« AnteriorContinuar »
for half-a-century, he had eagerly anticipated, and from which even the cares of Pennsylvania could never divert his thoughts.
After seeing what we have of the character of this godly Quaker, it will be as well to deal with some of the charges which have been brought against him. How such charges could have found supporters with actually no substantiating evidence, such as would weigh with any intelligent jury, must remain among “the curiosities of literature.” In regard to these charges, it must be remembered that Macaulay would naturally entertain prejudice against one, who, partly by accident-on account of “ property, not popery"—was a friend of James the Second, and consequently, though a Reformer instead of a Jacobite, was still not an adherent of the historian's great idol, William the Third. It will be observed, also, that while for the majority of the charges Macaulay quotes some sort of an authority, other assertions have nothing more substantial than rhetoric for a foundation, One of this class occurs in the “ History,” under the year 1685. After detailing Penn's prosperity and power at court, Macaulay says: "He paid dear, however, for this seeming prosperity. Even his own sect looked coldly on him, and requited his services with obloquy.” The archives of Devonshire House, where Penn worshipped, disprove this gratuitous calumny by showing that he attended there throughout the year in question, and was held in honour by the people.
But the most notorious of Macaulay's charges relates to the ransommoney exacted after Monmouth's defeat from the Taunton girls, between whom and the ladies at court Penn is alleged to have stood as acting agent. It can be clearly proved that he who really did act as agent in this wicked traffic was one George Penne, whose occupation consisted in business of this description. The only authority for implicating William Penn in a transaction from which he would have shrunk in disgust, is a letter by Lord Sunderland, among the State Papers, and addressed to “Mr. Penne,” which, by some remarkable false reasoning, in a footnote published in 1857, Macaulay maintains was written to the Founder of Pennsylvania. Let it be remembered that the only warrant for associating the Quaker with the Taunton proceedings is the following now celebrated letter :
Whitehall, Feb. 13, 1685-6. “Mr. Penne,- Her Majesty's Maids of Honour having acquainted me that they designe to employ you and Mr. Walden in making a composition with the Relations of the Maids of Taunton for the high Misdemeanour they have been guilty of, I do at their request hereby let you know that His Majesty has been pleased to give their Fines to the said Maids of Honour, and therefore recommend it to Mr. Walden and you to make the most advantageous composition you can in tbeir behalfe.—I am, Sir, your humble servant,
6 SUNDERLAND." Penn's name was not Penne, and accordingly Macaulay argues that surnames were formerly spelt in various ways - an assertion which does not appear to be true to the extent we are expected to believe. It is inconceivable that Lord Sunderland, with whom Penn had been on terms of friendship from childhood, would have written such a letter to one of the first men of the town, and it would have been still more remarkable had the minister in this letter made an unfortunate exception
to his usual way of spelling his friend's name. On no occasion does Lord Sunderland write Penne for Penn when addressing the Governor, and though ministers of state may assume a cold style when writing officially to acquaintances, they do not address gentlemen in language only suitable for grovelling pardon-mongers.
Á still more baseless charge occurs in connection with the celebrated Baptist pastor William Kiffen. The king wished to seduce Kiffen by the bribe of an alderman's gown, and, according to Macaulay, Penn was employed in the business of seduction. The pastor himself tells us that he appealed to Penn, seeking to secure his services as mediator, and it is impossible to prove from Kiffen's memoirs that Penn acted otherwise than as a mediator to serve the Baptist, whose “Meeting” stood within bow-shot of the Quakers’ Devonshire House.
But as if bent on blasting once and for ever the character of a good man, who happened not to be a worshipper of William the Third, Penn is accused by Macaulay of having been guilty of “simony of a peculiarly disreputable kind.” This comes out in connection with the dispute between the King and the Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford. Penn did meet the Fellows, but in what character ? “Macaulay's story of this meeting is a comedy of errors," says Mr. Dixon, quoting authorities in support of the assertion. “He is wrong on every point --the time, the place, the method, and the motive of this interview. Macaulay describes the time of meeting as immediately after James left Oxford, while the King was 'greatly incensed and mortified by his defeat.' This was early in September. The meeting was not really held till five weeks later, October 9, 1687. Macaulay gives the place as Oxford. It was really held at Eton, near Windsor, where Penn had then a country house. Macaulay described the method of this interview as a visit made by Penn to Hough and other Fellows. The actual method was a deputation from the college to Penn; a deputation of which Hough was the head ; a deputation which had to follow Penn to Eton, and to ask his leave to occupy a morning of his time. Macaulay describes the motive of the interview as a design of Penn to make the Fellows compromise their course. The actual motive was a strong desire on the part of Hough and other fellows to procure Penn's powerful mediation and support with James."
There are other charges adduced against the Quaker, such as that of inciting the deposed King to invade England by foreign troops, and the proof offered is that the French agent, Avaux, mentions one “ M. Pen” as among James's correspondents. It can be proved to demonstration that Avaux's “M. Pen” was Neville Pen, one of the paid Jacobite spies who infested the court of William the Third. This same Neville, and not William Penn, proposed that “ James should make a descent on England with thirty thousand men,” which piece of treason Macaulay puts duwn as usual to the credit of the innocent Governor of Pennsylvania. There was a paid Jacobite spy then living in London of the name of Williamson, and the only basis of proof on which the historian's charge can rest is a paper sent by Williamson to the court at St. Germains, which runs as follows:- Mr. Penn says that your Majesty has had several occasions, but never any so favourable as the the present,” &c. After quoting this letter Jr. Dixon says:
“With the ntmost confidence I say that William Penn never wrote and nerer spoke this stuff. Penn never used the phrase "Your Majesty,' here used four times in as many lines. Penn never called Louis the Fourteenth 'the most Christian King. The first expression shows that Mr. Penn' was not a Quaker ; the second expression shows that · Mr. Penn' was a Catholic. . . . Was there any Mr. Penn' in James's pay whose place in such a list would be where Captain Williamson puts him ? Yes; we know there was. • Mr. Penn' was Neville Penn. Neville Penn was acquainted with Williamson. Neville Penn was a paid agent. . . . Neville Penn was a Roman Catholic. Neville Penn would address James as “Your Majesty,' and assuredly speak of Louis as the most Christian King.'”
These charges, as mean as they are false, will ultimately damage the historical accuracy of the writer who published them far more than they will affect the reputation of the Founder of Pennsylvania. Rhetoric and literary art have done their worst in attempting to blacken a great man's memory, but character is safe when the man's whole life contradicts the fictions of traducers, and is corroborated by the very State Papers on which the charges are based. We believe it was Lord Brougham who spoke of a celebrated historian as "a tolerably good writer of romances." To what degree the sarcasm is true we need not enquire. We regard the author referred to as a brilliant example of a school which will not offend the worldly by speaking too well of Christianity ; and will not risk its prestige among a better class by openly deprecating religion. These writers are educated at the University of Fair-speech under Professors Timeserver and Anything. Though able to write brilliant sentences, and occasionally to do good service, they are not always competent to appreciate a great and noble character such as was WILLIAM PENN, FOUNDER OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Songing for Sun Sight.
(ENTREMETS.--No. 4.) I
HAVE heard that in the vast salt-mines, families are reared under
ground, and in many instances, have no ideas of what is to be seen above. The sights shown are grand and striking to visitors; and persons of intelligence who have been reared in the subterraneous region, appreciate the effect of illuminated galleries and other wonders of the depths. A certain curious traveller once explored one of these mines, and as he stood gazing at the scene, overwhelmed with astonishment, a native asked him somewhat triumphantly, if earth could supply a scene more desirable ? “Ah,” replied the stranger, “ The gloomiest ABOVE is brighter than all your illuminations !” Was it so indeed ? Was there then a world to which he was a perfect stranger ? so thought a young miner. From that day he pined for sun-light, and would not rest satisfied until he had seen it. We may become so engrossed with this world as to doubt whether God's universe contains anything to be desired. Yet the meanest place in heaven will infinitely out shine the fairest earthly inheritance.
Christ and þis Table Companions.
A MEDITATION AT THE COMMUNION TABLE,
BY C. H. SPURGEON.
“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him."
Luke xxii, 14. THE outward ordinances of the Christian religion are but two, and
those two are exceedingly simple, yet neither of them has escaped human alteration ; and, alas! much mischief has been wrought, and much of precious teaching has been sacrificed, by these miserable perversions. For instance, the ordinance of baptism as it was administered by the apostles betokened the burial of the believer with Christ, and his rising with his Lord into newness of life. Men must needs exchange immersion for sprinkling, and the intelligent believer for an unconscious child, and so the ordinance is slain. The other sacred institution, the Lord's Supper, like believers' baptism, is simplicity itself. It consists of bread broken, and wine poured out, these viands being eaten and drunk at a festival;—a delightful picture of the sufferings of Christ for us, and of the fellowship which the saints have with one another and with him. But this ordinance, also, has been tampered with by men. By some the wine has been taken away altogether, or reserved only for a priestly caste; and the simple bread has been changed into a consecrated host. As for the table, the very emblem of fellowship in all nations—for what expresses fellowship better than surrounding a table and eating and drinking together? this, forsooth, must be put away, and an altar must be erected, and the bread and wine which were to help us to remember the Lord Jesus are changed into an "unbloody sacrifice", and so the whole thing becomes an unscriptural celebration instead of a holy institution for fellowship. Let us be warned by these mistakes of others never either to add to or take from the word of God so much as a single jot or cittle. Keep upon the foundation of the Scriptures and you stand safely, and have an answer for those who question you ; yea, and an answer which you may render at the bar of God; but once allow your own whim, or fancy, or taste, or your notion of what is proper and right, to rule you instead of the word of God, and you have entered upon a dangerous course, and unless the grace of God prevent, boundless mischief may ensue. The Bible is our standard authority; none may turn from it. The wise man in the Proverbs said _“I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment;" we would repeat his advice, and add to it the sage precept of the mother of our Lord, at Cana, when she said, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”
We shall now ask you in contemplation to gaze upon the first celebration of the Lord's Supper. You perceive at once that there was no altar in that large upper room. There was a table, a table with bread and wine upon it, but no altar. And Jesus did not kneel—there is no sign of that-but he sat down, I doubt not after the Oriental mode of sitting, that is to say, by a partial reclining-he sat down with his apostles. Now, he who ordained this Supper knew how it ought to be observed, and as the first celebration of it was the model for all others, we may be assured that the right way of coming to this communion is to assemble around a table and to sit or recline while we eat and drink together of bread and wine in remembrance of our Lord.
While we see the Saviour sitting down with his twelve disciples, let us enquire what did this make them ? then, secondly, what did this imply? and, thirdly, what further may we legitimately infer from it?
1. First, then, we see the Great Master, the Lord, the king in Zion, sitting down at the table to eat and drink with his twelve apostlesWHAT DID THIS MAKE THEM?
Note what they were at first. By his first calling of them they became his followers, for he said unto them, “ Follow me.” That is to say, they were convinced, by sundry marks and signs, that he was the Messias, and they, therefore, became his followers. Followers may be at a great distance from their leader, and enjoy little or no intercourse with him, for the leader may be too great to be approached by the common members of his band. In the case of the disciples their following was unusually close, for their Master was very condescending, but still their intercourse was not always of the most intimate kind at the first, and therefore it was not at first that he called them to such a festival as this supper. They began with following, and this is where we must begin. If we cannot enter as yet into closer association with our Lord we may, at least,know his voice by his Spirit, and follow him as the sheep follow the shepherd. The most important way of following him is to trust him, and then diligently to imitate his example. This is a good beginning, and it will end well, for those who walk with him to-day shall rest with him hereafter ; those who tread in his footsteps shall sit on his throne.
Being his followers, they came next to be his disciples. A man may have been a follower for a while, and yet may not have reached discipleship. A follower may follow blindly and hear a great deal which he does not understand ; but, when he becomes a disciple, his Master instructs him and leads him into truth. To explain, to expound, to solve difficulties, to clear away doubts, and to make truth intelligible is the office of a teacher amongst his disciples. Now, it was a very blessed thing for the followers to become disciples, but still disciples are not necessarily so intimate with their Master as to sit and eat with him. Socrates and Plato knew many in the Academy whom they did not invite to their homes. My brethren, if Jesus had but called us to be his disciples and no more, we should have had cause for great thankfulness; if we had been allowed to sit at his feet and had never shared in such an entertainment as that before us, we ought to have been profoundly grateful ; but now that he has favoured us with a yet higher place let us never be unfaithful to our discipleship. Let us daily learn of Jesus, let us search the Bible to see what it was that he taught us, and then by the aid of his Holy Spirit let us scrupulously obey. Yet is there a something beyond.
Being the Lord's disciples, the chosen ones next rose to become his servants, which is a step in advance, since the disciple may be but a child, but the servant has some strength, has received some measure of