1687.

About this time George Fox wrote several general epistles, some of which were pretty large, to his friends, exhorting them to shun strife, to keep to mutual love and unity, and to mind true piety. He wrote many other edifying papers; and since the Papists now appeared barefaced, and performed their worship publicly, and there was much talk of their praying to saints, and by beads; in the year 1687, he emitted the following paper concerning prayer, not fearing to contradict openly that which he judged to be superstition, though the king himself was of the popish religion.

On the 20th of the month called March, being the 1st month, Robert Widders, one of the first preachers among those called Quakers, died; and G. Fox was now much at London; but he grew more and more weak in body, having endured many hardships in cruel imprisonments for the truth. Sometimes he went into the country to take the fresh air, and at other times he was awhile at the country-house of his son-in-law, William Mead, who married one of his wife’s daughters. In the meanwhile he wrote much, for he was of a laborious temper, and did not omit under all his business to visit the meetings of his friends, and to edify them by his admonitions and exhortations. For now they were suffered to keep their meetings unmolested, since the king in the month called April, published his long expected declaration for liberty of conscience to all his subjects, which contained, That henceforth the execution of all penal laws concerning ecclesiastical matters, for not coming to church, for not receiving the sacraments, or for any other non-conformity with the established religion, or for performing religious worship in any other way, should be suspended, &c.

It would indeed have been more acceptable if this liberty had been established by the king and parliament, this being granted as yet only by virtue of his royal prerogative: but however it was, liberty was enjoyed. The friends therefore of the church at London, seeing how those of other persuasions presented addresses of thanks to the king, for his declaration for liberty of conscience, which was now published, and whereby the Dissenters were permitted to perform their worship freely, provided their preaching did not tend to make the minds of people averse to the government, thought it convenient to draw up an address also, and present it to the king; which was as followeth:

This address was received favourably, and therefore those of the yearly-meeting, which some time after was held at London, also drew up an address and some deputies of that meeting went to Windsor, where the court then was, and where W. Penn, one of those that had been chosen to present the address, made the following speech to the king:

After W. Penn had thus delivered himself, he presented the address to the king, which that prince kindly receiving, gave it him again to read; which W. Penn did, and it was as followeth:

After William Penn had read the said address, the king spoke as followeth.

Here we see what the king declared to be his intention; but perhaps that prince did not consider, that if such a general liberty had been procured, he should not have been able to make it continue longer than the Popish clergy would have thought it convenient. For who is ignorant what an unlimited power the Roman prelates have usurped, not only in the ecclesiastical, but also in the political part? Insomuch, that though the king’s intention might have been really sincere, yet it is like it would have been thwarted, though he might have been willing that it should be otherwise. That his meaning was sincere, several I know that were not of his persuasion, have believed, and among these there were such, who thought that liberty of conscience might have been so established, that it should not have been in the power of the Papists to break it. But time hath shown that king James was not to be the instrument for settling such a liberty of conscience; and that the repealing of the penal laws was reserved for another prince. Yet the king was by some thought to do what he could to stop rapacious persecutors, and to restrain their power, with respect to imposing of oaths. It is true it was said, that the king might not do so; for by granting this liberty to the Quakers, he opened a door for the Romanists to bear offices, without taking the required oaths. Now that he discharged the Quakers from these oaths, may appear by the following order to the lord mayor of London:

Now whereas in some places goods taken from the Quakers lay still unsold, the king ordered those goods to be restored to them, as may appear by the following letter, written to the mayor and aldermen of Leeds, in Yorkshire:

By such means some got their goods again, that had been taken from them upon the account of religious worship; for in many places they lay long unsold, because few would buy goods so taken. And that the king by these his favours, drew the love and affection of many of his subjects towards himself, none need to wonder; for whatever his religion was, he delivered them from that grievous burden, under which they had been oppressed so many years. To this may be added, that he used them kindly in all respects; and would not suffer his servants to molest any for not pulling off their hats, when they came near his royal person. Nay, so far went his condescension, that a certain countryman of the Quakers’ persuasion, coming to him with his hat on his head, the king took off his own hat, and held it under his arm; which the other seeing, said, ‘The king needs not keep off his hat for me.’ To which that prince returned, ‘You do not know the custom here, for that requires that but one hat must be on here.’ I have been told of more such like occurrences, which I pass by; but it appears from thence that the king endeavoured to have among the Quakers the repute of a mild and courteous prince. And this year he gave also full liberty of conscience in Scotland, and freed those that were still under sufferings, granting them the free liberty of their religious meetings. The said liberty he also allowed to the Presbyterians, provided they should not meet in the fields, or in sheds, as some did.

1688.

The king having thus granted liberty of conscience to people of all persuasions, did whatever he could to introduce popery in England; for he permitted the Jesuits to erect a college in the Savoy at London; and suffered the friars to go publicly in the dress of their monastical orders. This was a very strange sight to Protestants in England, and it caused no small fermentation in the minds of people, when the fellows of Magdalen College at Oxford, were by the king’s order dispossessed, to make way for Romanists. This was such a gross usurpation, that W. Penn, who had ready access to the king, and who endeavoured to get the penal laws and test abrogated, thinking it possible to find out a way whereby to limit the Papists so effectually, that they should not be able to prevail, did, for all that, not omit to blame this usurpation at Oxford, and to tell the king that it was an act which could not in justice be defended, since the general liberty of conscience did not allow of depriving any of their property, who did what they ought to do, as the fellows of the said college appeared to have done. But this could not cool the king’s zeal for popery, for he drove on so fast, without disguise, to that degree, that the pope’s nuncio, D’Ada, this summer made his public entry at Windsor in very great state.

Great endeavours were now made to repeal the penal laws and tests; for when this point was gained, then Papists might be admitted into the government as well as others; and such a general liberty of conscience making an alluring show, several dissenters, as Baptists and others, served the king with their pens on this account: and W. Penn, who always had been a defender of liberty of conscience, was also not inactive in this affair, though with a good intent, howbeit he might have failed in his expectation. I remember when in those days the patrons of the church of Rome asserted liberty of conscience to be a Christian duty, I heard somebody say, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the Leopard his spots?” The king laboured also to persuade the prince and princess of Orange, to give their assent to the repealing of the test and penal laws; but this could not be obtained of them. And since the king caused the advocate James Stuart, to write concerning this matter to the heer Fagel, counsellor and chief pensionary at the Hague; Fagel answered this paper in a letter to the said James Stuart, wherein he declared the judgment of the prince and princess in this case; and signified that they were willing to assent to the repealing of the penal laws, as far as they had any tendency to the exercise of worship; but as for those that debarred Papists from sitting in parliament, of which the test was not the least, they could not give their assent to the repealing of such limitations. This letter was generally approved by the Protestants in England, but the king for all that went on with the introducing of popery; and about the beginning of the year 1688, he not only put in several Romanists to be fellows of Magdalen College at Oxford, but endeavoured also to usher those of his persuasion into the magistracy; and the better to cloak this design, he would have other dissenters also chosen: but they generally rejected this offer, as did also Stephen Crisp, at Colchester, who was too circumspect to be caught thus, and therefore he declined the offer.

The king’s declaration for liberty of conscience was, on the 27th of the month called April, published again, to show that he was firm and constant in his resolution, and that his intentions were not changed since he issued it out, to excite his subjects to join in it, and to choose such members of parliament as might do their part to finish what he had begun. Hereto was annexed an order of the council, for reading this declaration in all churches and chapels throughout the kingdom; and ordering the bishops to send and distribute the declaration throughout their several dioceses, to be read accordingly. But they refused to do so, pretending it was not legal, (though some there were who thought it was,) because they were against liberty of conscience. Now the archbishop of Canterbury, and six other bishops, petitioned the king not to insist on the distribution and reading of his declaration; alleging that their great averseness to the distribution and publication of it in their churches proceeded neither from any want of duty and obedience to his majesty, nor yet from any want of due tenderness to dissenters; but because it was founded upon such a dispensing power, as had been often declared illegal in parliament.

This refusal the king so resented, that he sent these bishops to the tower. Whilst they were thus confined, there was much discourse every where about this matter; and since it was well known that some bishops had been the promoters of the former persecutions, some it seems spoke also in prejudice of these that were now in confinement. This being reported to them, they said that the Quakers belied them, and divulged that they, (the bishops,) had been the cause of the death of some. This gave occasion to Robert Barclay to visit the bishops in the tower; and speaking with them, he gave them undeniable proofs of some persons who, by order of bishops, had been kept in prison till death; though they had been told of the danger of those persons by physicians, that were not Quakers. This was so evidently manifested by R. Barclay, that they were not able to deny it: yet Barclay told them, that since they themselves were now under oppression, the intention of the Quakers was in no wise to publish such matters, lest thereby they should exasperate the king against them. And they were careful indeed not to do any thing that might aggravate the case of these prisoners; for it was not time now to rub old sores, since the bishops themselves seemed to be inclined to declare for liberty of conscience. And since this liberty was now enjoyed all over the kingdom, those called Quakers thought it convenient at their yearly meeting, which was held this summer at London, again to draw up an address to the king, and to acquaint him of one thing more, which continued to be troublesome to them. This address they presented to him, and was as followeth:

This address being presented to the king, was well received. Some have been ready to think, that the latter part of this address concerned the office of magistrates, which, not without reason, it is believed that a Christian might serve, with no more disparagement to an inoffensive life, than it is inconsistent for a pious father to give due correction to his rebellious child: for though our Saviour charges not to resist evil, but to love enemies: and that he reproving Peter, who from a forward zeal cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear, said to him, “Put up thy sword into the sheath:” and that also the apostle James disapproves war and fighting, yet we find in sacred writ, that the apostle Paul calls the magistrate, the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil: and he saith in plain terms, that he beareth not the sword in vain.

But to return to my relation, and to take up again the thread of this history, from which I have been diverted a little by this digression; I know there were some in those days, who thought that if people of all persuasions in England had a share in the government, proportionable to their number, a means might have been found out to hinder any party, especially the Papists, from exalting themselves above the others. But to me it seems not improbable, that if this had effect, and a higher hand had not cut off the way thereto, it would have appeared that those men did not reckon well. But it never came to this pass, for the king’s power was tottering already, though he endeavoured to support it, even with good means; for to be helpful to his subjects, who, though free-born men, were deprived of their freedom, merely because for conscience-sake they could not swear; and to help them to this right to which they were entitled as well as others, could not be judged undue means, unless under it had been hidden an intent to introduce this liberty also in favour of the Papists, though they did not believe swearing unlawful.

There were now at Norwich, about forty of the people called Quakers, who having petitioned the king, that he would be pleased to cause them to be made freemen, obtained the following order from him:

It was now said commonly that the king might not do thus; and those who grudged the Quakers this liberty, did not stick to set forth this dispensation in very ill-favoured colours; nay, they said that William Penn advised the king to do what he could not do without breaking his promise. Yet if the king had made no greater infringement, his reign it may be would have lasted longer: but the dispossessing of the fellows of Magdalen College at Oxford, the imprisonment of the bishops, and the public admittance of jesuits and monks, caused a ferment in the minds of people. Now the bishops were tried at the king’s bench bar, in Westminster-Hall; but they were acquitted, and so released. The king also had appointed some ecclesiastical commissioners; but many looked upon this as a kind of inquisition, and it seemed not well to agree with liberty of conscience, which if he had maintained justly, according to the advice of the Quakers in their address, it is not likely that he would have come to such a strait, as now he was put to.

Not long before this time, one Theophila Townsend, a woman of years, and understanding, published a book, wherein she gave a relation of the grievous persecution her friends in Gloucestershire had suffered, by imprisonment and spoil of goods, and how she herself had also undergone many sufferings, and had been imprisoned in the castle of Gloucester more than three years. Among other cases, she relates also, how some time before her imprisonment, it happened, that by order of the justices, Thomas Cutler and James George, she being seized in the street, said to the latter, that the Lord would plead her cause, and that what measure he meted, should be measured to him again. And it thus happened, that before she was released, the wife of the said George, who took her from her husband, was by death taken from him. Afterwards this George came with the bishop of Gloucester into a meeting, where Theophila was on her knees praying; at which the bishop asking him whether she was the woman he spoke of, and he answering, ‘Yes, my lord;’ the bishop took her by the arm with such violence, that he had almost pulled her down backward, saying, ‘Give over, woman, and obey the king’s officers.’ But such was her zeal, that it could not be stopped; for the more opposition she met with, the more she felt herself encouraged, and inspired, to praise God for his goodness: and though the bishop stirred up the justice, yet it seemed not in his power to break off the current of her speech; so that they let her alone, till she having discharged herself, stood up. Then the names of those that were met, were taken in writing: and sometime after, she, though aged and weakly, was in winter-season led three or four miles through the snow, and committed to jail at Gloucester, where she was kept three years and four months, and then released by king James.

Afterward she published a book, as hath been said already, in which she gave an account how some of her friends had been beaten, punched, and abused, to that degree, that they died of it, as she testified to have seen herself: ‘Yet,’ said she, ‘though many died who were stronger than I, it hath pleased the Lord to preserve my life, that I may speak to the praise of his name, and tell of his wonders, and put you, persecutors, once more in mind of what belongs to your peace. Blessed be the Lord, he is risen for Zion’s sake, which ye have ploughed long as a field; and when their enemies have done their worst, then the Lord shall make his Zion to be an everlasting glory, and Jerusalem the praise of the whole earth. And as ye see now in others that persecution is evil, so see it also in yourselves; repent in dust and ashes. Remember who it was that said, the wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool walketh in darkness. The eyes of fools look out for mistakes in others, and they blame in others what they are guilty of themselves. Methinks the eye-lids of the morning, that is now dawned and rising before you, ought to bring you to a true sight of your condition in this matter.’ Going on thus, she reproves the informers who had enriched themselves with the spoils of their neighbours; and she also relates how the priest of Gloucester had put his name to a petition to the king, in which, justice George, and others, desired that the meeting-house of the Quakers might be given to the town, to make a work-house of for the poor. ‘But,’ said she, ‘this is like Judas, who, when the woman came with an alabaster box of very precious spikenard, said, ‘Why was this waste made? Why was not this ointment sold, and the money given to the poor?’ But the scripture saith, that this he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag. Thus the priest made it appear by what he did, that he was not a true minister of the gospel; for he came short of the works of the law, which saith, ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.’ And Christ commands to do unto men, what we would have them to do to us; by which it is plain that such doings are contrary to the law and the gospel. Those now who will have such blind sleepy watchmen to be their teachers, let them pay them, and not constrain others, who know them to be blind, to pay them also.’

Then speaking to those who had a hand in the spoiling of goods, and setting forth the odiousness of that work, she saith at last, ‘I do not write this from a spirit of revenge against any, but it is in the love of God, to warn you, and to exhort you to repentance, that ye may find mercy with the Lord, which is the real desire of my soul: I can truly say, in the presence of the Lord, that I have nothing in my heart but love and good-will to the worst of our enemies, and this in purity of heart, and in sincerity of mind. I desire really your eternal peace, and well-being, though ye have hardened your hearts against the Lord, and his truth and people. Turn to the Lord, I beseech you; bow before the Almighty, who will plead with all flesh, and shall call all to an account, and reward every one according to what he hath done in the body, whether it be good or bad. Consider this therefore whilst ye have time, and mind the things that belong to your peace, before they be hid from your eyes: for the long suffering of the Lord will come to an end, who said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man.” Therefore whilst the spirit of the Lord, his light, his grace, yet strives in your hearts, to turn you off from your evil ways, be willing to embrace it, believe in it, take counsel of it, submit to it with all your heart, be willing to be led and guided by it, and incline your hearts to follow it in all things, and then it will lead you to rest and peace with the Lord for ever.’ Yet more she said; but I break off. By such kind of emphatical speeches, sometimes persecutors have been so touched to the heart, that they themselves became harmless Christians.

I am come now almost to a conclusion of my relation concerning persecution; of which I could have written much more, but that I was unwilling to extend my work beyond what I should have been well able to complete. Yet before I altogether part with this matter, I will mention something concerning Theophilus Green, of whom mention hath been made before. He lived at Battersea, not far from London, and was a man beloved of his neighbours, because of his honest conversation; yet he was much persecuted, both for attending meetings, and for preaching. Once it happened that some officers came to his house to see whether there was a meeting, and they behaved themselves moderately: for what they did seemed against their mind, it being only in obedience to the order of justice Duke, who, on account of a former offence, had issued out warrants to make distress. The officers not satisfied in the case, and seeing no meeting, went their way, and returned the warrant; and T. Green went afterwards to the said justice, and speaking to him, said amongst the rest, ‘Consider what that mouth and tongue of thine hath said formerly, viz. that I had been ever kind to thee; and is this the way of requiting it? Know for certain, that that God whom I have served, and for whose cause I now suffer, will avenge me; for vengeance is the Lord’s, and he will repay it one way or other, except thou speedily repentest.’ At this saying the justice began to tremble, and crying out, said, ‘I will do you no more hurt than I will do my own soul. Pray go to the officers and tell them, I will never trouble them any more upon the account of you.’ Green did so; and they were glad of it. And Duke being upon some complaint dismissed, one Sir John Broadrick succeeded in his room; and he was so moderate, that he prevented the informers, by keeping Theophilus and his friends out of their meeting-house, which was for about two years and a half.

Afterwards they were suffered again to go into their meeting-house, but then justice Forster came once, and taking their names, fined Theophilus 10l. as a preacher. And afterwards he with others coming with a constable to seize for the fine, the constable being come to the door of the house, said, ‘Neighbour Green, where are you? We are come to seize your goods, if you will let us in.’ But this so displeased the justice, that going down the yard, and seeing some oars and poles, he required the constable to take them away. To which he answered, ‘I am no porter.’ ‘Then,’ said the justice, ‘command some others to do it.’ To which the constable returned, ‘I command you to do it.’ This so enraged the justice, that he fined him. Some time after the said justice coming again with an high constable, and another petty constable, seized a barge, and had it carried away, and several times offered it to sale, but none would buy it. And after it had been carried about from place to place for sale, at length it was found adrift by one who knew not of its being seized; and hearing that it was Theophilus’s barge, he brought it to him. But Theophilus went to the constables, and told them how it came to him, and where he had it, saying, since it was come to him again he was willing to keep it; but if they took it away again he would not hinder them. This account being given to the justice, he sent a warrant, and committed Theophilus to the Marshalsea prison. After three weeks the sessions was held at the Marshalsea; and the last day the said justice came to him in the prison, saying, he came out of love to see him, and to advise him for his good; which was, that he would have him pay his fine; ‘for,’ said he, ‘I am sure the grand jury hath found the bill against you; and if you should come off, I have such an influence with the judge, as to cause the oath to be tendered to you; and I know you will not take it; and then you will be run to a premunire, and are not like to come out as long as you live.’ To which Theophilus answered, ‘Thou saidst thy coming was in love, to advise me for my good; but by what thou hast said, it appears the contrary; for now I perceive thou hast devised as much mischief as thou canst against me. As to the fine, if it were but ten pence, nay ten farthings, I would not pay it. And if the Lord should permit thee to do as thou hast said, and so be the cause of bringing my grey hairs the sooner to the grave, my blood will be at justice Forster’s door, and it will cry vengeance against thee.’

The next day the two constables being called before the grand jury, were asked what they had against Theophilus Green, that stood there indicted; and the high constable answered, ‘As to Theophilus Green, he is as honest a man, though a Quaker, as lives about us; and he was lately in office for the poor, and behaved himself as well in it as any hath done these twenty years. And touching the barge he is indicted for, when it came to him he came to us, and told how it came, and where he had laid it, saying, if we would take it away again he would not hinder us. This is all we have to say.’ Some of the grand jury knowing Theophilus very well, and the cause too, did aggravate the matter very high against the justice: and as to the indictment they brought it in ignoramus. So Theophilus was cleared by proclamation: and sir Richard How, being one of the jury, advised him to arrest the justice, there being two good actions, as defamation and false imprisonment. But Theophilus said he owned their love, but would leave the thing to the Lord, for whose cause he suffered; for vengeance was the Lord’s, and he would repay it. And it was but some little time after that the said justice Forster died, as was reported, in great horror and misery. The time when this happened I do not know exactly, yet I take it to have been some years before the time I now describe. We see by this instance a very singular deliverance, such as did not befal every one, but which could not but encourage Theophilus the more.

Before I conclude this year I must mention something concerning W. Penn, who when the government of king James was sinking, not only bore the blame of many miscarriages; but by some was styled a Papist, though this was altogether false. But he had a great many enemies; and it was no new thing to brand the Quakers with the odious name of jesuits: for thirty years before this time at Bristol great endeavours were used to persuade people they were Franciscans. William Penn patiently bore the slander of being decried as a Papist, saying but little in justification of himself, till at length he made a return to a letter sent by one who seriously begged of him to give an answer to those accusations that had been forged in prejudice of his reputation. In this paper he ascribed his free access to the king, partly to the relation his father, as admiral, and to the service of the said king, and who was then duke of York, and high admiral of England; and his special favour also in releasing him out of the tower of London in the year 1669. To this he added, ‘My father’s humble request to him, upon his death-bed, was, to protect me from the inconveniences and troubles my persuasion might expose me unto; and his friendly promise to do it, and exact performance of it, from the moment I addressed myself to him: I say, when all this is considered, any body that hath the least pretence to good-nature, gratitude, or generosity, must needs know how to interpret my access to the king.—Is any thing more foolish as well as false, than that because I am often at Whitehall, therefore I must be author of all that is done there, that doth not please abroad. But supposing some such things to have been done; pray tell me if I am bound to oppose any thing I am not called to do: I never was a member of council, cabinet, or committee, where the affairs of the kingdom are transacted. I have had no office or trust, and consequently nothing can be said to be done by me; nor for that reason could I lie under any test or any obligation to discover my opinion of public acts of state: and therefore, neither can any such acts, nor any silence about them, in justice be made my crime. Volunteers are blanks and cyphers in all governments. And unless calling at Whitehall once a day, upon many occasions, or my not being turned out of nothing, (for that no office is,) be the evidence of my compliance in disagreeable things, I know not what else can with any truth be alleged against me. I am not without apprehensions of the cause of this behaviour towards me; I mean my constant zeal for an impartial liberty of conscience. But if that be it, the cause is too good to be in pain about it. I ever understood that to be the natural right of all men; and that he that had a religion without it, his religion was none of his own. For what is not the religion of man’s choice, is the religion of him that imposes it: so that liberty of conscience is the first step to have a religion. This is no new opinion with me, I have wrote many apologies within the last twenty years to defend it, and that impartially. Yet I have as constantly declared, that bounds ought to be set to this freedom, and that morality was the best; and that as often as that was violated under a pretence of conscience, it was fit the civil power should take place. Nor did I ever once think of promoting any sort of liberty of conscience for any body, which did not preserve the common protestancy of the kingdom, and the ancient rights of the government: for to say truth, the one cannot be maintained without the other.—And till I saw my own friends, with the kingdom delivered from the legal bondage which penal laws for religion had subjected them to, I could with no satisfaction think of leaving England, though much to my prejudice beyond sea, and at my great expense here, having in all this time never had either office, or pension, and always refusing the rewards or gratuities of those I have been able to oblige.’ From this little abstract of William Penn’s Apology, it appears sufficiently what kind of liberty he defended; and such a liberty afterwards took place in the reign of the next king.

Of George Fox I have been long silent, and I do not meet with any very remarkable transactions that concerned him, except that he wrote much, both for edification of his friends, and for the instruction and admonition of others; for he was continually occupied with the care of the church, and that things might be kept in good order, which to perform the better, he now staid a long while in and about London.

In this year died William Dewsbury, one of the first preachers among those called Quakers; having been a very zealous teacher, and an eminent instrument to the conversion of many. He was born in Yorkshire, and in his youth was a shepherd, and afterwards put apprentice to a clothier; but when the civil wars broke out, he became a soldier and joined with those who said they fought for the gospel. Now though he was religious according to his knowledge; yet growing more and more serious, and turning his mind inwardly, he saw there were inward and spiritual enemies to encounter with, according to the saying of the apostle, ‘We wrestle not against flesh and blood; but against spiritual wickedness,’ &c. And this state was inwardly manifested to him in the words of our Saviour: ‘Put up thy sword into the sheath. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.’ This wrought so powerfully upon his mind, that he could no longer meddle with martial affairs, but left the army; and returned to his former calling, endeavouring to improve in true godliness, in which he so advanced gradually, that when George Fox in the year 1651, came to Balby in Yorkshire, and preached the gospel there, he could not but consent to the doctrine declared by him, as being the same of which he himself was already convinced in his mind, viz. that heed ought to be given to the inward Divine reprovings for that which is evil; which doctrine was preached by George Fox under the denomination of the true light, which enlighteneth every man coming into the world; and that heed must be given thereunto, as being the grace which brings salvation, of which the apostle speaks in his epistle to Titus, ii. 11, saying, “That it hath appeared to all men.” W. Dewsbury having heard such a sermon as this, agreed not only with G. Fox in this point of doctrine, but in process of time became himself also a very zealous preacher of it, for which he fell under great sufferings; insomuch that he was prisoner at Warwick nineteen years for religion’s sake, besides the imprisonments he suffered on that account in other places. But being now released, he came in the month called May to London, and preached a sermon there concerning regeneration, which was taken from his mouth in short hand, and afterwards printed as underneath.[52] His intention was to have been at the yearly meeting of his friends; but by illness he was prevented; and therefore before he grew worse, he returned to Warwick, where he lived. Being come thither, his disease increased, and lying very sick in bed, and being visited by some of his friends, he said to them in great weakness of body, as followeth:

Thus fervent in spirit was W. Dewsbury in his latter end, and he prayed to God very earnestly for all his friends, especially those that were met at the annual assembly at London. And so he very piously departed this life at his house, in a good old age, in the month called June, in this current year. He was indeed a man of a remarkable zeal and perception. He spoke sometimes to young lads as to men, telling them that the blessing of the Lord would rest upon them if they lived a godly life: some of which being since come to man’s estate, have experienced the truth of his saying.

Two days before the decease of William Dewsbury, Rebecca Travers departed this life at about the age of seventy-nine years. She was a woman exceedingly well gifted; and spoke not only sometimes in public for edification of the church, but wrote also several books for the advancement of piety; in one of which she signified, that though she had been a reader of the Scriptures from a child of six years old; yet when by the power of the eternal gospel she was turned from darkness to light, the Scriptures then became much more plain to her, as not wanting interpretation. She was an excellent open-hearted woman, and took great care of the poor: she had several times been imprisoned for religion, but persevered constantly in the faith, and so piously entered into eternal rest.

As to state affairs, there now appeared a wonderful agitation in England, since it was reported that the queen was big with child. And the endeavours for introducing popery, besides the encroaching upon some rights and privileges, caused such a stir, that William the third, prince of Orange, and stadtholder, (or lord deputy,) of Holland, &c. was intreated and invited by the English Protestants, to come to their assistance. This at length he did, and came over with a fleet, and a considerable number of forces. What was the issue of this expedition, is very amply described by other pens, and not properly my province to relate; wherefore I think it sufficient to my purpose to say, that the prince after some difficulty at sea, came into England; where having many adherents, the king, many of whose forces deserted him, resolved to go to France, whither the queen with the young child was gone sometime before. Accordingly he went over, where he was well received by the French king, who provided him a court at St. Germain’s. In the meanwhile the prince of Orange came to London, and was saluted there by the great ones as the deliverer of England. The lord mayor of the said city, with the aldermen and the sheriffs, having congratulated him, the prince sent for some of the members of former parliaments to come to him, and signified to them that he had desired them to meet to advise him in the best manner how to pursue the ends of his declaration in calling a free parliament, for the preservation of the Protestant religion, the restoring of the rights and liberties of the kingdom, and settling the same, that they might not be in danger of being again subverted.

In answer to this, thanks were given to the prince for his care and pains in defence of the people, their religion, and laws. And all things took a favourable turn for him.

In Holland a good while before a paper was published in print, called, ‘A Copy of a Letter written by a Quaker at London to his Friend at Rotterdam.’ In which forged letter were mentioned several things that were not altogether untrue, and the prince’s going over to England, was also in a manner predicted. Who was the author of the said letter, I could never learn, but of this I am fully satisfied, that he was no Quaker; for it never was their way to ridicule princes, and to characterize them with ridiculous denominations, as in the said letter we find mentioned, of James of Great Britain, Mary of Modena, William of Orange, and Mary of England, his wife. This was no more the language of Quakers, than the following expressions that are found in this letter. ‘The Spirit hath inspired me to tell thee, I should not be able to declare my opinion, before the Spirit shall have revealed it to me. If the Spirit doth dictate it to thee, go and speak with him. Dentsch hath had a revelation, and the Spirit hath assured him,’ &c. This foolish language betrays itself, and serves for a palpable evidence, that it never proceeded from the pen of any of the people called Quakers. But perhaps the author of that letter knew a secret of state, whereof, (to remain unknown,) he would acquaint the world in a ridiculous way; that under the cloak of being a Quaker, he should best continue undiscovered, and that by this device the letter would spread the more, as indeed it did; for it had a very quick vent.

---