The History of the Christian People Called Quakers

1674

In the month called January, 1673-4, G. Fox and Thomas Lower, were brought to their trial in the court at Worcester, it being the last day of the sessions; and when they came in, those on the bench were struck with paleness in their faces, and continued awhile speechless, insomuch that a butcher in the hall said, ‘What! are they afraid? Dare not the justices speak to them?’ At length justice Parker, by whose order G. Fox and T. Lower had been committed, made a long speech, much to the same effect as the contents of the mittimus, and added, that he thought it a milder course to send them two to jail, than to put his neighbours to the loss of two hundred pounds, which they must have suffered, if he had put the law in execution against conventicles. But this was a very poor shift, and silly evasion; for there being no meeting when he came, nor any to inform, he had no evidence to convict them, or his neighbours by. When Parker had ended his speech, the justices spoke to the prisoners, and began with Lower, whom they examined why he came into that country. And when they had done with him, they asked of G. Fox an account of his travel, which he gave them, and showed them clearly, that he and his friends, of whom so great a noise had been made by justice Parker, as if many had come together from several parts, were in a manner all but one family. When he had ended speaking, the chairman Simpson said, ‘Your relation or account is very innocent.’ Then he and Parker having whispered awhile together, the said chairman stood up, and said, ‘You, Mr. Fox, are a famous man, and all this may be true which you have said; but that we may be the better satisfied, will you take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy?’ Now, though G. Fox answered to this, that they had said they would not ensnare him, and that this was a plain snare, since they knew he and his friends would not take any oath; all was in vain, and they caused the oath to be read, which being done, he told them, ‘I never took oath in my life, but I have always been true to the government. I was cast into the dungeon at Darby, and kept prisoner six months there, because I would not take up arms against king Charles, at Worcester fight; and for going to meetings, I was carried out of Leicester, and brought before Oliver Cromwell, as a plotter to bring in king Charles; and ye know in your own consciences, that we, the people called Quakers, cannot take an oath, or swear in any case, because Christ hath forbidden it; but as to the matter or substance contained in the oaths, this I can and do say, that I do own and acknowledge the king of England to be lawful heir and successor to the realm of England; and do abhor all plots and plotters, and contrivances against him; and I have nothing in my heart but love and good will to him and all men, and desire his and their prosperity; the Lord knows it, before whom I stand an innocent man. And as to the oath of supremacy, I deny the pope and his power, and abhor it with my heart.’ Whilst he was yet speaking, they cried, ‘Give him the book,’ viz. the Bible. ‘The book,’ saith G. Fox, ‘saith “Swear not at all:”’ and he going on to declare his mind further, they cried, ‘Take him away, jailer:’ who not showing himself very forward, they cried again, ‘Take him away: we shall have a meeting here; why do you not take him away?’ And one of the bench said, ‘That fellow,’ meaning the jailer, ‘loves to hear him preach.’ The jailer then taking him away, as he was turning from them, he said, ‘The Lord forgive you, who cast me into prison for obeying the doctrine of Christ.’ After G. Fox was led away, the justices told T. Lower, he was at liberty; for they did not think it safe to deal with him at the same rate as they did with G. Fox, because they thought he had some protection at court. Lower asked then, why his father-in-law might not be set at liberty, as well as he, since they were both taken together, and their case was alike? But they telling him they would not hear him, said, ‘you may be gone about your business, for we have nothing more to say to you, seeing you are discharged.’

This was all he could get from them; therefore after the court was risen, he went to speak with them at their chamber, desiring to know, what cause they had to detain his father, seeing they had discharged him; and wishing them to consider, whether this was not partiality.—Upon this Simpson said, ‘If you be not content, we will tender you the oath also, and send you to your father.’ To which Lower replied, ‘You may do that, if you think fit; but whether ye send me or no, I intend to go, and wait upon my father in prison; for that is now my business in this country.’ Then justice Parker said to him, ‘Do you think, Mr. Lower, that I had no cause to send your father and you to prison, when you had such a great meeting, insomuch that the parson of the parish complained to me, that he had lost the greatest part of his parishioners; so that when he comes amongst them, he hath scarce any auditors left.’ To this Lower returned, ‘I have heard that the priest of that parish comes so seldom to visit his flock, but once, it may be, or twice in a year, to gather up his tithes, that it was but charity in my father, to visit such a forlorn and forsaken flock: and therefore thou hadst no cause to send my father to prison for visiting them, or for teaching, instructing, and directing them to Christ their true teacher, who had so little comfort or benefit from their pretended pastor, who comes amongst them only to seek for his gain from his quarter.’ Upon this the justice fell a laughing; for Dr. Crowder, the priest spoken of, was then in the room, sitting among them; though Lower did not know him, and he had the wit to hold his tongue, and not to vindicate himself. But after Lower was gone away, the justices so jested on Crowder, that he grew ashamed; and was so nettled with it, that he threatened to sue T. Lower in the bishop’s court upon an action of defamation: which Lower having heard of, sent him word that he might begin if he would; and that he would answer him, and bring his whole parish in evidence against him. And he told him the same afterwards to his face; which so cooled the priest’s eagerness, that he thought it more safe for him to let him alone.

Soon after the sessions were over, an habeas corpus was sent down to Worcester, for the sheriff to bring up G. Fox to the king’s bench bar; whereupon his son-in-law, Lower, conducted him: for the under sheriff had made Lower his deputy, to convey G. Fox to London, who being arrived there, appeared before the court of king’s bench, where he found the judges moderate, and they patiently heard him, when he gave them an account how he had been stopped in his journey, and committed to jail; and how at his trial, the oath of allegiance and supremacy had been tendered to him; and also what he had offered to the justices as a declaration, that he was willing to sign, instead of the said oaths. To this it was told him, by the chief justice, that they would consider further of it. Being then delivered to the keeper of the king’s bench, he was suffered to go and lodge at the house of one of his friends; for though he continued a prisoner, yet they were sufficiently persuaded that he would not run away. But after this, justice Parker, as it was said, moved the court that G. Fox might be sent back to Worcester, that his cause might be tried there; for Parker saw clearly, that if G. Fox had been acquitted here, this would have tended to his shame, for having committed him unjustly.

A day then being appointed for another hearing, and G. Fox appearing again at the king’s bench, and hearing that it was under deliberation to send him back to Worcester, signified, that this was only to ensnare him, by putting the oath to him, that so they might premunire him, who never took oath in his life. And he further told them, if he broke his yea, or nay, he was content to suffer the same penalty as those that break their oaths. Now seeing Parker had spread a report at London, and it had been said in the parliament-house, that when he took G. Fox, there were many substantial men with him, out of several parts of the nation, and that they had a design or plot in hand, G. Fox did not omit to show the fallacy of that malicious story: and since he thus laid open Parker’s shame, it was not strange, that by his friends at court, he procured that the king’s judges complied with his desire that G. Fox should be remanded to Worcester jail; insomuch that whatever he said, he could not prevent it; only this favour was granted him, that he might go his own way, and at his leisure, provided he would be there without fail, by the assizes, which were to begin on the 2d day of the month called April.

G. Fox then after some stay, went down leisurely, and being come to Worcester, he was on the 2d day of the aforesaid month, brought from the jail, to an inn near the sessions hall; but not being called that day, the jailer came to him at night, and told him he might go home, meaning to the jail: whereupon he walked thither, being accompanied by one of his friends. Next day being brought up again, a boy of about eleven years old was set to be his keeper. Having in my relation of the proceedings before the king’s bench, passed by most part of the pleading, so I shall do here likewise, to avoid repetitions of what hath been several times related already, concerning such kind of trials; yet I cannot pass by in silence, that after he had given an account of his journey before he was taken, he added, that since his imprisonment, he had understood that his mother, who was an ancient and weak woman, and had desired to see him before she died, hearing that he was stopped and imprisoned in his journey, so that he was not likely to come and see her, it struck her so, that she died soon after; which had been very hard to him. Judge Turner, who formerly had been very severe to him, seemed now, as some thought, inclined to have him set at liberty, since he saw they had nothing justly against him; but Parker who had committed him, endeavoured to incense the judge against him; for if he had been released, then he himself must have borne the blame of having committed G. Fox unjustly; and therefore he told the judge that G. Fox was a ringleader, that many of the nation followed him; and one knew not what it might come to. Yet the judge gave but little ear to all this, being willing to be easy; but he could not resolve to do this, by setting G. Fox at liberty, lest he should displease others; and thus in conclusion, G. Fox and his cause were referred to the sessions again, and he continued prisoner, but with this proviso, that he should have the liberty of the town; which accordingly he had.

By this he got opportunity to speak with many persons, and sometimes with priests too, one of which asked him, whether he was grown up to perfection? To which he answered, what he was, he was by the grace of God. ‘This is,’ replied the priest, ‘a modest and civil answer.’ ‘But,’ continued he in the words of the apostle John, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And asking what he said to that? G. Fox returned with the words of the same apostle, “if we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” Moreover he said, ‘Christ came to destroy sin, and to take away sin. There is a time for people to see that they have sinned, and there is a time for them to confess their sin, and to forsake it, and to know the blood of Christ to cleanse from all sin.’ After some more reasoning, the priest said, ‘We must always be striving;’ to which G. Fox returned, that it was a sad and comfortless sort of striving, to strive with a belief that we should never overcome: and he told him also, that Paul, who once cried out because of the body of death, did also thank God, who gave him the victory; and that he said there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus: so that there was a time of crying out for want of victory, and a time of praising God for the victory. ‘But,’ said the priest, ‘Job was not perfect.’ To which G. Fox returned, that God hath signified in Scripture, that Job was perfect and upright, and that he eschewed evil: and that the devil himself was forced to confess, that God had set an hedge about him; which was not an outward hedge, but the invisible heavenly power. Yet said Job, replied the priest, ‘he charged his angels with folly, and the heavens are not clean in his sight.’ ‘That is a mistake,’ said G. Fox, ‘for it was not Job said so, but Eliphaz, who contended against Job.’ ‘Well, but,’ said the priest, ‘what say you to that Scripture, the justest man that is, sinneth seven times a day?’ ‘There is,’ answered G. Fox, ‘no such scripture.’ So the priest was silent, and this conference broken off, of which I have related thus much to show that G. Fox was not such a simple person, as some from mere envy have represented him: for he was never at a loss for an answer, but had it always in readiness.

Now the time of the sessions being come again, where the justice, who was chairman, was one Street, G. Fox was called there before the justices, and then the said justice exceedingly misrepresented the case, by telling the people, that G. Fox had a meeting at Tredington from all parts of the nation, to the terrifying of the king’s subjects; for which he had been committed, and that for the trial of his fidelity, the oaths had been tendered to him. And then turning to G. Fox, he asked him, since he had time to consider of it, whether he would now take the oaths? G. Fox having obtained liberty to speak for himself, gave a relation of his journey, and showed that he and his friends had in no wise kept a meeting that occasioned terror to any of the king’s subjects; and as to the oaths, he showed why he could not take them, and what he could declare instead thereof. But notwithstanding all this, the oaths were read to him again; and he persisting in his refusal to take them, the indictment was read also; and afterwards the chairman asked him ‘if he was guilty?’ G. Fox answered, ‘No, since the indictment was a bundle of lies,’ which he proved in several particulars, asking him, if he did not know in his conscience that they were lies? To which he said, it was their form. Whereupon G. Fox returned, it was not a true form. Then the chairman told the jury what they should do in this case: and before they gave in their verdict, G. Fox said to them, that it was for Christ’s sake, and in obedience to his and his apostle’s command that he could not swear: ‘and therefore,’ said he, ‘take heed what ye do; for before his judgment-seat ye shall all be brought.’ The chairman then said, ‘This is canting.’ ‘Why,’ said G. Fox, ‘if to confess Christ our Lord and Saviour, and to obey his command, be called canting by a judge of a court, it is to little purpose for me to say more among you. Yet ye shall see that I am a Christian, and shall show forth Christianity; and my innocency shall be manifest.’ By this his speaking, the people generally were affected; but the jury however found the bill against him; which G. Fox nevertheless traversed. Thus the matter could not be finished now, and therefore he was asked to put in bail, till the next sessions; this he refused, and warned his friends that seemed willing to be bound for him, not to meddle with that, since there was a snare in it. Yet he told the justices, that he would promise to appear, if the Lord gave him health and strength, and he were at liberty. Some of the justices showed themselves loving, and endeavoured to stop the rest from indicting him, or putting the oath to him. But the chairman said he must go according to law. Yet liberty was given G. Fox to go at large, till next quarter-sessions.

He then went up to London; where the time of the yearly meeting approached; but at the instance of some of his friends, he appeared again before the judges of the king’s bench, and delivered to them the following declaration, setting forth what he was ready to promise instead of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.

‘This I do in the truth, and in the presence of God declare, that king Charles the Second is lawful king of this realm, and of all others his dominions; and that he was brought in, and set up king over this realm by the power of God: and I have nothing, but love and good-will to him and all his subjects, and desire his prosperity and eternal good. And I do utterly abhor and deny the pope’s power and supremacy, and all his superstitious and idolatrous inventions; and do affirm, that he hath no power to absolve sin: and I do abhor and detest his murderings of princes, or other people, by plots and contrivances. And likewise I do deny all plots and contrivances, and plotters and contrivers against the king and his subjects; knowing them to be works of darkness, and the fruits of an evil spirit, and against the peace of the kingdom, and not from the spirit of God, the fruit of which is love. I dare not take an oath, because it is forbidden by Christ and the apostle; but if I break my yea or nay, then let me suffer the same penalty, as they that break their oaths.

GEORGE FOX.’

This declaration, being the substance of what oaths of allegiance and supremacy contain, G. Fox presented to the judges of the king’s bench; but the proceedings having gone on at Worcester, they were unwilling to meddle with the business, but referred it to the next quarter-sessions at Worcester.

The yearly-meeting at London, at which he was, being over, he returned again to Worcester, where the sessions being held in the month called July, and he called to the bar, and the indictment read, justice Street caused the oaths to be read also, and tendered to him again. G. Fox then said, that he was come to traverse his indictment. But when he began to show the errors that were in the indictment, viz. such as were sufficient to quash it, he was soon stopped, and the oath required of him; and he persisting in the refusal, was by the jury found guilty. The chairman, how active soever he had been against G. Fox, yet was now troubled, and told him of a sad sentence he had to speak against him. To which G. Fox returned, that he had many and more errors to assign in the indictment, besides those he had already mentioned. Whereupon the chairman told him, he was going to show him the danger of a premunire, which was the loss of his liberty, and all his goods and chattels, and to endure imprisonment during life. ‘But,’ added he, ‘I do not deliver this as the sentence of the court, but as an admonition to you.’ Then the jailer was bid to take him away; and G. Fox afterwards understood concerning this pretended admonition, that the chairman had said to the clerk of the peace, that what he had spoken should stand for sentence.

Now whilst G. Fox was in prison, there came to him, amongst others, the earl of Salisbury’s son, who was very loving, and much concerned that they had dealt so with him; and he himself took a copy in writing of the errors that were in the indictment. And G. Fox afterwards got the state of his case, drawn up in writing, delivered to judge Wild. He also wrote a letter to the king, wherein he gave an account of the sentiments of those called Quakers concerning swearing; and how they abhorred all plottings and contrivances against the king. Not long after he fell into such a sickness, that some began to doubt of his recovery; and then one of his friends went to justice Parker, by whose order he had been first committed to prison, and desired him to give order to the jailer, that he might have liberty to go out of the jail into the city. Whereupon Parker wrote the following letter to the jailer.

‘Mr. Harris,

‘I have been much importuned by some friends to George Fox, to write to you. I am informed by them, that he is in a very weak condition, and very much indisposed. What lawful favour you can do for the benefit of the air, for his health, pray show him. I suppose the next term they will make application to the king. I am,

Sir, your loving friend,
HENRY PARKER.’

Evesham, the 8th of October, 1674.

This letter was sufficient warrant for the jailer to permit G. Fox to be brought from prison to the house of one of his friends. His wife was come to him before that time, and after having been with him about seventeen weeks, and no discharge like to be obtained for him, she went up to London, and being come to Whitehall, and meeting with the king there, she gave him an account of her husband’s long imprisonment, and how weak he was, and not without danger of his life. To which the king said, he could do nothing in it, but she must go to the chancellor. And so she went to the lord Finch, who was then chancellor; and having given him an account of the matter, she told him that the king had left it wholly to him; and if he did not show pity, and release her husband out of prison, she feared he would end his days there. But the chancellor said to her, that the king could not release him, otherwise than by a pardon. Now G. Fox could not resolve to be freed thus, as well knowing he had done no evil; and therefore he would rather have lain in prison all his days, than to be thus set at liberty; otherwise he needed not to have lain so long, since the king had been willing long before to have given him a pardon; and also had said to one Thomas More, that G. Fox needed not scruple being released by a pardon; for many a man, that was as innocent as a child, had had a pardon granted him. G. Fox unwilling to have a pardon, but desiring to have the validity of his indictment tried before the judges, the lord chancellor, who showed himself a discreet man, procured that an habeas corpus was granted to bring G. Fox to London, once more to appear before the king’s bench. The habeas corpus was with the first opportunity sent down by his wife to Worcester; but there they would not part with him at first, (being now recovered a little of his sickness,) under a pretence that he was premunired, and was not to go out in that manner. Thus it became necessary to send to London again; and another order was got and sent down, to bring up G. Fox before the king’s bench. Being still weak, he was carried up to London in a coach, the under-sheriff and the clerk of the peace accompanying him.

Being come down, he was brought before the four judges at the king’s bench, where counsellor Thomas Corbet pleaded his cause, and acquitted himself exceeding well; for he started a new plea, and told the judges, that by law they could not imprison any man upon a premunire. The judges then saying they must have time to look in their books, and to consult the statutes, the hearing was put off till the next day. And since it appeared that Corbet was in the right, they chose to let their plea fall, perhaps for fear of worse consequences. And thus they began to examine the errors of the indictment, which proved to be so many and so gross, that all the judges were of opinion, that the indictment was quashed and void, and that G. Fox ought to have his liberty. The same day several lords and other great men, had the oaths of allegiance and supremacy tendered to them in open court; and some of G. Fox’s adversaries moved the judges, that the oaths might be tendered to him again, saying, he was a dangerous man to be at liberty. But judge Matthew Hale, who was then lord chief justice of England, and really an excellent and pious man, as hath been hinted already here before, said, he had indeed heard some such reports of G. Fox, but he had also heard more good reports of him. This saying was serviceable; and Hale and the other judges ordered G. Fox to be freed by proclamation. Thus he was set at liberty in an honourable way, and his counsellor Corbet, who had pleaded for him, got great fame by it; for many other lawyers told him, he had brought that to light, which had not been known before. And after the trial, one of the judges said to him, ‘You have obtained a great deal of honour by your way of pleading G. Fox’s cause in court.’

The year was now come to an end. But before I go over to the next, I am to mention that the Baptists in England, losing from time to time some of their best members, wrote therefore very fiercely against the Quakers, endeavouring thereby to render them no Christians. But those writings were continually answered, and that with so many convincing reasons, that the Quakers got more adherents by it. The consequence of this was, that a public dispute was appointed to be held between the Baptists and the Quakers, in the meeting-house of the Baptists at London. For the Quakers, there spoke by turns, George Whitehead, Stephen Crisp, William Penn, and George Keith; and the opponents were Jeremy Ives, William Kiffin, Thomas Plant, Thomas Hicks, and Robert Ferguson, a Presbyterian, afterwards eminently known in Holland, by the fierce declaration drawn up by him in the name of the duke of Monmouth, when that unhappy prince went over to England with forces, to dispute the throne against king James.

Jeremy Ives was an eminent teacher among the Baptists, that had been in prison in London fourteen years before on a religious account, and chiefly because for conscience-sake he refused to take the oath.

Not long after he wrote a smart letter from the prison, to two of his society, (who having been imprisoned with him for the same cause, had taken the oath, thereby to obtain their liberty,) wherein he reproved them for their falling away, and signified that thus they had increased the burden of their faithful brethren, from the bearing of which they had withdrawn themselves. But what a changeable creature is man, if he doth not continue watchful, and keep close to the divine grace, continually laying hold thereon! For scarce five days passed, but this inconstant Jeremy grew weary of imprisonment, and took the oath also to get out of prison. Neither did he stop here; for it is plain that he was now departed from his profession. To temporize therefore, and to find out excuses for what he had done, he put forth a book in print, wherein he asserted the lawfulness of swearing. It was asked of him, whether he was that same Jeremy Ives, that once had been of such a tender conscience, that he durst not take an oath, and had afterwards publicly defended swearing as lawful? And he did not deny the fact, for it was notoriously known: but he went about to disguise the matter, and said, ‘I am that Jeremy who took the oath of allegiance, and wrote a book to prove that some oaths were lawful, though not all.’ Neither did he deny the fore-mentioned letter, for it was extant, and written as followeth:

‘Brother Pitman and Brother Shewel,

‘I am at this time surprised with a holy passion; and though Jonah could not say concerning the gourd, that he did well to be angry; yet, if my experience in the word of the Lord doth not deceive, I can truly say, I do well to be angry with you; whom I have had a godly jealously of all along, viz. That you would be as easily persuaded to part with, as unwilling to suffer for, your spiritual liberties. Oh my brethren! Where is your first love? How unlike the Christians in former times are you? Whose zeal was so hot for God, that their eyes prevented the morning, that thereby they might prevent the rage of the adversary, who, as it is now, commanded them no more to worship in the name of the Lord.—I always did conclude, that those that would—quit the cause of righteousness—would quit the ways of holiness, as yesterday’s sad experience hath taught, to the perpetual joy of your adversaries, and the saddening the hearts, and adding afflictions to the bonds of the prisoners of the Lord. I do therefore conjure you, as you will answer the great God another day, to consider, that now is the time for you to look to your ministry, and to the flock over which the Lord hath made you overseers, that you may be able through grace to say, ‘You are clear from the blood of all men;’ and observe, that God is now come to prove you, to see whether you will keep his commandments or not. Remember when that apostate’s case was debated, you had no zeal nor indignation against him, but you smothered all with this, ‘If it were in a matter of faith and worship that he had fallen from, you would have been as one man against it.’ Well, behold the Lord is come home to you; the matter now is purely for worshipping God; now God is proving you to see whether you will obey him or no: and did not yesterday’s work witness, that you were willing to prefer the fear of a man, that must die, before the fear of the great God; and the fear of them that can kill the body, before the fear of the Lord, that can cast body and soul into hell? I have no more to say but this, that your cowardly temporizing and complying with the precepts of men, makes me jealous, that your fear towards the Lord is taught by the precepts of men. I would not be too censorious, but my grounds are great; and my bonds are my crown; but your cowardly spirit is my great cross. You little think what a scandal it is amongst us to hear it affirmed that one of you should say, you had rather have given fifty pounds than have sworn, and yet swear that you swear willingly. Oh! for the Lord’s sake, do somewhat that may roll away this reproach; which that you may, is the prayers of your brother, who could be contented to write himself,

Your companion in tribulation,
JER. IVES.’

Jan. 14, 1660.

‘Brother Ward, my fellow-prisoner, desires to present his love to you, and so do some others.’

Thus zealously Jer. Ives wrote to his fellow-teachers, who for human fear, and to avoid sufferings, had, against their profession, and the conviction of their consciences, taken the oath. But who could have imagined on sight of such letter, that he himself within so short a space of time, should have done that which he reproved so severely in others. Certainly in this case the saying of the prophet Jeremiah seems to be very applicable, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Let therefore him who standeth, be cautious lest he fall.” Happy had this man been, if he had been so sensible of his transgressions as one Edward Chilton, who though by profession a Quaker, yet when it came to a trial, either to take the oath of allegiance, or to be premunired, he wavered and fainted; yet not so, that he fell away totally: for he became so penitent for the evil he had committed, that he found himself constrained to give proof thereof by a letter he wrote to his friends, who remained prisoners, because for conscience-sake they could not swear; whereas he, to be released from imprisonment, had taken the oath that was demanded of him. But of what a bitter relish this became to him, and what terror and horror he was seized with, the following letter will show:

‘My dear Friends,

‘I desire to lay before you this my condition in this my fall, that my fall may be no cause for you to stumble, but that you by it may be the more encouraged to stand; for I have yielded to the betrayer, and so betrayed the innocent seed in me; for I forsook the counsel of the Lord, and consulted with flesh and blood, and so I fell into the snare of the world, and yielded to the covenant; and so I rested satisfied in what I had done, for some certain hours; but when the Lord in his power looked back upon me, then I remembered what I had done; then I remembered that I had denied truth, which once I had professed, though once I thought I should have stood when others fell. So the terrors of the Lord have taken hold on me, and I lie under the judgments of the Lord.

‘And now I feel the truth of the words that were spoken by Christ, ‘that he that faileth in one tittle, is guilty of all;’ and now I feel the truth of that, ‘that it is better to forsake wife and children, and all that a man hath, even life itself, for Christ and the truth’s sake, than to break one tittle of the law of God written in the heart.’ So I hope that, by mercy and judgment, the Lord will redeem me to himself again. The Lord may suffer some to fall, that the standing of them that stand faithful may seem to be the more glorious, and for them to take heed lest they fall.

‘Now I know and feel, that it is better to part with any thing of this world, though it be as dear to one as the right hand, or the eye, than to break our peace with God.

‘Pray for me; for my bonds are greater than yours.

EDWARD CHILTON.’

Windsor, the 22d of the 11th month, 1660.

It is remarkable, that this Chilton in the conclusion of his letter saith, that his bonds were greater than those of his friends, who neither feared a premunire, nor loss of their liberty, when they must pay so dear for it, as the taking of an oath. For when any one truly abides in the fear of God, he dares not, against the convictions of his conscience, transgress the Divine commandments, and seek evasions to avoid the stress thereof: for certainly God will not be mocked. Could our Saviour have spoken in more plain and express terms than he did, when he said, “Swear not at all?” And yet what cunning devices have been invented by those who boast of the name of Christians, to enervate the force of these express words. It is not a proper place here to refute their reasons; but yet I cannot think it unsuitable to show briefly how dangerous it is to act against the express commandments of sacred writ, and against the conviction of one’s conscience, thereby to avoid persecution: for not only the apostle James saith, “Whosoever shall offend in one point, he is guilty of all;” but our supreme lawgiver Christ himself saith, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. And whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels.” And to encourage us to faithfulness he hath also said, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Which words indeed are so emphatical, that it ought not to displease any that I repeat them, as they have been left on record by the evangelist Luke, viz. thus, “I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, fear him.” Can it be otherwise, but that such words must needs make a powerful impression on a real Christian? And the more when we consider, that nothing in the world can retrieve or restore a perishing soul, as may appear from these of our blessed Lord, “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” A clear proof that the whole world, and all that is contained therein, is not able to save one soul, or to afford any thing that can redeem it. If I here thought it requisite, a godly zeal at present would make me say more on this subject; but not to expatiate too far beyond the limits of this historical tract, I shall not pursue this digression any further, but return to my relation from whence I thus stepped aside.

To take up again then the broken thread of my discourse, I once more come to Jeremy Ives, who, to avoid persecution, had taken the oath contrary to his understanding; and it was Thomas Rudyard, mentioned here before, who objected this to him; and he feeling himself pinched by it, endeavoured to break the stress thereof by saying, that the reason why in a letter he had blamed a friend, was for his saying he had rather have given fifty pounds than have took the oath of allegiance, and yet swore he took it freely and willingly. But who sees not what a poor shift this was?

Now to come to the dispute; I already mentioned it was asserted, that the Quakers were no Christians; and to maintain this, Thomas Hicks said, ‘They that deny the Lord’s Christ, are no Christians: but the Quakers deny the Lord’s Christ,’ &c. To which W. Penn said, ‘I deny the minor, viz. that the Quakers deny the Lord’s Christ.’ And T. Hicks returned, ‘They that deny Christ to be a distinct person without them, deny the Lord’s Christ; but the Quakers deny Christ to be a distinct person without them: therefore,’ &c. W. Penn then desired that T. Hicks would explain what he meant by the term person. And T. Hicks answered, ‘I mean the man Christ Jesus.’ To which W. Penn replied, ‘Then I deny the minor, viz. that we deny the man Christ Jesus.’ To which Hicks returned, ‘I prove ye deny the man Christ Jesus. One of your own writers saith, that Christ was never seen with carnal eyes, nor heard with carnal ears,’ &c. To this J. Ives added, ‘He that denies that Christ was ever seen with carnal eyes, &c. denies the man Christ: but the Quakers deny that Christ was ever seen with carnal eyes,’ &c. George Keith then said, ‘I answer by distinguishing: Christ as God was never seen with carnal eyes; but as man he was seen with carnal eyes.’ To this J. Ives returned: ‘But he was Christ as he was man: how then was not Christ seen with carnal eyes?’ To this question G. Keith answered thus: ‘We are to consider that the terms or names Jesus Christ, are sometimes applied to him as God, and sometimes to him as man; yea, sometimes to the very body of Jesus: but the question is, whether do those names more properly, immediately, and originally belong to him as God, or as he was before he took the manhood upon him; or to the manhood? We affirm, those names are given to him most properly and eminently as God; and less properly, yet truly, as man; and least properly to his body, yea to his dead body.’ Then J. Ives asked, ‘Where do you read that the carcase was called the Christ?’ This irreverent expression so displeased many, that some cried out, ‘Where didst thou ever read that Christ’s dead body was called a carcase?’ From this disgust W. Penn said, ‘I beseech you for the Lord’s sake, that we may treat of these things as becomes Christians.’

G. Keith then resuming the discourse, answered J. Ives’s question thus: ‘I prove that the dead body of Jesus was called Christ, from the words of Mary, “Where have ye laid him?” For she had just before called the body her Lord: likewise the angel said to her, “See the place where the Lord lay:” and that he was Jesus Christ before he took flesh, I prove from the saying of the apostle, “Who created all things by Jesus Christ.”’ Then T. Hicks said, ‘I will prove the Quakers to be no Christians:’ and J. Ives added, ‘They that say that Christ cannot be seen with carnal eyes, and was never visible to wicked men, do deny the Lord’s Christ; for he was seen with carnal eyes, and by wicked men.’ To this W. Penn said, ‘I distinguish upon the word seen; wicked men might see him in that bodily appearance, and yet not see him to be the Christ of God; they saw his manhood, but not his Christship: this I will prove from Christ’s words to Peter, when he confessed him to be Christ, the Son of the living God, viz. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven:” therefore Peter with a carnal eye could not have seen the Lord’s Christ, much less wicked men. My second proof is from the apostle’s words, “Whom none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known him, they would not have crucified him.”’ W. Penn enlarging a little more on this subject, said also, that seeing and knowing in Scriptures are sometimes equivalent. And G. Keith added, ‘Christ said, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father:” but no wicked man hath seen the Father, therefore no wicked man hath seen Christ, as such.’ Ives and his companions scoffed at this distinction: but the Quakers averred, that all who saw Jesus as the carpenter’s son, did not see him as the Christ of God. Then Ives asked, ‘Is the manhood a part of the Lord’s Christ?’ To which W. Penn returned, ‘Is this to prove the charge of our denying the Lord’s Christ? It seems we must be here to be catechised, and ye will not answer us one question, yet I shall answer J. Ives his question, if he will promise to answer mine.’

Ives then saying that he would answer it, W. Penn returned, ‘I here declare, that we do faithfully believe that holy manhood to be a member of the Christ of God:’ and directing his question to Ives, he said, ‘Was he the Christ of God before he was manifest in the flesh?’ ‘He was,’ answered Ives, ‘the Son of God.’ ‘But,’ replied W. Penn, ‘Was he the Lord’s Christ? I will prove him to have been the Lord’s Christ as well before as after: first from the apostle Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “That rock was Christ:” next from Jude, where some Greek copies have it thus, “That Jesus brought the people of Israel out of Egypt.”’ But to this Ives gave no answer, how often soever he was called upon for it. And this was no great wonder, since it was well known that there were such among the Baptists who favoured the Socinian principles. But Ives, that he might not appear altogether mute, came on again with a question, viz. ‘Do ye believe that Christ in his human nature is in heaven?’ This made G. Whitehead say to the auditory, ‘Ye have heard the charge against us, and the distinction that hath been made between seeing, and seeing of Christ, as namely between the spiritual saving sight of the Lord’s Christ, and the seeing of his outward man, person, or body. In this last sense it could never be intended that it was not visible to the outward eye; but it was the spiritual rock which all Israel drank of, and as he was before Abraham was, and as glorified with the Father before the world began; and as Christ himself said to Philip, “He that seeth me, seeth my Father also:” and only saints, or children of light, could truly say, “We have seen his glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” In all which considerations, or senses of seeing, the Lord’s Christ was only seen spiritually, and not with carnal eyes.’ This Ives granted, that so it might be left: yet presently after, instead of proving the Quakers no Christians, he asked again, ‘Do ye believe or own that Christ is in heaven with his human nature?’ To which W. Penn answered, ‘We do believe the man Christ Jesus to be glorified in heaven.’ Which answer Ives refusing to accept, because it was not in the terms of his question, Penn asked, ‘What difference dost thou make between the manhood and human nature of Christ?’ ‘None,’ returned Ives, ‘if you mean candidly.’ To which Penn replied, ‘I do mean and speak candidly; we do believe that holy manhood to be in heavenly glory.’

Now since it began to grow dark, the Baptists desired to leave off, and to resume the matter at another time; as was done also: but the parties did not agree for all that; for though the Baptists continued to assert that the Quakers were no Christians, yet these had abundance of reasons to maintain the contrary; and this they did so effectually, that those of the other party, under a pretence of the meeting-place being overcharged with people, and that the gallery gave way, broke up the meeting, without a final conclusion.

Prosecution in this year was not very sharp at London, but for all that, active in other places, so that I do not want matter to make a relation of it; but to shun prolixity, I will mention but one case.

One Robert Tilles, in Buckingham, sick of a consumption, and believing his death to be nigh at hand, desired some of his friends to visit him. At this invitation some came to his house, yet not above the number of fourteen persons; and two informers went and acquainted a justice of the peace thereof, who recorded this small assembly as a seditious meeting, and fined the sick man twenty pounds for this pretended transgression; and so his goods were seized, and six cows taken from him. And one Robert Smith, being overheard by the informers to have spoken five or six words, was fined also twenty pounds as a preacher; which fine was afterwards extorted from some others then present.

The peace between England and Holland was concluded this year, at the instance of Spain, but the war between Holland and France continued still.