« ZurückWeiter »
gave to a question, the indignation of the audience increased, so that Vincent immediately went to prayer. In the course of his supplications he accused the Quakers of blasphemy; and having finished them, he desired his hearers to go home, and he withdrew himself at the same time from the pulpit. In this situation the Quakers knew not what to do. The congregation was leaving the meeting-house, and they had not yet been heard. Finding they would soon be left to themselves, some of them at length ventured to speak; but they were pulled down, and the candles (for the controversy had lasted till midnight) were put out. · They were not however prevented by this usage from going on; for, rising up, they continued their defence in the dark, and, what was extraordinary, many staid to hear it. This brought Vincent among them with a candle. Addressing himself to the Quakers, he desired them to disperse. To this at length they consented, but only on the promise that another meeting should be granted them for the same purpose in the same place. Williain Penn and George Whitehead,
having waited many days, during which they could not make Vincent perform his promise, went to the meeting-house again. This happened on a lecture-day. They waited till the service was over, when they rose up, and begged that they might be permitted to resume their defence. Vincent, however, who had by this time left the pul. pit, made the best of his way home; nor would any other of the congregation, though repeatedly called upon, supply his place, either to defend his conduct, or to argue the point in question.
William Penn, deprived now of an oppor- tunity of defending the doctrine which had been the subject of so much warmth during the controversy, determined upon an appeal to the public. Accordingly he brought out “ The Sandy Foundation shaken.” He introduced it by a preface, in which he noticed the proceedings relative to Vincent as now mentioned, and observed upon the arguments then adduced. He then attempted to refute " The Notion of one God subsisting in three distinct and separate Persons ;” also “ The Notion of the Impossibility of God pardoning Sinners without
a plenary a plenary Satisfaction ;” and “ The Notion of the Justification of impure Persons by means of an imputative Righteousness.” This he attempted to do by quotations from the Scriptures, by right reason, by an account of the time and origin of these doctrines, and by the consequences which must flow from them if admitted. This work, when it came out, gave great offence. It was then a high crime to defend publicly and openly, as in print, the Unity of God detached from his Trinitarian nature, Among the offended persons were some of the Prelates, of whom the Bishop of London was most conspicuous. These made it an affair of public animadversion by the Government; and the consequence was, that William Penn was soon afterwards apprehended, and sent as a prisoner to the Tower.
In this his new habitation he was treated with great severity. He was not only kept in close confinement, but no one of his friends was permitted to have access to him.' A report was conveyed to him, to aggravate his sufferings, that the Bishop of London had resolved that he should either publicly recant, or die in prison. But his conduct
was like that of all who suffer for conscience-sake. He was too sincere in his faith to be changed by such treatment. The law of force, the old State-argument in such cases, never conquered religious error. In his reply to the Bishop of London, instead of making any mean concession, he gave him in substance to understand, that he would weary out the malice of his enemies by his patience; that great and good things were seldom obtained without loss and hardships; that the man, who would reap and not labour, must faint with the wind and perish in disappointments; and that his prison should be his grave, before he would renounce his just opinions; for that he owed his conscience to no man.”
While he was in the Tower, he could not, consistently with his notions of duty, remain idle. To do good by preaching, while immured there, was impossible: he therefore applied himself to writing. His first effort ended in the production of “ No Cross, No Crown;" a work which gave general satisfaction, and which in his own lifetime passed through several editions. The design of this work seems to have arisen from the nature of his situation, combined with the view of doing good. He was then, as we have seen, a prisoner for conscience-sake. He was enduring hardships for the sake of his religion. He felt therefore the necessity of laying down and enforcing the great doctrine implied in the title of it, which was, that unless men are willing to lead a life of self-denial, and toundergo privations and hardships in the course of their Christian warfare, or unless they are willing to bear the Cross, that is, of Christ, they cannot become capable of wearing the Crown, that is, of eternal glory.
The work was divided into two parts, in the first of which he handled his subject thus. This great doctrine, he showed, had been disregarded by men, though essentially necessary to their salvation. Hence, they had degenerated from their primitive ancestors, the early converts to Christ. They had gone from purity to lust, from moderation to excess, and from love and charity to persecution.---By this their conduct they might see as in a mirror how foul their lapse was; yet mercy was to be found in repentance, through the propitiation of the blood