Chapter LII: Appendix: to VOL. I (20)

‘Whereas, G. Keith hath, after his wonted irregular and unruly
manner, challenged divers of us to defend ourselves against such
charges as he has to exhibit against us at Turner’s-hall: these
are to certify all whom it may concern, that the reasons why we
decline any such meeting are as follow:

_First._ ‘Because the said G. Keith hath given us such frequent
proofs of his very passionate and abusive behaviour, at the many
more select meetings we have had with him, in all manner of
sweetness, long-suffering and patience, on our side, to satisfy
and preserve him from these extremes: that we cannot assure
ourselves now of any better entertainment, or that the meeting
can have any desirable success, for a thorough information.

_Secondly._ ‘We decline to meet, because it is not an agreed
meeting on both sides, which it ought to have been, and where
that is not, or cannot be adjusted, the press is the next fair
way and expedient, which he has begun with, and now seems to
decline; nor hath he sent us a copy of his charge or indictment
against us, which also he ought to have done.

_Thirdly._ ‘That he has two of our books which lie hard at his
door, in vindication of us and our doctrines from his exceptions,
and which he has not yet answered; so that he is not upon equal
terms with us; and therefore we think his challenge, appointment,
and summons, unfair; and that all that are not partial will be of
the same mind with us.

_Fourthly._ ‘Such public and unlimited meetings, are too often
attended, with heats, levity, and confusion, and answer not the
end desired by sober and inquiring men. Besides, that it sets
up a practice that authority may judge to be an abuse to our
liberty, and so draw that under reflection, as no friend to the
civil peace.

_Fifthly._ ‘We know not what religion or persuasion this
wavering man is of, or what church or people he adheres to, or
will receive him, with his vain speculations, that have led him
to desert us; nor who are accountable to us for him and his
irregularities and abuses; the generality of such assemblies
usually making ill auditors, worse judges, and no good security
for our satisfaction. And we must therefore take leave to say,
it seems to us an indirect way of disquieting and invading
our present liberty, that so irreligious a meeting should be
held, whose end is to abuse other men for their religion. If
this should be imitated by all the several sorts of different
persuasions in this city, what heats and confusions must
necessarily ensue.

_Sixthly, and lastly._ ‘Wherefore be it known unto all, that
for the sake of religion, the liberty granted us, and the civil
peace, we decline to meet him; and not from any apprehension we
have of his abilities, or our own consciousness of error, or
injustice to the said G. Keith; whose weak and unbridled temper
we know is such, that what learning and parts he hath, have
not been able to balance and support him on less occasions, so
that we may say they are in ill hands: and if he proceeds as he
begins, they will be employed to an ill end, which his, poor man!
cannot but be, unless he change his course; which we heartily
pray for, that a place of repentance he may find; and through
a true contrition, the remission of his great sin of envy, and
evilly intreating the Lord’s people, and way, which we profess,
and which he the said G. Keith, hath long and lately both
professed, and zealously vindicated as such.’

These reasons the Quakers, as hath been said, published in print, to show the world, that it was not without a weighty cause, that they did not accept G. Keith’s summons. Now though G. Whitehead, and W. Penn, for the abovesaid reasons did not appear in Turner’s-hall, yet some of their friends were there as spectators, to see what would be the issue of the business. G. Keith seeing himself thus disappointed in his intention, took upon him for all that to defend his charge in the absence of his adversaries, which now he could do easily, since none contradicted him; and he was applauded by the frequent shoutings of the mob that was there in great numbers. After the reasons of non-appearance were read, Keith signified that they were not satisfactory, by calling them slender, weak, and frivolous. ‘What,’ said he, ‘may a malefactor make this excuse; You shall not call me before a justice without my consent? If a man robs me, I may complain of him as a robber, and without his consent call him to account. But here is a strange thing: if injuring men may not be called to account without their consent, it will trespass against the law, and intrenches upon liberty of conscience.’ This reason he published in print, in his narrative of that day’s work: but who would formerly ever have thought, that such a little man as he was, would have been so big. It looked just as if the Quakers were obliged to appear as malefactors before the pretended judge Keith, accompanied with his assistants, the mob, and I do not know who. And to keep to G. Keith’s comparison, though a malefactor may not say, you shall not call me before a justice without my consent, yet with some good reason he might say, you shall not make yourself a justice, as Keith now did. It is probable that he was supported by some great churchmen, otherwise such a bold action might easily have turned to his disadvantage.

My limits do not admit of a circumstantial relation of what was transacted at that time in Turner’s-hall; yet to show briefly how he treated matters, I will produce one or two instances, by which my reader may know, _ut ex ungue leonem_,[104] and so judge of the rest. He said he would charge the Quakers with nothing but what he would prove from their own writings, and he went on thus: ‘I offer to prove that G. Whitehead hath denied Christ both to be God and man.’ A strange thing indeed, since it was very well known that G. Whitehead had published a book of above twenty sheets, under this title, ‘The Divinity of Christ, and Unity of the Three that bear record in Heaven, with the blessed end and effect of Christ’s appearance, coming in the flesh, sufferings, and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated by his followers called Quakers.’ This book G. Keith could not pretend ignorance of, for he picked somewhat out of it in his narrative: but to maintain his charge, he appealed to a book of G. Whitehead’s, called, ‘The Light and Life of Christ within.’ This book G. Whitehead had written in answer to W. Burnet, a Baptist preacher, who writing of Christ, said, As he was God, he was Co-Creator with the Father, and so was before Abraham, and had Glory with God before the world was, and in this sense came down from heaven. To which G. Whitehead answered, ‘What nonsense and unscripture-like language is this, to tell of God being Co-Creator with the Father? Or that God had glory with God? Doth not this imply two gods, and that God had a father? Let the reader judge.’ Certainly it appears from this plainly, that G. Whitehead did not intend any thing else, but to censure the unscriptural expressions of his antagonist, as Co-Creator, and implying two gods: for not only the apostle saith, God is One, but Christ himself saith I and the Father are One. Yet G. Keith did not stick to say, G. Whitehead denieth the divinity of Christ, and he deceives the nation and the parliament by telling them the Quakers own Christ to be both God and man, and believe all that is recorded of him in the holy scripture. This he strove to prove from a passage taken out of the aforementioned book, which in sense agreed with the former; and speaking in another page of the same matter, viz. The Baptists calling God the Word, Co-Creator with the Father, G. Whitehead answers thus to it: ‘To tell of the Word God Co-Creator with the Father, is all one as to tell of God being Co-Creator with God, if the Father be God; and this is to make two gods and two creators: for God Co-Creator with the Father plainly implies two. Was this showing of others their absurd expressions, a denial that Christ was God, as Keith would have it? Might it not be asked here, whether the acute wit of Keith was now altogether flown away? But a great part of his auditory consisted of an ignorant crew, and one or other of them was continually heard to cry out, It is sufficient.

[104] As of a lion by his claw.

Now to prove that G. Whitehead had denied Christ to be man, Keith cited from the forementioned book, called ’The Divinity of Christ,‘ &c. these words, ’If the body and soul of the Son of God were both created, doth not this render him a fourth person?’ Here Keith stopped, and broke off with an &c. without adding the following words; ‘For creation was in time, which contradicts the doctrine of three distinct, uncreated, co-eternal, co-essential persons in the Deity, seeing that which was created was not so.’ This G. Whitehead asked and said, to show his opponent, T. Danson, the absurdity of his assertions about the personalities of the Deity. But Keith went on, reading from G. Whitehead’s book thus: ‘Where doth the Scripture say that his soul was created? For was not he the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his divine substance? But supposing the soul of Christ was with the body created in time,’ &c. Here Keith broke off again, omitting the following words: ‘I ask, if from eternity he was a person distinct from God and his holy Spirit, without either soul or body? Where doth the Scripture speak of any person without either soul or body? Let us have plain Scripture.’

Now though G. Whitehead had written this to show, how we often enter into inextricable straits, when we do not keep to the words of the holy Scripture, which no where speaks of three persons in the Deity; yet Keith perverting the passage abusively, said to his auditory, ‘Here ye see he will not own that Christ had a created soul.’ At this rate, and after this manner, Keith reasoned, and treated the other passages. But how smartly would he have carped at others, if they had cited his words thus piecemeal.

But now he had a temporal reward in this view, and seeing for that end, he began more and more to declare himself in favour of the episcopal church; somebody of that persuasion, who did not further make himself known than by these initial letters, W. C. made it his business to show the changeableness of Keith’s opinion and sentiments, from his own writings, which he had published in print; and thereby evidently proved, that in every respect Keith was turned an apostate, though he appeared much offended at the Quakers, because they had called him so. ‘But,’ said this author, ‘if the Presbyterian principles, of which society Keith once was a member, were better than the Quakers, then is Mr. Keith an apostate, in revolting from, and deserting the Presbyterians, and turning his coat Quaker-fashion. But if the Quakers were more in the right than the Presbyterians, then _è contrá_.’

Now he appeared to fawn on the episcopal clergy, and esteemed lawful what formerly he had zealously oppugned. For he was in hopes that by opposing the Quakers he should be best rewarded among the Episcopalians; and this was not altogether without reason; for it being no more in their power now to persecute the Quakers in manner as formerly, they made use of other means as much as possibly they could, to render them and their doctrine odious; for which Keith seemed to them no unfit tool; for he being both of a witty impetuous temper, was also crafty, subtle, cunning, and violent in his expressions. And to charge the Quakers with inorthodoxy, he himself launched out into an heterodox sentiment. For it was believed, that for maintaining this position, that the historical knowledge of Christ’s sufferings, death, resurrection, &c. was absolutely necessary for salvation, he had no other ground than the twelve pretended transmigrations or transitions of man’s soul from one body into another; and because the ignorant souls from hence seemed to get opportunity of being informed, before the end of the world, concerning the death and resurrection of our Saviour. Who would have imagined before that this same G. Keith should have accused the Quakers of inorthodoxy in point of doctrine, which he had often so effectually defended; and among the rest, in a book against one Cotton Mather, wherein upon the charge of their being guilty of many heresies and blasphemies, he said after this manner; ‘Our principles do mostly agree with the fundamental articles of the Christian Protestant faith. According to my best knowledge of the people called Quakers, and those owned by them as preachers and publishers of their belief, being of an unquestionable esteem among them, and worthy of double honour, as there are many such, I know none of them that are guilty of such heresies and blasphemies as they are charged with. And I think I should know, and do know those called Quakers, having been conversant with them in public meetings as well as in private discourses, with the most noted and esteemed among them, for about twenty years past, and that in many places of the world, both in Europe and America.’ Who would ever have thought then, that one who had conversed so many years with the Quakers, preached their doctrine, and defended it publicly both by writing and by word of mouth, should afterwards have decried them, as deniers of the most essential points of the Christian faith? But to what extravagancies may not temporal gain transport a man, the case of Balaam may serve for an evidence.

I have in all this relation of Keith’s behaviour, set down nothing but what I believe to be really true; neither have I endeavoured to aggravate his failures; for I never bore him ill-will, but a good esteem when I believed him to be upright, because in that time I perceived in him some good abilities. And I yet wish from my very heart, that it may please God, in his unsearchable mercy, so to touch his heart, before the door of grace be shut, that seeing the greatness of his transgression, he may by true repentance, obtain forgiveness from the Lord, of his evil; which I take to be worse, because by his craftiness he endeavoured to set false colours on things that were really good, thereby to insinuate himself into favour with the episcopal party.[105] And since some others suborned thereto did no omit also to render the Quakers odious, as such that held inorthodox sentiments, these did not neglect to show in print, how they were injured and wronged. For now the old tale, that there were Popish emissaries among them, was revived and divulged anew. But it was no hard matter for them to show how ill-grounded this conceit was; and therefore they might say, ‘We are so well known to our neighbours, that if this were true, our adversaries would be very active to find out and discover such emissaries, since the law against them is still in force.’ Three episcopal clergymen in Norfolk, had also drawn up a paper to the king and parliament, to blacken the Quakers from their own writings; but George Whitehead, William Penn, and others, were not backward to show how their words, or the true meaning thereof, were perverted; since at such a rate, even the salutary lessons of the holy Scriptures might be exposed as wicked expressions.

[105] N. B. This was written some years before I heard G. Keith
was deceased.

Now the late king James intending an invasion upon England, and great preparations being made in France in order thereto, a plot was discovered in England against king William; this gave occasion to the House of Commons to draw up a kind of declaration, which was called an association, to be signed by all their members, as follows:

‘Whereas, there has been a horrible and detestable conspiracy,
formed and carried on by Papists, and other wicked and traitorous
persons for assassinating his majesty’s royal person, in order
to encourage an invasion from France, to subvert our religion,
laws, and liberties, we whose names are hereunto subscribed, do
heartily, sincerely, and solemnly promise, testify, and declare,
that his present majesty king William, is rightful and lawful
king of these realms. And we do mutually promise and engage to
stand by and assist each other, to the utmost of our power, in
the support and defence of his majesty’s most sacred person and
government, against the late king James, and all his adherents.
And in case his majesty come to any violent and untimely death,
which God forbid, we do hereby further freely and unanimously
oblige ourselves to unite, associate, and stand by each other, in
revenging the same upon his enemies and their adherents, and in
supporting and defending the succession of the crown, according
to an act made in the first year of the reign of king William and
queen Mary, entitled, ‘An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties
of the Subjects, and settling the succession of the Crown.’’

An association was also signed by the lords, and both presented to the king, and were followed by all the corporations in England. See Life of king William, vol. III. The dissenters also presented declarations to the king, that had some resemblance with the other. But the Quakers professing non-resistance, and an inoffensive behaviour, could in no wise enter into such a league; yet to show that they were loyal and faithful to the king, they drew up the following declaration, and published it in print:

_The ancient testimony and principle of the people called Quakers
renewed, with respect to the king and government, and touching
the present association:_

‘We, the said people, do solemnly and sincerely declare, that it
hath been our judgment and principle from the first day we were
called to profess the light of Christ Jesus manifested in our
consciences unto this day, that the setting up, and putting down
kings, and governments, is God’s peculiar prerogative, for causes
best known to himself; and that it is not our work or business
to have any hand or contrivance therein, nor to be busy-bodies
in matters above our station; much less to plot and contrive the
ruin or overturn of any of them; but to pray for the king and for
the safety of our nation, and good of all men, that we may live a
peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty, under the
government which God is pleased to set over us.

‘And according to this our ancient and innocent principle, we
often have given forth our testimony, and now do, against all
plotting, conspiracies, and contriving insurrections against the
king or the government, and against all treacherous, barbarous,
and murderous designs whatsoever, as works of the devil and
darkness: and we sincerely bless God, and are heartily thankful
to the king and government, for the liberty and privileges we
enjoy under them by law: esteeming it our duty to be true and
faithful to them.

‘And whereas, we the said people are required to sign the said
association, we sincerely declare, that our refusing so to do,
is not out of any disaffection to the king or government, nor
in opposition to his being declared rightful and lawful king of
these realms, but purely because we cannot for conscience-sake,
fight, kill, or revenge, either for ourselves or any man else.

‘And we believe that the timely discovery and prevention of the
late barbarous design and mischievous plot against the king and
government, and the sad effects it might have had, is an eminent
mercy from Almighty God; for which we, and the whole nation, have
great cause to be humbly thankful to him, and to pray for the
continuance of his mercies to them and us.

‘From a meeting of the said people in
London, the 23d of the first month,
called March, 1695-6.’

In this year Roger Haydock died of a fever, at his house in Penketh, in Lancashire, about the age of fifty-three years. He had been in Holland the year before, in which time I had more than once opportunity to speak with him privately, and thereby discovered such Christian qualities in him, that were indeed excellent; therefore the news of his decease did much affect me; and because of his ministry, in which he was eminent, being more than ordinary full of matter in his preaching, his death was much lamented among those churches in England where he had laboured most in the gospel. His wife Eleanor, in her testimony concerning him, said, ‘My spirit hath been, and is bowed under a deep sense of my great loss and exercise, in the removal of my dear husband, whom it hath pleased God in his wisdom to take away from me, who was comfort to my life, and joy to my days in this world, being given me of God, in great mercy and loving kindness; and so he hath been enjoyed by me in thankfulness of heart, to the close of that time God had appointed; and now is taken from the world, with all its troubles and exercises, as also from all his labours and travels, which were great amongst the churches of Christ, which with me have no small loss in his removal. But what shall I say: wise and good is the Lord, who doth what he will in heaven and in earth, and amongst his churches and his chosen. He can break and bind up, wound and heal, kill and make alive again, that the living may see his wonders, and magnify his power in all, through all, and over all, who is God eternal, blessed for ever. Amen.’

Then in her testimony she gives an account of his life, and how in her young years he had been to her a faithful instructor in godliness, and at length became her husband. After a description of his life, and his many travels in the ministry of the gospel, to edify and build up the churches, she saith also, that though his love to her was above all visibles, as the best of enjoyments he had in this world, yet she was not too dear to him to give up to serve the truth of God. ‘I was made,’ said she ‘a blessing to him, more comfortable every day than other: he would often express it; and truly so was he to me every day, every way, and in every respect. No tongue nor pen can relate the full of that comfort and joy we had in God and one in another. Yet we find such hath been the pleasure of God concerning them he hath loved, to try them in the most near and dear enjoyments, that it might be manifest he was loved above all; that no gifts may be preferred above the giver; but that he may be all in all, who is, and is to come, God blessed for ever. And truly there hath been great care and watchfulness one over another, and over our own spirits, to see that our love, though great, was bounded and kept within its compass, the truth being its original, the Alpha and Omega also. Although it hath been the pleasure of God to try me, in the removal of so great a blessing from me, sure it is, that I may be the more inward to him, and have his love always in my remembrance, who gives and takes away, and in all bless his name. My soul travails that I may always follow his foot-steps of self-denial in all things, that I may finish my course in this world to the glory of God, as he did, and have my part in that mansion of glory with him eternal in the heavens; though it may be my lot to stay for a time in this world of troubles, yet I have hope in immortality and eternal blessedness, when time in this world shall be no more.’ Thus she wrote: but to shun prolixity, I break off. She then giving some account of his life and ministry, mentions, that being gone from home, she was not present at his death; but that they having taken leave of each other before, had parted in great love, with mutual breathings to God, for one another’s welfare; and she concludes with these words: ‘Though I saw not his going away, yet I have seen in what he went, and that it was full of zeal and fervency in the love of God, and life of righteousness. So in pure submission to the will of God, I conclude this short and true relation of my worthy dear husband, whose name and memory is blessed, and will live, and be of a sweet savour in the hearts of the righteous through ages.’ With such a testimony it was, that Eleanor transmitted the memorial of her beloved consort to posterity.

1697.

Meeting in this year with no more remarkable occurrences, I pass over to 1697, in which a treaty of peace was concluded between England, France, and Holland, and though many thought it would be lasting, yet among the popish clergy there were those that had another opinion of it: of which this artificial distich, sent over by a clergyman from Ghent in Flanders to Holland, so that it fell first into my hands, was an evidence:

_Prospicimus modó quod durabunt Fœdera longo
Tempore, nec nobis pax citô diffugiet:_

which may be turned into English thus, ‘We foresee now that the confederacy shall last a long time, and that peace will not quickly fly away from us.’ But if one reads this distich, backward, it runs thus:

_Diffugiet citô pax nobis, nec tempore longo
Fœdera durabunt, quod modó prospicimus:_

and it makes out a quite contrary sense, viz. ‘Peace will soon fly from us, and the covenant shall not last long; which we foresee already.’

This peace being concluded, the inhabitants of England vied with one another to congratulate their king on that account, who was now acknowledged as king of Great Britain, by the French king Lewis XIV. And since the magistrates of cities, the heads and fellows of the universities, and people of all societies and persuasions addressed the king, the Quakers were not wanting in this respect, and therefore drew up also an address, which they presented to the king, and was as followeth:

TO KING WILLIAM III. OVER ENGLAND, &c.

_The grateful acknowledgment of the people commonly called
Quakers, humbly presented:_

‘May it please the King,

‘Seeing the most high God, who ruleth in the kingdoms of men, and
appointeth over them whomsoever he will, hath, by his overruling
power and providence, placed thee in dominion and dignity over
these realms; and by his divine favour hath signally preserved
and delivered thee from many great and eminent dangers, and
graciously turned the calamity of war into the desired mercy of
peace; we heartily wish that we and all others concerned may be
truly sensible and humbly thankful to Almighty God for the same,
that the peace may be a lasting and perpetual blessing.

‘And now, O king, the God of peace having returned thee in
safety, it is cause of joy to them that fear him, to hear
thy good and reasonable resolution effectually to discourage
profaneness and immorality, righteousness being that which
exalteth a nation: and as the king has been tenderly inclined to
give ease and liberty of conscience to his subjects of different
persuasions, (of whose favours we have largely partaken,) so we
esteem it our duty gratefully to commemorate and acknowledge the
same: earnestly beseeching Almighty God to assist the king to
prosecute all these his just and good inclinations, that his days
here may be happy and peaceable, and hereafter he may partake of
a lasting crown that will never fade away.’

London, the 7th of the 11th Month,
called January, 1697.

This address being signed, and presented to the king by George Whitehead, Thomas Lower, Daniel Quare, John Vaughton, John Edge, and Gilbert Latey, was favourably received and accepted by that prince; who gave signal proofs that he bore no ill will to any for difference of opinion in religion, if they were honest people; of which this may serve for an evidence, that both his watchmaker, and the nurse of the young duke of Gloucester, were of the Quakers’ persuasion.

1698.

I think it was about the beginning of the year 1698, that a bill was brought into parliament, for restraining the licentiousness of the press. Those called Quakers, perceiving that this might be pernicious, drew up the following remarks, which they delivered to the members of parliament:

_Some considerations humbly offered by the people called Quakers,
relating to the bill for restraining the licentiousness
of the press._

‘This bill is, they conceive, of the like nature with the expired
act, 13 and 14 Car. II. ch. 33, and many inconveniences did
attend the subjects by it whilst in force, by which the said
people were sufferers.

‘To prevent the printing and publishing of seditious or
treasonable books against the government, and scandalous
pamphlets tending to vice and immorality, is the wisdom of all
good governments, and must be the desire of all good men.

‘But to limit religious books to a license, where the tolerated
persuasions are many, they conceive, seems altogether unsafe to
all, but that whose opinion the licenser is of, who by this bill
hath power to allow what he shall judge sound and orthodox, or
reject what he shall construe to be either heretical, seditious,
or offensive.

‘History and experience have taught how the obscure term of
heresy hath been turned and stretched against primitive Christian
martyrs, and famous reformers: nor is it forgotten for what
reason the writ _De Hæretico Comburendo_ was abolished.

‘It is no strange thing to have learned men of the same church
interfere in their opinions concerning several texts of holy
scripture; and it is uncertain when their opinions come to the
licenser, whether the world shall have the best or no.

‘The different apprehensions men have of divers parts of
Scripture, gives birth to different persuasions, who yet all make
the Scripture the test thereof; which by the kindness of the
government being tolerated, they conceive they ought to be left
free to defend them from the misrepresentations, prejudice, or
mistake of others, without being subjected to the censure of a
licenser of a different persuasion.

‘They therefore humbly hope that nothing may be
enacted that will lessen the toleration, which
they thankfully enjoy under the favour of this,
as well as the late government.’

These considerations, with what others were offered, were of such effect, that the bill dropped.

About this time the writings of Antonia Bourignon were not only translated into English, but also published in print at London. This displeased many of the clergy, and an author was employed to write against them, but chiefly against the Quakers. He called his book, ‘The Snake in the Grass;’ but his own name he concealed; though it was discovered afterwards that he was a suppressed parson, who had refused the oath of allegiance to king William. This man, to render the Quakers odious, had picked up and collected many things from their writings; but he had so mutilated their expressions, by omitting several words that went before, or followed, and by skipping over some in the midst of the period, that they made out quite another sense than the authors had given. To this he added relations of several things that happened, as he said, among the Quakers. Whereas, some of these were fictitious, and mere untruths; he also raked up things that never had been approved by the Quakers, as the case of James Nayler, described here before in its due place; notwithstanding the said James Nayler had publicly given eminent tokens of true repentance.

Among the author’s untruths, this was one, that the Quakers in their schools did not suffer the children to read the holy Scriptures. The falseness of which was made to appear very evidently by a certificate of the French usher of one of their schools at Wandsworth, near London, who himself was no Quaker; as also by the testimonies of some of the neighbours that were people of note; and declared that the bible was daily read by the scholars in the said school, beginning with Genesis, and going on to the end of the Revelations: and then from Genesis again. The false citations of the aforesaid author, were also clearly set forth: for if any would be so malicious, it might by his method be insinuated from Psal. xiv. 1. and Psal. liii. 1. that in the holy Scriptures was said, ‘There is no God;’ because these words are indeed found there. But who would be so desperate as to draw such a conclusion from thence, unless he were an atheist, who openly made a mock of what is sacred. The answerers of this poisonous book, ‘The Snake in the Grass,’ were George Whitehead and Joseph Wyeth; this being a work which required more toil and labour than art, to review all those manifold citations from many authors, and to show the unfairness and disingenuity of the Snake. Now since many were very ready to take for true the falsities in that book, and also in the pamphlets of the apostate Francis Bugg, who was gone over to the church of England, at the request of John Crook, who was still alive, though above eighty years of age, a book of his was reprinted, first published in the year 1663, and so five and thirty years before, the title of which was, ‘Truth’s Principles concerning the Man Christ, his Suffering, Death, Resurrection, Faith in his Blood, the Imputation of his Righteousness,’ &c. By this it appeared that the sentiments of the Quakers concerning these points were not only orthodox now, but that they had been so in those early days.

1699.

Having thus again made mention of John Crook, of whom I have spoken several times in this history, I proceed now to mention somewhat concerning his decease, since he departed this life in the year 1699. He left behind in writing an exhortation or advice to his children and grand-children, written scarce two months before his death, and of this tenor:

‘_Dear Children_,

‘I must leave you in a wicked age, but commend you to the measure
of the grace of God in your inward parts, which you have received
by Jesus Christ; and as you love it, and mind the teachings of
it, you will find it a counsellor to instruct you in the way
everlasting, and preserve you out of the ways of the ungodly.

‘I have seen much in my days, and I always observed that the
fear of the Lord God proved the best portion: and those that
walked in it were the only happy people, both in this life, while
they continued faithful, and when they come to die, though they
meet with many hardships in their passage. By experience I can
speak it, that the ways of holiness afford more true comfort
and peace to the upright soul than the greatest pleasures this
world can afford; the former reaches the heart and soul, while
the delights of this world are but a show, and appearance only,
vanishing like a dream; and whoever believes otherwise of them,
will certainly find them to be but lying vanities; therefore
the apostle, Rom. vi. 21, might boldly put the question to the
converted Romans, viz. “What fruit had you then in those things
whereof you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is
death.”

‘Therefore, dear children, be in love with holiness; make it your
companion, and those that walk in it; you may find buddings of it
from an holy seed in your hearts; as you mind the inner man, the
light will manifest the stirrings of it after God, which I felt
from my tender years; although I understood them not so plainly
till I heard the truth declared.

‘I advise you to keep a pure conscience, both towards God and
man: for if that be defiled, hypocrisy and formality will deprive
you of all comfortable feeling of God’s presence; and then
deadness and dryness will be your miserable portion.

‘Be careful how you spend your precious time, for an account
must be given of every idle word, though but few regard it; but
foolish jesting and vain talking are said to grieve the spirit of
God; read Eph. iv. 29, 30. But improve your time in prayer and
religious exercises, &c. and be diligent in your lawful callings;
for, “The desire of the slothful man killeth him.” Prov. xxi. 25.

‘Be careful what company you frequent; for a man is commonly
known by the company he keeps, as much as by any one outward
thing: and of your behaviour in company; for I have found that a
wise and sober deportment, adds much to a man’s reputation and
credit in the world.

‘Watch to the light, and its discoveries of good and evil, that
you may not be ignorant of Satan’s devices; so the net will be
spread in vain in the sight of the bird, for watchfulness will
make you in love with a retired estate; and the more truly and
perfectly any man knows and understands himself, the better
discerning will such have of other men; as in the beginning,
when deep silence of all flesh was more in use, the spirit of
discerning was more common and quicker, than since it hath been
neglected; therefore be sure you spend some time, at convenient
seasons, in waiting upon God in silence, though it be displeasing
to flesh; for I have had more comfort and confirmation in the
truth, in my inward retiring in silence, than from all words I
have heard from others, though I have often been refreshed by
them also.

‘Love the Holy Scriptures, preferring them to all other books
whatsoever; and be careful to read them with an holy awe upon
your spirits, lest your imaginations put constructions upon them
to your hurt; but exercise faith in the promise of Christ, who
hath said, “My spirit shall take of mine, and show them unto you.”

‘Keep constantly to religious meetings amongst friends; but look
to your affections, that you respect not persons, but the power
and life of truth from whomsoever it comes; not minding the
tickling of your affections, but the demonstration of the truth
to your understandings and consciences; for that will abide, when
flashes of affections will fade and come to nothing, after the
words are ended.

‘Love one another truly, manifesting your love by good counsel,
and being helpful to each other upon all occasions; being good
examples to all you converse with, especially to your children,
and those of your own families; that pride and vanity may not
be countenanced by you, but rather reproved; remembering while
they are under your government, you must give an account of the
discharge of your duty to God towards them.

‘Lastly, Be always mindful of your latter end, and live as you
would die, not knowing how soon your days may be finished in this
world: and while you do live in it despise not the chastenings
of the Lord, whatever they be he is pleased to visit you withal.
I have been afflicted from my youth up, both inwardly and
outwardly, but the God whom I served provided for me, when all
my outward relations forsook me, none of them giving me any
portion to begin the world withal. This I speak, to let you know,
I shall leave more outwardly, even to the least of you than was
left me by all my relations, &c. I need not mention this sharp
affliction, beyond expression, in my old age, because, in some
measure, you know it; but I could not have been without it, as
the Lord hath showed me, or I have seen his wonders in the deeps;
therefore I say again, despise not afflictions, but embrace them
as messengers of peace to your souls, though displeasing to the
flesh.

‘These things I commend unto you, out of true love to your souls,
knowing how the vain mind of man little regards such advice as
this I leave behind me; but by this advice I show my true love to
you all, desiring God’s blessing upon it; to whom I commit you
all, my dear children, and end my days

Your loving father and grandfather,
JOHN CROOK.’

Hertford, the first of the First
month, 1698-99.

The sharp affliction he speaks of in this writing was more than one distemper, for the stone, gout, and cholic, attacked him sometimes sorely; and though this had been for a long time, yet he always behaved himself patiently, though his pain was sometimes so violent, that he was often heard to say, that did he not feel and witness inward power from the Lord, he could not subsist under his great pains. That of the stone was the greatest, which continued with him to his end; and yet he was not heard to utter any unsavoury word, or to cry out impatiently; but when the extremity of his fits were over, then he expressed his inward joy and peace, and so praised the Lord. He had an excellent gift in opening the mysteries of the holy Scriptures, so that he was like Apollos, of whom we find upon record, that he was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures. And by his zealous and effectual preaching, when he was in his strength of life, many were convinced of the truth. In his latter days he said sometimes that the furnace of affliction was of good use to purge away the dross and earthly part in us. And under the sorrow and grief he had concerning some of his offspring, he would sometimes comfort himself with the words of David, “Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure.” In his old age he was many times heard to say, ‘Many of the ancients are gone to their long home, and we are making haste after them: they step away before me, and I, that would go, cannot. Well, it will be my turn soon also.’ And then he seemed to rejoice in the consideration, that the time of his dissolution, to be freed from his sore distempers, approached apace. Yet in the latter part of his life he often appeared so strong in the spiritual warfare, that some judged that in some respect he might have said with Caleb, “As yet I am as strong this day, as I was in the day that Moses sent me; as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war, both to go out, and to come in.” About three weeks before his death, though he was weak in body, yet he said powerfully, and after a prophetical manner, ‘Truth must prosper, truth shall prosper, but a trying time must first come, and afterwards the glory of the Lord shall more and more appear.’ He continued in a sedate and truly Christian frame of mind to the last period of his life, and departed the 26th of the month called April, in the eighty-second year of his age, in his house at Hertford, where he had lived many years. I knew him in England, and he hath also been in Holland, so that I do not speak of one that was unknown to me.

1700.

George Keith, by vilifying the doctrine of the Quakers, was now so much in favour with the episcopal clergy, that he began to serve them as a vicar; having been ordained by the bishop of London about the year 1700. And since this seemed strange and wonderful to many, somebody, of what persuasion I do not know, made a collection of his sentiments concerning a national church, and its clergy, and what account he gave of their rites and ceremonies, from books and papers he had published many years before; to which the author gave this title, ‘Mr. George Keith’s Account of a National Church and Clergy, humbly presented to the bishop of London.’ To this were added some queries he once wrote concerning what is called the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. This account was now published in print, and presented to the bishop of London, ending with these words of the apostle, “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.”

1701.

In the next year, viz. 1701, the late king James died in France. I mentioned before how that unhappy prince, after having ascended the throne, fell suddenly by his hasty conduct, and ardent desire to introduce popery in England, and all his endeavours to regain his lost kingdoms proved ineffectual. In September, being at mass, he was seized with a qualm, and the distemper increasing, within a day or two he vomited blood, and all remedies made use of were unprofitable. If what was written about that time from Paris be true, he declared that he forgave all men what they had done amiss to him: and on the 16th of the said month he died at St. Germain’s, in France, where he kept his court.

* * * * *

King William was returned from Holland, where he had been, because of new troubles drawing on from France. And since the succession of the crown of England was now settled in the Protestant line, and for want of nearer Protestant heirs, then to the house of Hanover, the king was congratulated on that account with many addresses from his subjects: and therefore those called Quakers thought it also their duty to address him, against whose life a horrible plot was discovered, with a thankful acknowledgment of his favours. This they did as followeth, it being presented to the king in December, by George Whitehead, Wm. Mead, and Francis Camfield.

TO KING WILLIAM III. OVER ENGLAND, &c.

_An Address from the people commonly called Quakers humbly
presented:_

‘May it please the King,

‘We, thy dutiful subjects, sincerely express our joy for thy safe
return to thy people; having great cause to love, honour, and
pray for thee, as a prince whom we believe God hath promoted and
principled for the good ends of government, under whose reign we
enjoy great mercies and favours; and particularly that of liberty
to tender consciences in religious worship, as a proper expedient
to unite thy Protestant subjects in interest and affection.

‘For which great mercy we cannot but be humbly thankful to God;
and renew our grateful acknowledgment to the king, whom God by
his almighty power hath eminently preserved, and made exemplary
in prudence, as well as goodness, to other kings and princes,
whereby thy memorial will be renowned to posterity.

‘We are also engaged to bless the Lord for that he hath
manifestly frustrated the mischievous and treacherous designs
of thine and the nation’s adversaries, both against the lawful
establishment of thy throne, and the true interest of thy
Protestant subjects.

‘And we beseech Almighty God to bless the good designs and just
undertakings of the king, and his great council, for the good of
his people, and for obtaining to Europe a firm and lasting peace;
and continue thee, O king, a blessing to these nations, establish
thy throne in mercy and truth, give to thee a long and prosperous
reign over us, and hereafter a glorious immortality, is, and
shall be the fervent prayer of us, thy true and faithful subjects.

‘Signed in behalf and by appointment
of the aforesaid people, at a
meeting in London, the 8th month,
1701.’

This address being read to the king, was favourably received, and he thanked those that presented it. George Whitehead and the others saying what they thought material to the case, the king returned, ‘I have protected you, and shall protect you:’ and repairing with the address to his closet, he read it over again, as was understood afterwards, and spoke in its commendation. But he keeping the paper some days by him, without giving it to be made public by the Gazetteer, some French news-writers, at London, forged a very ridiculous address, and sent it beyond sea; and the French Gazetteers in Holland were very ready to divulge in their prints such fictitious stuff, though the expressions therein were so exceeding blunt and unmannerly, that they could not be spoken to a king, but by such who were impudent enough publicly to make a mock of crowned heads, which the Quakers never have been guilty of. After a few days the king gave the address to be made public; and then every body could see how shamefully the French newsmongers had exposed their malice.

1702.

This year being come to an end, that of 1702 followed, and also the end of king William’s life.

The French king, upon the death of the king of Spain, had not only placed his grandson, the duke of Anjou, on the throne of that kingdom, but had also acknowledged the pretended prince of Wales as king of England; by which, in a manner, he attained king William’s crown; who thereupon took occasion to make alliances for his security, with other princes and potentates. Of this he gave notice to the parliament that was then sitting, who promised to assist him to the utmost of their power, and to maintain the succession of the crown in the Protestant line. And an abjuration was also drawn up, wherein it was declared that the aforesaid pretended prince, who now suffered himself to be called James the Third, king of England, &c. had no right or claim to the crown of that kingdom, or any dominions appertaining thereto. Now though all this was intended for maintaining and assisting the rightful king William, yet he lived not to see the effect of it; for his time was near expired, and his glass run, as soon appeared.