William Penn, Early Quakers and Oneness
Blume, Michael
was misunderstood, much like I have been misunderstood, and was
accused of believing things which he did not. The following
is proof of his "Oneness" doctrinal beliefs, and includes
thoughts he was able to put together, much better than I can,
concerning the TRUTH of what we believe, which should clarify our
position as not being heretical in the true sense, though some
may continue to call us such.
Many Oneness people have declared trinitarians are hell-bound.
Such oneness people have given Oneness a bad name. I do not
say trinitarians are hell bound.
I agree with another poster in this list who said that as long as
we believe Jesus is God Almighty, our views of Godhead do not
endanger us of being lost. Mr. Forrestal claimed I was outside
the Body of Christ by implying I did not believe the Father was
God, nor the Son was God, nor the Holy Ghost was God. I believe all
of the aforementioned statements to be true. That is, the Son is God,
and the Father is God and the Holy Ghost is God. And what I mean by
saying "God" is to say the One God Almighty.
And to any who should continue to believe that I am yet a heretic,
with Paul I will say, "After the way called heresy, so worship I
the God of my fathers." Acts 24:14
Please look closely at the following, and especially at the closing
references to Penn's doctrine. He was imprisoned by statements he
made against the trinity, and later released when he was given room
to clarifiy those statements. Maybe some in this list will release me
from their imaginary prisons for heretics that keep us outside their
views of who is in the Body of Christ after reading this:
----------------------------------------
"William Penn attacked the notion of three persons in one God,
and came out at last with a species of Sabellianism; and it is
certain, whatever may be said or written to the contrary by the
leaders of the sect in our times, that Isaac Pennington, John
Crook, and the early Quakers generally, not excepting even
Robert Barclay himself, did not believe in the Athanasian
doctrine of the Trinity." (Robert Wallace, Antitrinitarian
Biography - London: ET Whitfield, 2, Essex St., Strand, 1850)
Penn debated against Baptists with George Whitehead, Stephen
Crisp and George Keith for the Quaker representation. Thomas
Hicks represented the Baptist side with 6,000 spectators. The
Baptists tried desperately to prove that the Quakers denied the
divinity of Christ. (See: Catharine Owens Peare, _William Penn_-
Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1957).
Penn again debated with Thomas Vincent, a Presbyterian minister.
Whitehead, accompanying Penn, explained the doctrine of the
Quakers and was rudely interrupted by Vincent. Vincent asked
Whitehead whether he believed in the doctrine of the trinity.
Whitehead said that the Scripture made no such statement.
Debating continued back and forth until Vincent proposed they
pray. Immediately after praying, Vincent left the meeting not
giving sufficient time for the Quakers to represent their
beliefs. The Quakers continued to attempt to speak without a
chairman, but the people pulled them down from the platform and
blew out the candles. The Quakers continued and many stayed,
and eventually Vincent returned and promised another meeting.
The second meeting did little, and Whitehead lost interest.
Penn, though, was not set to leave the matter unresolved and
wrote a tract entitled, _The Sandy Foundation Shaken_.
In the tract Penn plainly denied the trinity doctrine (Sydney
George Fisher, _The True William Penn_ - Philadelphia: J.B.
Lippincott, 1907).
Lord Arlington responded to the outrage of leading dignitaries
of the Church by issuing a warrant to apprehend Penn, and Penn
was taken to the Tower. With no friends allowed to visit and
under close confinement after much time his servant brought him
a word. The Bishop of London, Dr. Henchman concluded that he
should publicly recant or remain the rest of his life in prison.
Penn replied as follows:
"All is well: I wish they had told me so before, since
expecting of a release put a stop to some business. Thou mayest
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, nor resolutions; for they shall know I can weary
out their malice and peevishness; and in me shall they all
behold a resolution above fear; conscience above cruelty; and a
baffle put to all their designs, but 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
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." (Wallace, I,
164-165).
Penn's Doctrine:
"The matter insisted upon, relating to us on this occasion, is
that we, in common with Socinians do not believe Christ to be
the eternal Son of God, and I am brought in proof of the charge.
_The Sandy Foundation Shaken_ touched not upon this, but
Trinity, separate personality, &c. I have two things to do;
first, to show I expressed nothing that divested Christ of his
divinity; next, declare my true meaning and faith in the matter.
I am to suppose that when any adversary goes about to prove his
charge against me out of my own book, he takes that which is
most to his purpose. Now let us see what thou hast taken out of
that book, so evidently demonstrating the truth of my assertion.
I find nothing more to thy purpose than this: that I deny a
Trinity of separate persons in the Godhead. Ergo what? Ergo,
William Penn denies Christ to be the only true God; or that
Christ, the Son of God, is from everlasting to everlasting, God.
Did ever man teach such argumentation? Doth Dr. Collenges know
logic no better? But (which is more condemnable in a minister)
hath he learned charity so ill? Are not Trinity and Personality
one thing, and Christ's being the eternal Son of God another?
Must I therefore necessarily deny his Divinity, because I justly
reject the Popish School Personality? This savours of such
weakness of disingenuity, as can never stand with the credit of
so great a scribe to be guilty of. Hast thou never read of
Paulus Samosatensis, that denied the divinity of Christ, and
Macedonius that oppugned the deity of the Holy Ghost? And dost
thou in good earnest think they were one in judgment with
Sabellius, that only rejected the imaginary personality of those
times; who at the same instant owned and confessed to the
Eternity and Godhead of Christ Jesus our Lord? It is manifest,
then, that though I may deny the Trinity of separate persons in
one Godhead, yet I do not consequently deny the Deity of
Christ." (Wallace, I, 167-168)
Wallace states that Penn and the early Quakers acknowledged
Christ in "His double appearance," or, "in the flesh" and "in
the Spirit". He was the man Christ Jesus since He was the "seed
of Abraham". In Spirit, though, He was "God over all, blessed
forever." He was a "person" in the former appearance, but in
the second was "a divine principle of light and life in the
soul." The need to distinguish these "appearances" was
"necessary and evident", and it led the adversaries of the
Quakers into mistakenly representing their beliefs "and
application of the Scriptures of truth, concerning Christ in
that twofold capacity."
Fisher noted that Penn did what George Fox also did. He not
only endured prison with a spirit that won the respect of
followers and enemies, but also made that imprisonment a means
of advancing the cause he was burdened with, thus making it
known worldwide in a manner that aroused enthusiasm. He
declared his doctrine more far and wide by his pamphlets, _The
Sandy Foundation_ and _Innocency with Her Open Face_. One
pamphlet imprisoned him and the other freed him. These papers
are still used today to prove the doctrine of the early Quakers.
---------------------------
God Bless!
Mike
SeekTheR...@hotmail.com
We should be understandable first. When we hear that a person denies Trinity, we have been accostumed to equate it with a person that denies the divinity of Jesus. Thus, of course this topic has been a great topic controversy for centuries.
Nevertheless, it all seems that some people have taken Penn -and other quakers-- out of context. William Penn did believe in the Divinity of our Lord Jesus, and the "denial of trinity" he has been falsely accused of, was in other terms. He wrote about this in his treatise: "A Brief Answer to a False and Foolish Libel called The Quakers Opinions for their Sakes that Writ it and Read it" (1678), where he responded to the common accusations that were falsely raised against the Quakers in his epoch.
In the Section V, he deals with Perversion 9: "That the Quakers deny Trinity": an accusation to which Penn responds:
"Nothing less. They believe in the HOLY THREE, or TRINITY of FATHER, WORD, and SPIRIT, according to Scripture. And that these Three are Truly and Properly One: Of ONE NATURE as well as Will. But they are very tender of quitting Scripture terms and phrases for schoolmen's, such as distinct and separate persons or subsistences are, from which people are apt to entertain gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And they judge that Curious Inquiry into those High and Divine Relations and other speculative Subjects, though never so great Truths in themselves, tend little to Godliness, and less to Peace, which should be the chief Aim of true Chrisians. And therefore they cannot gratify that Curiosity in themselves, or others: Speculative Truth being, in their judgement, to be sparingly and tenderly declared, and never to be made the Measure and Condition of Christian Communion. For bedisdes that Christ Jesus hath taugh them other Things, the sad Consequence, in all Times, of Supersining upon Scripture-Texts, do sufficiently Caution and Forbid them. Men are too apt to let their Heads outrun their Hearts, and their notion exceed their Obedience, and their passion support their conceits, instead of a Daily Cross, a Constant Watch, and Holy Practice. The despised Quakers, desire this may be their Care, and the Text their Creed in This, as in all other Points: Preferring Self-denial to Opinion, and Charity to Knowledge to that great Christian Doctrine. 1. Cor. 13"
Penn continues in Section VI: "Of the Divinity of Christ."
Perversion [Accusation] 10: "that the Quakers deny Christ to be God."
"A most Untrue and Unreasoble Censure: For their Great and Characteristick principle being this, That Christ, as the Divine Word, Lighten the Souls of all Men that come into the World, with a Spiritual and Saving Light, according to John 1. 9. ch. 8.12 (which nothing but the Creator of Souls can do) it does sufficiently shew THEY BELIEVE HIM TO BE GOD, for they TRULY and EXPRESLY own him to be so, according to Scripture, viz: 'In him was Life, and that Life the Light of Men, and He is God over all, blessed for ever.'"
Elias Hicks, in his book on defense of Quakers, writes about and quotes of William Penn:
"That which William Penn refuted, was not the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity, as it is declared of in the Scriptures of truth ; but the
notion of three distinct and separate persons, as Jie title page plainly
shows ; or the trinity of distinct and separate persons in the unifi/ of
essence, page 12. l^ie imagined trinity, page 16. For fi'illiani
Penn sincerely owned, and doth own, the Scripture trinity. Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. Matt, xxviii. J9, &c." Richard Claridge
then proceeds to make many Scripture quotations, to show that the
Three are one. In a note upon this pas^ajje, he gives the following
extract from William Penn's Key, page 17, edit. 1693. "They,
(the Quakers,) believe in the Holy Trinity of Father, Word, and
Spirit, John i. I. xiv. 9. Rom. ix. 5. 1 John v. 7. And that these
Three are truly, and propeilv One." "They own the Scripture
Trinity, or Holy Three, f-f Father, Word, and Spirit, to be truly
and properly One. That Christ is God, and that Christ is man : that
36
he came in the flesh, died, rose again, ascended and sits on God's
right hand, the only sacrifice and mediator for man's happiness." --
Ibid, pages S3, 34.
We shall now adduce the explanations which William Penn has
given, in regard to his belief in the divinity of Christ, and the object
of his argument, in the Sandy Foundation Shaken. Soon after the
publication of this work, he was committed to the Tower ; and while
a prisoner there, he wrote his essay entitled, " Innocency with her
open face, presented by way of Apology for the book entitled the
Sandy Foundation Shaken, &c." in which he thus alludes to the
cause of his confinement: "That which I am credibly informed to
be the greatest reason for my imprisonment, and that noise of blas-
phemy 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 argu-
ment for the proof of Christ, the Saviour's, being God, should cer-
tainly persuade all sober persons of my innocency, and my adver-
saries malice. He that is the everlasting Wisdom, divine Power,
the true Light, the only Saviour, the creating Word of all things,
whether visible or invisible, and their upholder, by his own power,
is, without contradiction God -- but all these qualifications, and divine
properties, arc by the concurrent testimonies of Scripture, ascribed
to the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore, without a scruple, I call and
believe him, really to be, the mighty God. And for a more ample
satisfaction, let but my reply to J. Clapham be perused, in which
Christ's divinity and eternity is very fully asserted." -- Vol, I. page
268.:"A Defence of the Christian doctrines of the Society of Friends: being a reply to the charge of denying the three that bear record in heaven", pp. 35-37
To be honest, I don't think a Christian could be saved if he denies that Jesus Christ is God, and I think it is good not to be fooled by people who do so. I
For me, also (and as I hope for most of Christians), the doctrine of "Unitarianism", which explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus, remains a great heresy. But if we speak in the terms here discussed, then we would have to differentiate between "Trinity", "Unitarianism" and "Oneness".
William Penn believed in the Oneness of God, and, thank God, as it is written by his pen, he also believed Jesus Christ to be God. May God rest his soul! What a man!