The History of the Christian People Called Quakers

1694

But nothing was obtained that session; for their enemies were yet so powerful in parliament, that they found means to retard this beneficial work, and to stay the progress of it: for so long as the Quakers were not relieved in the case of oaths, they, who now were not liable to persecution on account of their public worship, might yet for all that be otherwise molested and vexed. Wherefore on the 22d of December, in the year 1694, a representation of their case of not swearing, being signed in their behalf by Theodore Ecclestone, was delivered to the members of parliament, and was as followeth:

A brief representation of the Quakers’ case of not swearing; and why they might have been, and yet may be relieved therein by Parliament.

‘It is a certain truth, that among Christians, and Protestants especially, there are divers particular things about religion, conscientiously scrupled by some as unlawful, that others esteem orthodox: and therefore it is not to be wondered, that the Quakers differ from many others, though not from all, in this case of oaths; they believing they are absolutely forbidden to swear in any case, by that positive command of Christ, Matt. v. 12. And that this is undeniably their Christian persuasion, is evidenced by their sufferings these many years for not swearing.

’And therefore their case may be worth the charitable notice of the government, by law to relieve them therein; and not, for their religious persuasion, to continue them and their families exposed to ruin; who among their neighbours cheerfully pay to the support of the government; and by their trades and industry, according to their capacities, advance the national stock.

‘It may therefore, be humbly offered, that it is not the interest of the government to refuse them relief.

‘Their industry in trade both at sea and land, bringing profit to the government as well as others; the station they stand in as merchants, farmers, manufacturers, improvers of lands and stocks, is advantageous to their neighbours as truly as others. And as it seems not the interest of the government in general that they should be any ways discouraged in their honest industry, so neither is it the interest of any eminent part of the government, that they should not be relieved, viz. the judges.

‘For the frequent suits that are brought against the Quakers, before the chancery and exchequer judges, are no doubt very troublesome and burdensome, by the difficulty of getting at a just issue, for want of swearing, whereby justice is delayed, and their causes often held very long; and no doubt when just judges see the Quakers wronged and abused, and cannot relieve them, it is irksome to them: so that, it is humbly conceived, it would be a great ease to those courts, to have the Quakers relieved in this case of oaths.

‘Neither is it without advantage to the king’s other courts, to be able to use the evidence of one who is now a Quaker, that perhaps was not so some years ago; when he was witness to a bill, bond, book-debt, or deed of indenture; or when he was steward or trustee, or servant, either to persons of quality, or to others of trade or estate.

‘Nor may their testimony be unuseful to coroners, in cases of unnatural deaths; nor inconvenient in cases of trespass or felony, &c.

’And it is further proposed, that it is not the interest of the subjects to continue them unrelieved; for it is not the interest of those the Quakers are indebted to; because though such may sue and harass the Quakers in person and estate, yet they may long want a decision of their debt or claim, as to the right of it, for want of an answer upon oath.

‘It is not the interest of those they are concerned with in any doubtful case, because of the difficulty to come to trial.

’And for those that owe money to the Quakers, to be allowed to fly into chancery for a refuge, to obstruct paying just debts, is such an injury as it is hoped no one that is rational will countenance, or desire should be continued upon them. And may it not then be asserted, that it is no honest man’s true and just interest to have the Quakers denied relief; no, not the gown-men of Westminster-hall, whose few fees from the Quakers as plaintiffs, might suggest, though unduly, that they have no long-tailed debts to sue for, nor titles to recover; but if they so suppose, it is a mistake, for it is rather their despair of relief, and their well-known inability to pursue a cause, that is their common determent to begin.

‘So that of all causes that crowd these courts, few are brought by the Quakers, though they may need it as much as others, to the great loss of the learned in the law, as well as the poor injured Quaker.

’And one might think it were great pity an industrious people should be kept liable to all injurious suits, and so much barred from suing for their rights, be their cause never so reasonable, just, or necessary.

‘Seeing their relief is to them so needful, so harmless to all, and so useful to the government and their neighbours; let us a little consider the common objections; which may be summed up in short thus:

First objection, ‘How shall we then be at a certainty?
Secondly, ‘Why should the laws be altered for them? For,
Thirdly, ‘It would be to rase old foundations:
Fourthly, ’And let them into the government.’

‘Which it is hoped will not be difficult to answer one by one, and that to reasonable satisfaction.

’And to the first, viz. the doubt of certainty. It may be rationally affirmed, that whosoever is bound to tell the truth, especially against men’s own interest, where the temptation, if any, mainly lies, such are either so bound by the law of God, or the law of men, or both.

‘Now the obligations by the law of God are binding on good men, whether they give answers on oath, or on their solemn affirmation in the fear of God; and knaves are only bound by the penal laws of men; which if made equally severe to those that give fallacious answers, as well without oath as by oath, would be equally effectual and binding, both to them that give answers without swearing, and to them that swear.

‘The second objection, That it would be an alteration of the law. Not of the substance of the law, but of a circumstance; and if that hath no detriment in it, but that the alteration be really an amendment, and a conveniency to an honest industrious people, pray why should it not be done? What sessions of parliament is there that passes, but some law or other is made for the ease, security, or relief of the subject?

‘If foreigners are too hard for our sea-faring people, out goes an act of navigation to prevent it.

‘If our poor at home want silk to work with, how soon is it granted, notwithstanding the same act, to come over land, and not directly in shipping, from the places of its produce, as the said act before did enjoin; and shall the ease of trade be so soon granted against a positive statute; and the ease of conscience be so long denied in this, as positive a command of Christ, at least really so believed and accepted?

’And for the third objection, That it is to rase old foundations. Answer, No, as it was said it is rather to mend them; a proper work for parliaments.

‘Did not parliaments abrogate popery, with all its claim to antiquity? Did not a parliament make the act of Habeas Corpus against the claim of prerogative? And was it more reasonable to secure the subject from perpetual imprisonment by a king without a trial, than it is to secure one subject from imprisoning another till death, for not giving an answer in chancery or exchequer upon oath? Does it belong to parliaments to secure other subjects in their estates, liberties, and properties, and is it unparliamentary to secure the Quakers from sequestrations against their whole estates, because they dare not comply to a circumstance of the law, when, as they understand it, it is against an express command of Christ? Surely no: and therefore their relief in parliament is a fitting case to be there tenderly taken notice of, and provided for.

‘May it not then be well worth the while for the present parliament to relieve these distressed people, and afford their suffering case redress: that thereby their causes may the sooner come to an issue, whether they sue for just debts, or are sued; whereby many unjust and vexatious suits, by injurious and litigious persons, may be prevented; which have often tended rather to the Quakers’ ruin and others’ damage, than recovery of their right?

’As to the fourth objection, That it will tend to let them into the government. For answer thereto, bar that as hard as you please; only do not let the supposal of that, from which so easily and so willingly they may be excluded, be a hindrance to that ease and benefit the government may so easily afford them.

‘But now, while you have opportunity by the station Providence hath placed you in, pray be you of such noble, generous spirits as to relieve them; though they differ from you in the construction of a text they esteem plain and positive on their side, and from which they dare not swerve; having therein the concurrence of many ancient fathers and martyrs, and since them the Mennists, and of the late Francis Osbourne, esq. in his Political Reflections, 7th edition, p. 319, who treating of judicial cases, calls not swearing, a yielding a sincere and faithful obedience to the precept of our Saviour, “Swear not at all:” which, says he, the corrupt glosses of expositors labour much, though all in vain, to elude.

‘And Swinderby, in his appeal to the king, complaining of the errors of the Papists, says thus: ’As Christ forbids swearing, so,’ says he, ‘the pope justifieth swearing, and compels men to swear.’

‘Which no man can rationally say is only spoken of swearing in communication, for his complaint is against justifying swearing, and compelling men to swear, which cannot be pretended to mean other than solemn swearing; for no age that we read of, did ever authorize profane swearing, much less compel to it.

‘Since therefore not only profane swearing, but also solemn swearing was early complained of by Protestants, let it not seem strange to any, that the Quakers now scruple swearing, and for ease therein have often sought relief in parliament, the proper place.

‘Seeing then they believe they have the authority of Christ’s command, and the apostle’s exhortation, and the martyrs’ doctrine on their side, though divers of you are not so persuaded:

‘Yet let the world behold your justice and willingness, according to your power, to do good to all the honest and industrious people you both represent and govern; by enacting that their solemn affirmation shall be accepted in lieu of an oath, and all that falsify therein, shall be punished equally with perjured persons.

‘It having been made appear to a committee of this parliament, Dec. 2, 1692, that they are exposed to great hardships as aforesaid; and not themselves only, but others also; which was the case of a member or two of this present parliament;

‘So that upon the whole matter, the said committee were of opinion, and did report it to the house, that the Quakers ought to be relieved according to the prayer of their petition, then newly presented to the house.

‘Wherefore as liberty hath been given them to declare their allegiance to the government without swearing, for which ease they are sincerely thankful; so be pleased to add to that kindness, their relief in the matter of oaths, between them and other subjects, as well as between the government and them.

Signed in behalf of the said people,
THEODORE ECCLESTONE.’

London, Dec. 22, 1694.

Though after the delivering of the said representation, the parliament this year came not to a full resolution for their relief, yet several members showed themselves more inclined to it, and in the next year the matter was taken in hand again in good earnest.

Toward the conclusion of this year, Mary the 2d, queen of England, deceased. She was a princess eminent beyond many, being well versed in reading, and of great knowledge, of which I will mention only this passage, viz. that the ambassador of the king her father at the Hague, having tried by many arguments to bring her over to the papal religion, said afterwards in the presence of some great men, that he never before believed that a woman was to be found any where so well experienced in the doctrine of the Christian religion; that therefore he would not advise any to enter into discourse with her about that matter. On the 21st of December some symptoms of the small-pox appeared on the queen, who had been ill a day or two before; and her distemper suddenly increased to that degree, that the physicians began to despair of her recovery: but this was so far from frightening her, that she said, ‘God be thanked, I am prepared.’ And this quietness of mind did not leave her, even when she felt death approaching; for then she was heard to say, ‘I believe now that I shall die shortly; and I thank God, that from my youth I have learned this true doctrine, that repentance ought not to be deferred to a dying bed.’ In such a Christian disposition she continued to her dying hour, and so quietly gave up the ghost to her Creator, from whom she had received it, departing at Kensington not long after midnight, between the 26th and 27th of December, and left the king in unspeakable sorrow, who in all the time of her sickness, it is said, had not departed from her chamber. Many pens laboured to celebrate her praises, and bewail her death; and perhaps no queen in many ages hath been more beloved than she was. But I break off; others have given an account of her excellent qualities and character to the world, and it may be none better than Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, in a treatise entitled, ‘An Essay on the Memory of the late Queen.’

Now I return again to the case and affairs of the Quakers.