thus concludes: "In short, this conclusive argument for the proof of Christ, the Saviour's, being God, should certainly persuade all sober persons of my inno