Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicatea." "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.

How this controversy ended I cannot learn. Penn appears to have considered that the cause of Quakerism gained by it, though it is plain that the Quakers got into difficulties during the debate, in consequence of their peculiar notions respecting Christ, or their peculiar way of expressing some of their notions. George Fox appears to have thought that they did not manage this part of the controversy to advantage, and Penn wrote a letter to him on the subject, explaining the matter. In one part of this letter he says:

And this I must needs say, we have been as poor sheep tossed 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."

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 "Quakerism no Christianity." This had been answered; but in the present year he published "A Vindication" of his 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. 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 con. venient 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 between them ceased.

I may just observe, with respect to the books written by William Penn in reply to John Faldo, that Dr. Henry Moore, who was then considered one of the most learned and pious men in the Church of England, passed the following encomium upon them, in a letter written to William Penn :

"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 occasion for these controversies and contests betwixt those who have left the church of Rome; yet I found such a taste both of wit and seriousness in that pamphlet, and the argument it was about I found so weighty, that I was resolved to buy all of John Faldo's, and all of yours touching that subject; but before that little pamphlet, I never met with any of your writings."-" As to your other two books against John Faldo, whatever passages there be that may not be agreeable to my sentiments, you will easily perceive of what nature they are, by perusing my remarks upon G. K's immediate revelation. But there are sundry passages in those two books of

yours which are nobly Christian, and on account of which I have no small kindness and esteem for you, they being testimonies of that which I cannot but highly prize wherever I find it."

66

The persons who kept him employed next, were Henry Halliwell, who wrote an account of "Familism, as it was revived and propagated by the Quakers," and Samuel Grevil, a clergyman living near Banbury, who wrote "A Discourse against the Testimony of the Light within." In answer to the first he published" Wisdom justified of her Children," and to the other, “Urim and Thummim, or the Apostolical doctrines of Light and Perfection maintained."

He was now obliged to take up his pen against John Perrot, one of his own society. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit speaking as it were within men and guiding them into the way of truth, which was one of the great doctrines of Quakerism, had been received by many in such a manner as to lead them into extravagances in various ways. This brought the Quakers into fresh disrepute. The society, in consequence, disowned several, among whom was John Perrot. The particular reason was this. John Perrot and John Luff, supposing themselves to have had a divine revelation for the purpose, undertook a journey to Rome with a view of converting the Pope. They had not been long there when they were taken up and put into prison. Luff was sent to the Inquisition, where he died, but not without reasonable suspicion of having been murdered there. Perrot was put into a bedlam or hospital for madmen; but being extricated by great interest, he returned to England. He had not been long at home, when he maintained that in the time of prayer men should keep their hats on, unless they had an immediate internal motion or notice to take then off; and he exemplified this doctrine by his practice into whatever meetings he went. It was in consequence of this irregularity of conduct, after many admonitions, that he was disowned. Soon after his exclusion from membership, a pamphlet appeared written by him, called "The Spint of the Hat." This occasioned Willliam Penn to publish

a reply, to which he gave the title of "The spirit of Alexander the coppersmith lately revived, and now justly rebuked." He had, however, scarce ushered it into the world, before Perrot wrote against the church order and discipline of the Quakers. This compelled Penn to enter the lists again, when a publication called "Judas and the Jews combined against Christ and his Followers" was the result. These controversies about discipline and the expulsions or disownments which accompanied them, form the least cheering and creditable chapter in the history both of Penn and Quakerism. But it is too much to expect perfection in reformers; it is enough if we find them faithful. Men cannot get rid of all error at once: let us be thankful when we see them shaking off a portion of error, and attempting reforms according to their light. And this we see in Penn and in his friends. They laid aside much; they learned much; they attempted and accomplished much and if they did not accomplish every thing, it was not because they were sinners, but because they were men. They did their best; they did their utmost; and notwithstanding their errors, they are worthy of everlasting admiration and praise. But to

return.

Besides the works now mentioned, he wrote in the same year, "A Discourse of the general Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversy," and "The proposed comprehension soberly and not unseasonably considered;" also six letters of public concern, all of which are extant: one to the suffering Quakers in Holland and Germany; another to the little church of Quakers established in the United Netherlands; a third to those who were then settled in Maryland, and in whose behalf he had interfered with the Attorney General of that colony and the Lord Baltimore, relative to their scruples against oaths; the fourth to John Collenges, a doctor of divinity, in defence of his own book called "The Sandy Foundation Shaken," a fifth to Mary Pennyman, who had taken offence at his book entitled "Judas and the Jews combined against Christ and his

followers" and the sixth to Justice Fleming, who was deputy lieutenant of the county of Westmoreland, and who had been harsh as a magistrate towards the Quakers. All those letters, or extracts from them, will be given hereafter. They abound with excellent sentiments, and breathe the noblest and most Christ-like spirit.

CHAPTER IX.

A. 1674.

THE declaration of indulgence to tender consciences in matters of religion, which was stated to have been granted by Charles the Second, in 1671, had, for the short time it was in force, secured both the Quakers and other dissenters from persecution; but in the year 1674 an occurrence took place, which became the means of renewing it. The Parliament, though upon the whole friendly to religious toleration, considered this declaration of indul gence by the King as an undue extension of his prerogative, and therefore called it in as illegal. This measure was wilfully misinterpreted by those in office, who were bigots, as implying a wish on the part of Parliament that all privileges to dissenters should be withdrawn; and, therefore, to gratify their own barbarous prejudices, they availed themselves of this opportunity to consider the Conventicle Act as in force, and to renew their old practices. These cruel and wicked proceedings roused again the spirit of William Penn, and kept him employed for nearly the remainder of the year.

Justice Bowls, having led the way in Wiltshire by the persecution of Thomas Please, was the first to attract the notice of Penn. He wrote to him as follows.

"To oppress an innocent man is so unrighteous and dishonourable, that he who regards his own reputation here, and the judgment of Almighty God hereafter, would never do it. How far thou art concerned in such a kind of procedure, (at least by