1694.

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

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

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

1695.

It was not only for not bearing arms that the Quakers suffered thus; but frequent occasions were sought to vex them. For when they, to bring their negroes, if possible, to some knowledge of the true God, caused them to meet together for an hour or two once a week, to instruct them according to their capacity, by reading to them some part of the Holy Scriptures, and speaking something to this purpose; a law was made, forbidding the Quakers to let their negroes come into their meetings, though kept in their own houses, on pain of forfeiting every such negro as was found there, or ten pounds instead thereof. And by one Thomas Cobham, an action was brought against Ralph Fretwell, for eighty negroes of his own at a meeting in his own family. But though the justice, John Merrick, did what he could to countenance the said Cobham, yet after several sessions of the court, at which the said justice was an assistant, judgment was given in favour of the defendant; and it was remarkable that the abovesaid Cobham, though a lusty likely young man, became dejected, and generally slighted; and soon after was taken with a fever and an inflammation in his neck and throat, which so increased, that towards his latter end he cried out, ‘Fire, fire; I am all on fire;’ and to his mother he said, she needed not provide a coffin for him; for he should be burnt up before it was made: crying out, ‘Neither heaven nor hell, but all fire, fire;’ to which he added, ‘Now the Quakers will say it is a judgment fallen on me.’ After this manner he miserably ended his days. And justice Merrick’s exit was also dismal: for riding to his house, after having drank too much, he was thrown from his horse, whereby his brain was so hurt, that he lay some days in a violent raving condition, to the terror of his friends, and so died. In like manner William Sharp, a judge of the court, who had been a great opposer to the Quakers instructing their negroes, riding from his house to Bridgetown, fell from his horse, and was so hurt, that he was not heard to speak any thing else afterwards, but ‘O my head;’ and three or four days after his fall, he died.

Sir Timothy Thornhill, major-general, had often threatened to take away the Quakers’ lives, and was such an abominable blasphemer, that I feel myself seized with horror in reading the most detestable and direful blasphemies which this monstrous wretch belched out: for being at a feast, and drinking so excessively, that some of the company refused to drink so hard, he wished, (shall I say it, or be silent,) Seipsum esse Deum Omnipotentem, quò posset damnare animas eorum qui cum ipso bibere nollent. At another time, being in company where a woman, by way of discourse, spoke of the power and omnipotency of Almighty God, he returned this accursed language, worse than that of the devil himself, Matt. iv. ‘God damn ye, go to the top of yonder tree, and see if God Almighty can save you from breaking your neck before you come to the bottom.’ Other devilish language he spoke, I pass by with silence. When once a person was brought before him for not appearing in arms, and told him, he could not do so for conscience-sake, he returned, ‘God damn your conscience; if I cannot make your conscience bow, I will make your stubborn dog’s back bend,’ and so tied him neck and heels with his own hands so violently that he almost deprived the man of life. He also once, when a declaration of war was published in the island, said, that the first time any enemy appeared, he would hang up the Quakers, binding his words with abominable oaths, to which he was so accustomed, that he seldom spoke without them. But now at length the time came that he must remove from this to the other world. He had been sick, and being pretty well recovered, he boasted among his companions of his conquest over death, and daringly said that he had taken a new lease of his life from God Almighty for thirty years longer. But within a few months after, the thread of his life was cut, and his pretended lease was taken from him by the Sovereign of the universe. Thus he died unlamented by moderate people, and cursed by others, who lost considerably by him, notwithstanding a great estate left him by his father.

But more happy was his marshal, John Batt, who had taken much goods from the Quakers; yet on his dying bed, some years before, viz. 1679, was so sensibly touched with repentance, that he caused the following paper to be written, and signed it.

1696.

Well had others done, if they had taken example by it; but it was not in vain that our Saviour in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, made Abraham say to the rich man, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” But other persecutors took no caution by this penitent John Batt; for yet not long after some others in Barbadoes most furiously showed their malice and rage against the Quakers, and among these one Alexander Ruddock, a Scotchman, who was not only a colonel of a regiment of foot, but also judge of a court, and one of the council. He caused one of the society of the Quakers to be rated four hundred pounds of sugar, for payment of the priest’s wages, who was his son-in-law; whereas upon complaint of the said person, and upon inquiry, it appeared that the pretended due was but ten pounds of sugar: and it was well known that he and his friends duly paid for maintaining the poor, and for mending highways: but all this could not avail him; for a cow was taken from him worth ten pounds sterling. And though some of the magistrates, seeing the unreasonableness of these proceedings, would have had the cow returned to the right owner, yet such was the power of the said Ruddock, that they were not able to withstand it. And because the aforesaid man had complained of the wrong and oppression he suffered, that so incensed Ruddock, that he caused him to be fined five pounds sterling, for having refused to take the oath as constable, though he was willing to have served the office. For this fine Ruddock issued out a warrant against him, upon which was taken from him a negro woman, that by the management of Ruddock was valued at about two thousand three hundred pounds of sugar, which as the price of sugar then went, might amount to eleven pounds ten shillings: and yet the negro was sold for six and twenty pounds sterling, and all kept for the fine of five pounds. From this same man was taken the value of above seven thousand pounds of sugar in one year, by the direction of Ruddock; which the sufferer laying before him in the presence of his daughter, the priest’s wife, and telling him he had suffered all that for complaining of the wrong he had done him about his cow, he, as rejoicing at it, said it should be so yearly, so long as he was magistrate. But he did not live a year after.

He was of a fierce temper, and very ready to put negroes to death for example, saying, ‘What is it for Barbadoes to put twenty or thirty negroes to death yearly for example sake?’ And as he vexed the Quakers many ways, so he showed his grudge also by taking the meat they bought and paid for; nay, so malicious he was, that meeting once a butcher carrying meat to the house of him that bought it, he commanded him to carry it back, saying the Quakers shall not eat fresh meat. But at length the measure of his iniquity was full: he came from the council, where an order was issued from the governor to break up the Quakers’ meetings, and he promised the governor diligently to obey all his commands. But in his very way home he was taken ill, and being come to his house, he called for some cream of tartar, which he used to take in his broth; but by his own mistake he took arsenic instead thereof, and so wretchedly ended his days. And how wicked soever he was, yet the priest Kennedy, his countryman, did not stick when he was to preach his funeral sermon, to take his text from these words of the apostle, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.” And in this sermon it was declared of him, that he had attained to the prudence of a judge, the dignity of a colonel, and the honour of a counsellor; and that he had served his king and country faithfully, and died a saint. This last expression seemed to regard some repentance he had showed; but whatever it was, we must commit that to God; and in the meanwhile not rely too much on such a repentance: since Judas also repented of his wickedness. If I did not study brevity, I could relate more remarkable cases concerning the persecutors in Barbadoes; but I break off.

Now I return to England, where the parliament sitting the latter end of this year, had effectually taken in hand the making an act to ease the people called Quakers from that heavy burden of swearing; but this work met with great opposition: for though many good-natured members were inclined to it in good earnest, yet their enemies were so active in altering and clipping the bill, that it looked almost as if the whole project would have come to nought. But the king himself forwarded the work, and to his praise be it said, he was the principal promoter of it: insomuch that in the beginning of the year 1696, it was enacted by the king and parliament, that the solemn affirmation and declaration of the people called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an oath in the usual form, as appears by the act, which was as followeth:

Thus the Quakers became discharged and free from that grievous burden by which they had been oppressed so many years. This parliament made also an act for enforcing the laws which restrain marriages without licenses or bands; and for the better registering marriages, births, and burials; and for keeping a distinct register of all persons born; for which no more was to be paid than sixpence.

Mention hath been made already that George Keith had at London got a place called Turner’s-hall to preach in; and as his auditory consisted chiefly of persons envious against the Quakers, so there were among these also many of the vulgar sort, who generally are fickle and unsteady, and often inclined to novelties: though Keith would as yet in some respect be looked upon as an adherent of the Quakers, he also had published some papers, wherein he endeavoured to make it appear that they held several heterodox sentiments.

The books which he had published concerning this matter were so fully answered by the Quakers, that he being at a loss to make a reply to their answers, pretended that he was not in a condition to set the press at work, and bear the charges of the impression. But that this was a frivolous evasion was well known. Yet he, to do something, fell upon another project, and published an advertisement, that on the 11th of the month called June, he would defend his charge against the Quakers, and therefore he summoned some of them to appear there at the time, to answer for themselves. Beginning now to comply with the Episcopalians, he had, as he said afterwards, given notice of his intention to the lord mayor of London, who not having forbidden it, he grew the more bold. But the Quakers did not think it meet to appear there to enter into a dispute with him, the rather because the king at that time was beyond sea, and many of the vulgar were idle for want of work and trade, occasioned by the scarcity of money, which then was very great, by reason of the recoining it, insomuch that it could not be foreseen whether some disaffected persons might not have got together, and caused a dangerous disturbance. And therefore, they declined to appear there, and gave the following reasons of their refusal, which were read in the appointed meeting, and afterwards published in print:

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.