Chapter II (2)

Being returned to LONDON, I stayed some time there, visiting Friends’ meetings in and about the city. While I was in London, I went one day to visit Esquire Marsh, who had showed much kindness both to me and to Friends; I happened to go when he was at dinner. He no sooner heard my name, than he sent for me up, and would have had me sit down with him to dinner; but I had not freedom to do so. Several great persons were at dinner with him; and he said to one of them who was a great Papist, “Here is a Quaker, whom you have not seen before.” The Papist asked me, “whether I owned the christening of children?” I told him, “there was no Scripture for any such practice.” “What,” said he, “not for christening children?” I said, “nay.” I told him, “the one baptism by the one Spirit into one body we owned; but to throw a little water on a child’s face, and say that was baptizing and christening it, there was no Scripture for that.” Then he asked me, “whether I owned the Catholic faith,” I said, “yes,” but added, that “neither the Pope nor the Papists were in that Catholic faith; for the true faith works by love, and purifies the heart, and if they were in that faith that gives victory, by which they might have access to God, they would not tell the people of a purgatory after they were dead.” So I undertook to prove that “neither Pope nor Papists that held a purgatory hereafter, were in the true faith; for the true, precious, divine faith, which Christ is the author of, gives victory over the devil and sin, that had separated man and woman from God. And if they, the Papists, were in the true faith, they would never use racks, prisons, and fines, to persecute and force others to their religion, that were not of their faith. This was not the practice of the apostles and primitive Christians, who witnessed and enjoyed the true faith of Christ; but it was the practice of the faithless Jews and Heathens so to do.

“But,” said I, “seeing thou art a great and leading man among the Papists, and hast been taught and bred up under the Pope, and seeing thou sayest, ‘there is no salvation but in your church,’ I desire to know of thee, what it is that doth bring salvation in your church?” He answered, “a good life.” “And nothing else?” said I. “Yes,” he said, “good works.” “And is this it that brings salvation in your church, a good life and good works? Is this your doctrine and principle?” said I. “Yes,” said he. “Then,” said I, “neither thou, nor the Pope, nor any of the Papists know what it is that brings salvation.” Then he asked me, what brought salvation in our church? I told him, “that which brought salvation to the church in the apostles’ days, the same brought salvation to us, and not another; namely, ‘the Grace of God,’ which, the Scripture says, brings salvation, and hath appeared to all men, which taught the saints then, and teaches us now. This Grace which brings salvation, teaches to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly. So it is not the good works nor the good life that brings salvation, but the Grace.” “What!” said the Papist, “doth this Grace that brings salvation, appear unto all men?” “Yes,” said I. “Then,” said he, “I deny that.” I replied, “all that deny that, are sect-makers, and are not in the universal faith, grace, and truth, which the apostles were in.”

Then he spoke to me about the mother church. I told him, “the several sects in Christendom had accused us, and said, ‘we forsook our mother-church.’ The Papists charged us with forsaking their church, saying, ‘Rome was the only mother-church.’ The Episcopalians taxed us with forsaking the old Protestant religion, alleging, ‘theirs was the reformed mother-church.’ The Presbyterians and Independents blamed us for leaving them, each of them pretending, ‘theirs was the right reformed church.’” But, I said “if we could own any outward city or place to be the mother-church, we should own Jerusalem, where the gospel was first preached by Christ himself and his apostles, where Christ suffered, where the great conversion to Christianity by Peter was, where were the types, figures, and shadows, which Christ ended, and where Christ commanded his disciples to ‘wait until they were endued with power from on high.’ If any outward place deserved to be called the mother, that was the place where the first great conversion to Christianity was. But the apostle saith, Gal. iv. 25-27, ‘Jerusalem, which now is, is in bondage with her children; but Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all.’ For it is written, ‘Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.’ The apostle does not say, outward Jerusalem was the mother, though the first and great conversion to Christianity was there. And there is less reason for the title [mother] to be given to Rome, or to any other outward place or city, by the children of Jerusalem, that is above and free; neither are they Jerusalem’s children, that is above and free, who give the title of mother either to outward Jerusalem, to Rome, or to any other place or sect of people. And though this title [mother] hath been given to places and sects amongst and by the degenerate Christians, yet still we say, as the apostle said of old, ‘Jerusalem that is above, is the mother of us all.’ And we can own no other, neither outward Jerusalem nor Rome, nor any sect of people for our mother, but Jerusalem which is above, which is free, the mother of all that are born again, and are become true believers in the light, grafted in Christ, the heavenly Vine. For all who are born again of the immortal Seed, by the Word of God, which lives and abides for ever, feed upon the milk of the Word, the breasts of life, and grow by it in life, and cannot acknowledge any other to be their mother but Jerusalem which is above.” “O,” said Esquire Marsh to the Papist, “You do not know this man, if he would but come to church now and then, he would be a brave man.”

After some other discourse, I went aside with Justice Marsh into another room, to speak with him concerning Friends; for he was a justice of peace for Middlesex, and being a courtier, the other justices put much of the management of affairs upon him. He told me “he was in a strait how to act between us and some other Dissenters. For,” said he, “you cannot swear, and the Independents, Baptists, and Fifth-monarchy people say also they cannot swear; therefore,” said he, “how shall I know how to distinguish betwixt you and them, seeing they and you all say it is for conscience’ sake that you cannot swear?” I answered “I will show thee how to distinguish. They, or most of them, thou speakest of, can and do swear in some cases, but we cannot swear in any case. If a man should steal their cows and horses, and thou shouldst ask them whether they would swear they were theirs; many of them would readily do it. But if thou try our Friends, they cannot swear for their own goods. Therefore, when thou puttest the oath of allegiance to any of them, ask them, ‘whether they can swear in any other case, as for their cow or horse;’ which, if they be really of us, they cannot do, though they can bear witness to the truth.” Hereupon I gave him a relation of a trial in Berkshire, which was thus: A thief stole two beasts from a Friend of ours, the thief was taken and cast into prison, and the Friend appeared against him at the assizes. But somebody having informed the judge, that the prosecutor was a Quaker, and could not swear, the judge, before he heard what the Friend could say, said, “Is he a Quaker? and will he not swear? Then tender him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.” So he cast the Friend into prison, and premunired him, and set the thief at liberty that had stolen his goods. Justice Marsh, said, “that judge was a wicked man.” “But,” said I, “if we could swear in any case, we would take the oath of allegiance to the king, who is to preserve the laws that are to support every man in his estate. Whereas others, that can swear in some cases to preserve a part of their estates, if they be robbed, will not take this oath to the king, who is to preserve them in their whole estates and bodies also. So that thou mayest easily distinguish, and put a difference between us and those people.” Justice Marsh was afterwards very serviceable to Friends in this and other cases; for he kept several, both Friends and others, from being premunired. When Friends were brought before him in time of persecution, he set many of them at liberty; and when he could not avoid sending to prison, he sent some for a few hours, or for a night. At length he went to the king, and told him, “he had sent some of us to prison contrary to his conscience, and he could not do so any more.” Wherefore he removed his family from Limehouse, where he lived, and took lodgings near St. James’s Park. He told the king that “if he would be pleased to give liberty of conscience, that would quiet and settle all; for then none could have any pretence to be uneasy.” And indeed he was a very serviceable man to truth and Friends in his day.

We had great service at London this year; the Lord’s truth came over all, and many that had gone out from truth came in again, confessing and condemning their outgoings. After I had stayed some time in London, I visited Friends in SURREY and SUSSEX, and in other places that way, and afterwards travelled northward, having Leonard Fell with me. We visited Friends till we came to WARWICK, where many were in prison; and we had a meeting in the town. I passed thence to BIRMINGHAM and BADDESLEY. At Baddesley I had a large meeting; after which I came to NOTTINGHAM, where on First-day we had a precious meeting, but not without danger of being apprehended, the constables having threatened to take up Friends.

I passed thence, visiting Friends, till I came to BALBY, and so to YORK, to the quarterly meeting; and a blessed time we had. Friends in Yorkshire had seven monthly meetings before; and they were so sensible of the service of them, that they desired to have seven more added to them, for truth was much spread in that county. So they were established; and now they have fourteen monthly meetings in that county.[18]

It being the assizes at York, I met with Justice Hotham, a well-wisher to Friends, who had been tender, and very kind to me from the first.

After I had finished my service for the Lord in York, I passed into the country. As I went a great burthen fell upon me, but I did not presently know the reason of it. I came to a meeting on First-day at Richard Shipton’s, which was very large, but there being one the same day at another place also, the priest of that place, being misinformed that I was to be there, got a warrant, and made great disturbance at that meeting; of which Isaac Lindley, who was there, gave me an account in the following letter:—

G.F.

“When thou went from York, the First-day after thou wast at
Richard Shipton’s, that day I had appointed a meeting ten miles
from York, where there had not been one before. But the priest and
the constable got a warrant on the seventh day, and put thy name
only in the warrant, for they had heard that thou wast to be
there. They came with weapons and staves, and cried, ‘Where is Mr.
Fox?’ over and over; many Friends being there, they concluded thou
wast among them. But those raveners, being disappointed, plucked
me down and abused me, and beat some Friends, and then took me
before a magistrate, but he set me at liberty.”

ISAAC LINDLEY.

Then I visited Friends at WHITBY and SCARBRO’. When at Scarbro’, the governor hearing I was come, sent to invite me to his house, saying, “surely I would not be so unkind as not to come and see him and his wife.” After the meeting I went up to visit him, and he received me very courteously and lovingly.

Having visited most of the meetings in Yorkshire, the WOLDS, and HOLDERNESS, I came to Henry Jackson’s, where I had a great meeting. Thence to Thomas Taylor’s, and so to John Moor’s at ELDRETH, where we had a very large meeting; the Lord’s power and presence were eminently amongst us. Not far from this place lay Colonel Kirby, lame of the gout, who had threatened that “if ever I came near he would send me to prison again; and had bid forty pounds to any man that could take me;” as I was credibly informed.

After this I came into STAFFORDSHIRE, and CHESHIRE, where we had many large and precious meetings. I had a very large one at William Barnes’s house, about two miles from WARRINGTON; and though Colonel Kirby was out again, as violent in breaking up meetings as before, and was then at Warrington, the Lord did not suffer him to come to this meeting; and so we were preserved out of his hands.

-----

Footnote 14:

For some very interesting particulars respecting the setting up of
Monthly and other disciplinary Meetings and their object, see
_Letters of Early Friends_, pp. 288-292.

Footnote 15:

The William Smith mentioned here was originally pastor of an
Independent congregation, living after the strictest manner of
that people. He was convinced about the year 1658, and became a
faithful labourer in the gospel. Many were turned to God by him,
for he proved himself a minister of Jesus Christ, in labours, in
travails, in watchings, necessities, and distresses, suffering
much loss of goods and long and tedious imprisonments. For not
paying tithes he was imprisoned twenty-one weeks among felons in
Nottingham jail; and another time had the value of £42 taken from
him, whilst he was in prison, for £7 demanded by the priest of
Elton.

In the times of his frequent imprisonments, William Smith wrote
several books, which were printed together in a folio volume in
1675, entitled _Balm from Gilead, &c._ When at liberty he
travelled abroad strengthening the brethren, and though often
visited by sickness, he was kept in patience and content, much of
the power and presence of God appearing in him many times when he
was in great weakness of body, to the admiration of beholders.
During his last sickness, one evening, many Friends being in the
room sitting in silence, he turned in his bed towards them, and
plentifully declared of the love of God, by which they were much
refreshed and tendered. He also testified of a large portion which
he had in life eternal. Then he spoke to Friends “to be mindful of
truth, and of their service therein, more than of their daily
food; and so committed them to the grace of God.” The day before
he died he called his children (six or seven), and tenderly
exhorted them “to keep in the fear of God, and to love the truth,
and God would be a father and portion to them.”

Footnote 16:

Some interesting documents, exhibiting the early care of the
Society with regard to marriages, may be referred to in _Letters,
&c., of Early Friends_, p. 259, 279, 283, &c. So early as 1659, at
a meeting of Friends from four counties, an _Epistle of Counsel
and Advice_ was issued on this, and other subjects; recommending
“that no marriage take place hastily or rashly; but in the fear of
the Lord, and in the presence of many witnesses, according to
Scripture example; that so no scandal or blemish may be laid upon
the truth, but that all may be brought to the light; that a record
in writing of the day, place, and year, be kept within the meeting
where a marriage occurs, of which one or both are members; under
which the witnesses may set their names.”

Footnote 17:

In the establishment of the schools at Waltham and at Shacklewell,
at the suggestion of George Fox, we have evidence of his desire
that a useful education should be imparted to youth. It is an
error to suppose the early Friends depreciated human learning, and
they must be exonerated from any such charge. They exhibited in
their own persons, the practicability of the union of knowledge
and virtue. While they were, many of them, eminent for their
learning, they were distinguished for the piety of their lives.
They were indeed the friends of both, but did not patronise the
one to the prejudice and expulsion of the other. They always
maintained (as Friends continue to do) that learning is not
necessary to make a gospel minister, and here it is that many have
mistaken their meaning.

Barclay, in his celebrated _Apology_, nowhere condemns the
propriety, or usefulness of human learning, or denies it to be
promotive of the temporal comforts of man. He says the knowledge
of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, or of Logic and Philosophy, of Ethics
or of Physics and Metaphysics, is not necessary. But mark his
meaning. Not necessary to make a minister of the gospel. But where
does he say that knowledge, which he himself possessed to such a
considerable extent, was not necessary; or that it did not
contribute to the innocent pleasures of life? What would have been
the character of his own book, or what would have been its
comparative value and usefulness, had he not been able to quote so
many authors to his purpose in their original texts, or to have
detected so many classical errors, introduced such apposite
history, or to have drawn up his propositions with so much logical
and mathematical clearness and precision; if he had not been among
the first literary characters of his day?

William Penn was equally celebrated with Barclay as a scholar. His
works afford abundant proof of his erudition, and of the high
cultivation of his mind. Like the rest of his associates, he was
no advocate for learning as a qualification for a minister of the
gospel; but he was yet a friend to it, on the principle that it
enlarged the understanding, and that it added to the innocent
pleasures of the mind. He entreated his wife, in the beautiful
letter he left her before he embarked on his first voyage to
America, “not to be sparing of expense in procuring learning for
his children; for that by such parsimony, all was lost that was
saved.” And he recommended also, in the same letter, a
mathematical and philosophical education.

Penn’s Secretary, James Logan, was also a patron of learning among
the early Friends. He was a correspondent of Sir Hans Sloane and
other literati of Europe, a contributor to Philosophical
Transactions, and bequeathed his library, of 3000 vols. on arts
and sciences in various languages, to the city of Philadelphia,
with an endowment to preserve it for public use.

Thomas Ellwood, the companion of Milton, was so sensible of the
disadvantages arising from a want of knowledge, that he revived
his learning with great industry after he had become a Friend. “I
mentioned before,” says he in his Journal, “that when I was a boy
I made some progress in learning, and that I lost it all again
before I came to be a man. Nor was I rightly sensible of my loss
therein, till I came amongst Friends. But there I both saw my loss
and lamented it, and applied myself with the utmost diligence at
all leisure times to recover it. So false I found that charge to
be, which in those times was cast as a reproach on the Society,
that they despised and decried all human learning, because they
denied it to be essentially necessary to a gospel ministry, which
was one of the controversies of those times.” Ellwood’s friend,
Isaac Penington, assisted him in this matter, and through his
influence with Dr. Paget, procured him the means of improvement in
becoming a reader to Milton.

Footnote 18:

The fourteen monthly meetings mentioned above as settled in
Yorkshire so early as 1669, were York, Balby, Pontefract,
Brighouse, Knaresbro’, Settle, Malton, Thirsk, Richmond, Guisbro’,
Scarbro’, Kelk, Oustwick, and Elloughton.