EDWARD CHILTON.’

Windsor, the 22d of the 11th month,

1660.

It is remarkable, that this Chilton in the conclusion of his letter

saith, that his bonds were greater than those of his friends, who

neither feared a premunire, nor loss of their liberty, when they must

pay so dear for it, as the taking of an oath. For when any one truly

abides in the fear of God, he dares not, against the convictions of his

conscience, transgress the Divine commandments, and seek evasions to

avoid the stress thereof: for certainly God will not be mocked. Could

our Saviour have spoken in more plain and express terms than he did,

when he said, “Swear not at all?” And yet what cunning devices have

been invented by those who boast of the name of Christians, to enervate

the force of these express words. It is not a proper place here to

refute their reasons; but yet I cannot think it unsuitable to show

briefly how dangerous it is to act against the express commandments of

sacred writ, and against the conviction of one’s conscience, thereby

to avoid persecution: for not only the apostle James saith, “Whosoever

shall offend in one point, he is guilty of all;” but our supreme

lawgiver Christ himself saith, “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him

will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. And whosoever

shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, of him also shall the Son

of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with

the holy angels.” And to encourage us to faithfulness he hath also

said, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the

soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body

in hell.” Which words indeed are so emphatical, that it ought not to

displease any that I repeat them, as they have been left on record by

the evangelist Luke, viz. thus, “I say unto you, my friends, be not

afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that

they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him,

which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say

unto you, fear him.” Can it be otherwise, but that such words must

needs make a powerful impression on a real Christian? And the more

when we consider, that nothing in the world can retrieve or restore a

perishing soul, as may appear from these of our blessed Lord, “What

is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own

soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” A clear proof

that the whole world, and all that is contained therein, is not able

to save one soul, or to afford any thing that can redeem it. If I here

thought it requisite, a godly zeal at present would make me say more on

this subject; but not to expatiate too far beyond the limits of this

historical tract, I shall not pursue this digression any further, but

return to my relation from whence I thus stepped aside.

To take up again then the broken thread of my discourse, I once more

come to Jeremy Ives, who, to avoid persecution, had taken the oath

contrary to his understanding; and it was Thomas Rudyard, mentioned

here before, who objected this to him; and he feeling himself pinched

by it, endeavoured to break the stress thereof by saying, that the

reason why in a letter he had blamed a friend, was for his saying

he had rather have given fifty pounds than have took the oath of

allegiance, and yet swore he took it freely and willingly. But who sees

not what a poor shift this was?

Now to come to the dispute; I already mentioned it was asserted, that

the Quakers were no Christians; and to maintain this, Thomas Hicks

said, ‘They that deny the Lord’s Christ, are no Christians: but the

Quakers deny the Lord’s Christ,’ &c. To which W. Penn said, ‘I deny

the minor, viz. that the Quakers deny the Lord’s Christ.’ And T. Hicks

returned, ‘They that deny Christ to be a distinct person without them,

deny the Lord’s Christ; but the Quakers deny Christ to be a distinct

person without them: therefore,’ &c. W. Penn then desired that T.

Hicks would explain what he meant by the term person. And T. Hicks

answered, ‘I mean the man Christ Jesus.’ To which W. Penn replied,

‘Then I deny the minor, viz. that we deny the man Christ Jesus.’ To

which Hicks returned, ‘I prove ye deny the man Christ Jesus. One of

your own writers saith, that Christ was never seen with carnal eyes,

nor heard with carnal ears,’ &c. To this J. Ives added, ‘He that

denies that Christ was ever seen with carnal eyes, &c. denies the man

Christ: but the Quakers deny that Christ was ever seen with carnal

eyes,’ &c. George Keith then said, ‘I answer by distinguishing: Christ

as God was never seen with carnal eyes; but as man he was seen with

carnal eyes.’ To this J. Ives returned: ‘But he was Christ as he was

man: how then was not Christ seen with carnal eyes?’ To this question

G. Keith answered thus: ‘We are to consider that the terms or names

Jesus Christ, are sometimes applied to him as God, and sometimes to

him as man; yea, sometimes to the very body of Jesus: but the question

is, whether do those names more properly, immediately, and originally

belong to him as God, or as he was before he took the manhood upon

him; or to the manhood? We affirm, those names are given to him most

properly and eminently as God; and less properly, yet truly, as man;

and least properly to his body, yea to his dead body.’ Then J. Ives

asked, ‘Where do you read that the carcase was called the Christ?’ This

irreverent expression so displeased many, that some cried out, ‘Where

didst thou ever read that Christ’s dead body was called a carcase?’

From this disgust W. Penn said, ‘I beseech you for the Lord’s sake,

that we may treat of these things as becomes Christians.’

G. Keith then resuming the discourse, answered J. Ives’s question thus:

‘I prove that the dead body of Jesus was called Christ, from the words

of Mary, “Where have ye laid him?” For she had just before called the

body her Lord: likewise the angel said to her, “See the place where

the Lord lay:” and that he was Jesus Christ before he took flesh,

I prove from the saying of the apostle, “Who created all things by

Jesus Christ.”’ Then T. Hicks said, ‘I will prove the Quakers to be no

Christians:’ and J. Ives added, ‘They that say that Christ cannot be

seen with carnal eyes, and was never visible to wicked men, do deny the

Lord’s Christ; for he was seen with carnal eyes, and by wicked men.’ To

this W. Penn said, ‘I distinguish upon the word seen; wicked men might

see him in that bodily appearance, and yet not see him to be the Christ

of God; they saw his manhood, but not his Christship: this I will prove

from Christ’s words to Peter, when he confessed him to be Christ, the

Son of the living God, viz. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this

unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven:” therefore Peter with a

carnal eye could not have seen the Lord’s Christ, much less wicked

men. My second proof is from the apostle’s words, “Whom none of the

princes of this world knew; for had they known him, they would not have

crucified him.”’ W. Penn enlarging a little more on this subject, said

also, that seeing and knowing in Scriptures are sometimes equivalent.

And G. Keith added, ‘Christ said, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the

Father:” but no wicked man hath seen the Father, therefore no wicked

man hath seen Christ, as such.’ Ives and his companions scoffed at

this distinction: but the Quakers averred, that all who saw Jesus

as the carpenter’s son, did not see him as the Christ of God. Then

Ives asked, ‘Is the manhood a part of the Lord’s Christ?’ To which W.

Penn returned, ‘Is this to prove the charge of our denying the Lord’s

Christ? It seems we must be here to be catechised, and ye will not

answer us one question, yet I shall answer J. Ives his question, if he

will promise to answer mine.’

Ives then saying that he would answer it, W. Penn returned, ‘I here

declare, that we do faithfully believe that holy manhood to be a member

of the Christ of God:’ and directing his question to Ives, he said,

‘Was he the Christ of God before he was manifest in the flesh?’ ‘He

was,’ answered Ives, ‘the Son of God.’ ‘But,’ replied W. Penn, ‘Was

he the Lord’s Christ? I will prove him to have been the Lord’s Christ

as well before as after: first from the apostle Paul’s words to the

Corinthians, “That rock was Christ:” next from Jude, where some Greek

copies have it thus, “That Jesus brought the people of Israel out of

Egypt.”’ But to this Ives gave no answer, how often soever he was

called upon for it. And this was no great wonder, since it was well

known that there were such among the Baptists who favoured the Socinian

principles. But Ives, that he might not appear altogether mute, came

on again with a question, viz. ‘Do ye believe that Christ in his human

nature is in heaven?’ This made G. Whitehead say to the auditory,

‘Ye have heard the charge against us, and the distinction that hath

been made between seeing, and seeing of Christ, as namely between the

spiritual saving sight of the Lord’s Christ, and the seeing of his

outward man, person, or body. In this last sense it could never be

intended that it was not visible to the outward eye; but it was the

spiritual rock which all Israel drank of, and as he was before Abraham

was, and as glorified with the Father before the world began; and as

Christ himself said to Philip, “He that seeth me, seeth my Father

also:” and only saints, or children of light, could truly say, “We have

seen his glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and

truth.” In all which considerations, or senses of seeing, the Lord’s

Christ was only seen spiritually, and not with carnal eyes.’ This

Ives granted, that so it might be left: yet presently after, instead

of proving the Quakers no Christians, he asked again, ‘Do ye believe

or own that Christ is in heaven with his human nature?’ To which W.

Penn answered, ‘We do believe the man Christ Jesus to be glorified in

heaven.’ Which answer Ives refusing to accept, because it was not in

the terms of his question, Penn asked, ‘What difference dost thou make

between the manhood and human nature of Christ?’ ‘None,’ returned Ives,

‘if you mean candidly.’ To which Penn replied, ‘I do mean and speak

candidly; we do believe that holy manhood to be in heavenly glory.’

Now since it began to grow dark, the Baptists desired to leave off,

and to resume the matter at another time; as was done also: but the

parties did not agree for all that; for though the Baptists continued

to assert that the Quakers were no Christians, yet these had abundance

of reasons to maintain the contrary; and this they did so effectually,

that those of the other party, under a pretence of the meeting-place

being overcharged with people, and that the gallery gave way, broke up

the meeting, without a final conclusion.

Prosecution in this year was not very sharp at London, but for all

that, active in other places, so that I do not want matter to make a

relation of it; but to shun prolixity, I will mention but one case.

One Robert Tilles, in Buckingham, sick of a consumption, and believing

his death to be nigh at hand, desired some of his friends to visit him.

At this invitation some came to his house, yet not above the number

of fourteen persons; and two informers went and acquainted a justice

of the peace thereof, who recorded this small assembly as a seditious

meeting, and fined the sick man twenty pounds for this pretended

transgression; and so his goods were seized, and six cows taken from

him. And one Robert Smith, being overheard by the informers to have

spoken five or six words, was fined also twenty pounds as a preacher;

which fine was afterwards extorted from some others then present.

The peace between England and Holland was concluded this year, at the

instance of Spain, but the war between Holland and France continued

still.

1675.

I now pass over to the year 1675. About the beginning whereof G. Fox

came to London, whilst the parliament was sitting, who advised the

king to the suppressing of the growth of popery; but in the meanwhile

the Quakers bore the chiefest shock; for their religious meetings were

styled seditious conventicles.

After G. Fox had been at the yearly-meeting of his friends at

London, he left the city, and went to Lancaster, and from thence to

Swarthmore, where having a dwelling-place of his own, he staid about

two years to rest himself: having contracted distempers by hardships

and imprisonments, which had much weakened his body. Being there,

he understood that four young students at Aberdeen were convinced

at a dispute held by Robert Barclay and George Keith, with some of

the scholars of that university. And being visited by some of the

neighbourhood, among others came also to him colonel Kirby, his old

persecutor, who now carried himself very lovingly, and bid him welcome

into the country. Yet notwithstanding this appearance of kindness,

sometime afterwards he ordered the constables of Ulverstone to tell G.

Fox, that they must have no more meetings at Swarthmore, for if they

had, they were commanded by him to break them up; and they were to come

the next Sunday after. But this threatening did not make G. F. afraid;

for he, with his friends, had a meeting on that First day of the week,

and none came to disturb them. During his abode at home, when he did

not travel to and fro in the country, as he used to do, to edify his

friends by his ministry, he supplied this with his pen, and exhorted

them by writing, where he could not do it by word of mouth: besides he

wrote other serviceable treatises, for he was a diligent man.

In the meanwhile persecution for the worship of God did not cease

altogether: the act against seditious conventicles gave opportunity

to the malicious to disturb the religious meetings of the Quakers,

who never met in a clandestine manner, but always publicly: and on

this account fines were extorted from them; to which may be added,

that oftentimes they were still very ill treated, and most grievously

abused, as among the rest at Long Clawston in Leicestershire, where

some women were dragged by the neck along the street; and among these a

widow, the skin of whose neck was rubbed off by this rudeness; and an

ancient woman, above seventy, was violently cast down to the ground.

Some of the men were dragged by the hair, and others by their legs,

besides the many blows given them: and some were trodden upon till

the blood gushed out of their mouth and nose. Yet all this they bore

patiently, without making any resistance; whereby it happened sometimes

that some who had not the gift of preaching, reached others by their

patient suffering; showing by their meek behaviour, that their works

did agree with their Christian profession: and though many were robbed

of all they had, even clothes and beds not excepted, yet they continued

steadfast without fainting; though often it was called a meeting when

some were come together, not properly to perform religious worship, as

hath been related already.

At Kirby Muckloe, where some were come to the house of John Penford, to

provide for their poor, the priest of the parish, called John Dixon,

informed against them by letter to Wenlock Stanly of Branston, who

sent three of his servants to take inspection of the said meeting;

and though these looking into the book, in which the charitable

distributions were entered, found that this meeting had been only to

consider of the necessities of the poor, yet several were fined, and

Penford himself twenty pounds for his house, and ten pounds for the

preacher, when there was never any one there; but they having heard him

speak, this was counted sufficient to make him pass for a preacher.

Now though he and Richard Woodland appealed for justice, yet the court

positively denied their appeal, unless they would first take the oath

of allegiance. This was the old snare, so that the hearing of the

matter was denied, and treble damage given against them.

At Lewes in Sussex, the priest, William Snat, became himself an

informer, and went several times to the Quakers’ meeting there; and

from thence to the justice Henry Shully, to whom he declared on oath,

in whose house the meeting had been, and who had preached; and this

was so gross, that once he gave a false information with respect to the

house; but the gain proceeding from this work, how abominable soever,

did shine so alluringly, that his kinsman, James Clark, entered upon

this informer’s office: which any one could easily do, without making

suit for it.

In Norfolk, the rage of the persecutors was such, that some having been

bereaved of all, were obliged, even in winter time, (as amongst the

rest, Joseph Harrison, with his wife and children,) to lie on straw;

and yet they, unwearied, did not leave frequenting their religious

meeting; nay, even the dead were not suffered to rest, for outrageous

barbarity came to that pitch, that Mary, the wife of Francis Larder,

being dead and buried, was, by order of one Thomas Bretland, dug up

again, whereby the coffin was broken, which they tied together, and

carrying it away, exposed the corpse in the market-place. Thus this

deceased woman was no more suffered to lie quiet in her grave, than in

her sick bed, where the day before her death, she had been threatened

by order of one Christopher Bedinfield, to have her bed taken from

under her while living. Now the reason of thus taking up the corpse

was, that though her husband was one of those called Quakers, yet she

not being properly a member of that society, it was taken ill that

she had been buried in a plain way, without paying to the priest his

pretended due, for the ordinary service over the dead.

In Somersetshire thirty-two persons were fined for having been at

a burial. The like happened in the county of Derby, where Samuel

Roe, (his wife being deceased,) was fined twenty pounds, because his

friends met in his house to conduct the corpse to the grave. Of this

the priest, John Wilson, was informer to the justice of peace, John

Loe; and out of the house of the said Samuel Roe, was taken the value

of thirty pounds; so that the share of the informer was no less than

ten pounds; since according to law, his due was a third of the spoil.

I could here relate several instances of great adversities, and sad

mischiefs that befel cruel persecutors; but not to expatiate too far, I

have silently passed by many remarkable cases.

Yet, in general terms I may say, that many of the persecutors, both

justices, informers, and others, came to a miserable end: some being

by sudden, or unnatural death, and others by lingering sicknesses, or

distempers, or by foul and stinking diseases, taken out of this life;

whilst some, who by spoil had scraped much together, fell to great

poverty and beggary; whose names I could set down, and mention also

time and place; and among these some rapacious ecclesiastics, who came

to a sad end; but I studiously omit particularizing such instances,

to avoid the appearance of grudging and envy. Some of those that had

been so active in spoil, signified themselves the terrible remorse of

conscience they felt, because of their having persecuted the Quakers;

insomuch, that they roared out their gnawing grief, mixed with despair,

under the grievous pains they suffered in their body. And it was judged

by many a very remarkable case, that one Christopher Glin, priest at

Burford, who had acted with a very indiscreet zeal against the Quakers,

having about the year 1663, read his text in the pulpit, and then

intending to read his sermon, was on a sudden struck with blindness,

and continued blind till he died. But none of the persecutors seemed

to take notice, or to regard such instances; for they let their rage

loose against the Quakers; who, for all that continued in patience,

though they did not think it unlawful to give notice of the grievous

oppression their friends suffered, to those that were in authority;

lest they might have excused themselves as ignorant of these violent

proceedings. Therefore it was not omitted to publish in public print,

many of those crying instances that have been related here, and to

present them to the king and parliament, with humble addresses to that

purpose. But all this found but small entrance. King Charles it seems

was not to be the man that should take off this yoke of oppression;

this work was reserved for others. His brother James that succeeded

him, made a beginning thereof, with what intention Heaven knows; and

William III. that excellent prince, brought it to perfection as far as

it was in his power.

This year deceased at sea William Bayly, coming from the West Indies,

in the ship called the Samuel, of London, in the latitude of 46 degrees

and 36 minutes: he had been a teacher among the Baptists, and had read

much in the books of Jacob Behmen, but could not find thereby true

satisfaction to his soul. And being afterwards entered into society

with the Quakers, so called, he became a zealous preacher among

them. When in this his last voyage he was grown sick, and felt death

approaching, he bid John Clark, master of the said vessel, remember him

to his dear wife and little ones, and also to G. Fox, G. Whitehead and

others; and being filled with joy, began to sing, saying, ‘The creating

word of the Lord endures for ever.’ He took several that were about

him by the hand, and exhorted them to fear the Lord, and not to fear

death: ‘Death,’ said he, ‘is nothing in itself; for the sting of death

is sin. Tell the Friends at London, that would have been glad to have

seen my face, I go to my Father and their Father, to my God and their

God. Remember my love to my dear wife; she will be a sorrowful widow:

but let her not mourn too much, for it is well with me.’ And having

spoken something concerning his outward business to the master, he said

in regard to his wife and children, ‘I have left them no portions, but

my endeavour hath been to make God their father. Shall I lay down my

head upon the waters? Well, God is the God of the whole universe; and

though my body sink, I shall swim atop of the waters.’ Then taking his

leave of the company, he said, ‘I see not one of you, but I wish you

all well.’ And one asking, how it was with him? he answered, ‘I am

perfectly well.’ After having spoken many more sensible words, about

four in the morning he departed quietly, as if he had fallen asleep.

His wife Mary, the same that had formerly been at Adrianople, and

spoken with the emperor of the Turks, gave an excellent testimony in

writing concerning him; and J. Crook, in a preface to W. Bayly’s works,

said of him, (the truth of which I know by my own experience,) ‘As he

was bold and zealous in his preaching, being willing to improve his

time, as if he had known it was not to be long amongst us; so was he as

valiant in suffering for his testimony, when called thereunto. Methinks

I see how once I saw him stand at the bar to plead his innocent cause,

like holy Stephen, in the senate-house, when the threats of his

persecutors resembled the showers of stones, falling upon that blessed

martyr, crying out with a hideous noise, ‘take him away, jailer,’

&c. and yet all this while he changed not his countenance, except by

the additional ornaments of some innocent smiles. Sometimes by cruel

persecutors he hath been thrown down, and dragged upon the ground by

the hair of his head, and his mouth and jaws endeavoured to be rent

and broke asunder, so that the ground whereon he lay was smeared with

his blood: yet, as if this butchering had not been enough to make

him a fit sacrifice for the shambles of their cruelty, a heavy gross

bodied persecutor stamped upon his breast with his feet, endeavouring

to beat the breath out of his body: and when this persecutor had done

his pleasure, he commanded the jailer to take him away, and put him in

some nasty hole for his entertainment and cure. And had not the God of

Israel been his physician there, he had been taken from us long before

this.’ Thus far John Crook.

1676.

At the beginning of this year, 1676, died at London, Matthew Hide,

who had made it his business, during the space of about twenty years,

publicly to contradict the Quakers in their meetings, and to disturb

them in their worship of God, thinking from a blind zeal, that he did

God an acceptable piece of service, by zealously opposing what he

judged to be heresy. Now how much soever this man was bent against

them, yet he showed this moderation, that in his gainsaying he did not

behave himself furiously, but appeared to be well meaning, although

he erred exceedingly, and often hindered the preaching of ministers

among the Quakers; which induced W. Penn sometimes to pray to God very

earnestly for him, and to tell him in the presence of many auditors,

that God would plead with him by his righteous judgments; and that the

time would come he should be forced to confess to the sufficiency of

that light he then opposed, and to acknowledge that God was with those

called Quakers.

This same Hide being by sickness brought to the brink of death, desired

that G. Whitehead, and some of his friends, might be sent for: and to

one Cotton Oade, who asked him, if he had any thing to say to clear

himself, concerning his having so often opposed the friends called

Quakers, in their declarations and prayers, he said, that he was sorry

for what he had done: for, added he, they are the people of God. G.

Whitehead, then, though it was late in the evening, being come to

him, with some others, said, ‘I am come in love and tenderness to see

thee.’ To which Hide returned, ‘I am glad to see you.’ And Whitehead

again, ‘If thou hast any thing on thy conscience to speak, I would have

thee to clear thy conscience.’ To this Hide replied, ‘What I have to

say, I speak in the presence of God: as Paul was a persecutor of the

people of the Lord, so have I been a persecutor of you, his people,

as the world is who persecute the children of God.’ More he spoke,

but being very weak, his words could not well be understood. Then G.

Whitehead resumed, ‘Thy understanding being darkened when darkness was

over thee, thou hast gainsaid the truth and people of the Lord; and I

knew that that light which thou opposedst, would rise up in judgment

against thee. I have often with others, laboured with thee to bring

thee to a right understanding.’ To which Hide said, ‘This I declare in

the presence of God, and of you here, I have done evil in persecuting

you who are the children of God, and I am sorry for it: the Lord Jesus

Christ show mercy unto me, and the Lord increase your number, and be

with you.’ After some pause G. Whitehead said to him, ‘I would have

thee, if thou art able to speak, to ease thy conscience as fully as

thou canst. My soul is affected to hear thee thus confess thy evil, as

the Lord hath given thee a sense of it. In repentance there is mercy

and forgiveness; in confessing and forsaking sin, there is mercy to

be found with the Lord, who in the midst of judgment remembers mercy,

that he may be feared.’ Hide being in great anguish, and striving for

breath, said, a little after, ‘I have done evil in opposing you in your

prayers; the Lord be merciful unto me; and as I have been an instrument

to turn many from God, the Lord raise up many instruments to turn many

to him.’ G. Whitehead resumed, ‘I desire thou mayest find mercy and

forgiveness at the hand of the Lord. How is it with thy soul? Dost not

thou find some ease?’ ‘I hope I do,’ answered Hide, ‘and if the Lord

should lengthen my days, I should be willing to hear a testimony for

you, as publicly as I have appeared against you.’ His wife then said,

‘It is enough; what can be desired more?’ ‘If,’ queried Whitehead,

‘the Lord should not lengthen out thy days, dost thou desire what

thou sayest should be signified to others?’ ‘Yes,’ answered Hide, ‘I

do, you may; I have said as much as I can say.’ After some silence,

he being much straitened for breath, Whitehead said, ‘If this company

be wearisome unto thee, we may withdraw.’ To which he returned, ‘you

may use your freedom.’ G. Whitehead then taking leave of him, said,

‘I shall leave thee to the Lord, desiring he may show mercy and

forgiveness unto thee, as I hope he will.’ Upon which Hide replied,

‘The Lord be with your spirits.’

All this was spoken to G. Whitehead and his friends, in the presence

of Hide’s wife, and some others of his acquaintance, about two hours

before his death: and thus he gave manifest proofs of a sincere

repentance; for Elizabeth his wife, having perceived him to be much

troubled in his mind, had asked him, if he would speak with some of

the Quakers? and he smiting his hand on his breast, said, ‘With all

my soul.’ After G. Whitehead and his friends were gone, it being the

seventh day of the week, he desired several times that he might live

till morning, and might hear on that day, viz. the first day of the

week, a testimony for the truth, he had on that day so often opposed;

yet he signified that he had found some ease to his spirit. He also

exhorted his wife, who conversed much with people that were great in

the world, to use the plain language of the Quakers. And after some

more words to this purpose, spoken by him, with good understanding, he

stretched himself out, and died very quietly. An evident token of God’s

unspeakable mercy, who wills not the death of a sinner, but that he

should repent and live; and who entirely knowing the real disposition

of man’s heart, forgives sin by mere grace, without any merit in man,

but for his own sake, as he hath said himself, “I am he that blotteth

out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy

sins.” The truth of which saying very plainly appeared in the converted

thief on the cross, though his impenitent fellow-sufferer hardened his

heart against it.

In this year, while G. Fox was at Swarthmore, died William Lampitt, the

priest of Ulverstone, who formerly had been a great friend to Margaret,

now the wife of G. Fox, but grew so envious against the friends she was

in society with, that he said in the year 1652, he would wage his life

upon it, that the Quakers would all vanish and come to nought within

half a year. But on his death-bed he said to one of his hearers, who

came to visit him, ‘I have been a preacher a long time, and thought I

had lived well; but I did not think it had been so hard a thing to die.’

At Norwich now great spoil was made upon the Quakers, for their

religious assemblies. Erasmus Cooper coming once into the house of

Anthony Alexander, said to his wife, who was big with child, he came to

seize all she had. ‘All,’ said she, ‘and that for seven pounds fine,

that is hard.’ But he slighting what she said, replied, he would not

leave her a bed to lie on. And then began to break the doors with a

pick-axe; he and his companions behaving themselves so desperately,

that it drew tears from some of the neighbours who beheld it; and the

warranted spoilers forced Alexander’s man to help them; which made

Alexander say, that it was a most unreasonable thing, to require a

servant to assist in the taking his master’s goods: for which the

warden, Robert Clerk, snarled at him, saying, ‘They are our goods.’

To the house of Samuel Duncon, the aforesaid officers came also, and

with them the informer, Charles Tennison, and the hangman. Here they

staid several days and nights, and kept Samuel’s wife, who was big with

child, as a prisoner in her own house, not suffering her to speak with

any, so much as at the door, nor any to come to her. And after they

had broken open all the locked doors, they took away to the value of

about forty-three pounds in goods; and so insolent the informers were,

that one did not stick to say, ‘I will make the mayor wait upon me as

often as I will, at my pleasure.’ Nay, this wicked crew was become

so powerful, that none durst oppose them, for fear of falling into

disgrace with the court: since they were encouraged by such as were in

high stations, and probably at the instance of the Papists, or popishly

affected. The constable, William Poole, coming this summer into a

meeting at Norwich, with an informer, who made him come, and hearing

efficacious preaching there, cried with tears in his eyes, ‘What shall

I do! I know the power of God is among you:’ and told the informer,

that if there were a curse hung over any people upon the earth, it was

over the informers. And Tennison the informer, who had assisted in

taking away Samuel Duncon’s goods, being afterwards committed to prison

for debt, confessed he never prospered since he took in hand that work;

and said if he were at liberty, he would never meddle with it more.

In Nottinghamshire also great spoil and havoc was made, to which the

justice Robert Thoroton, was greatly instrumental; for at Sutton he

gave forth a warrant to seize the goods of two persons, one of which

was a woman, who having in a meeting spoken five or six words, which,

according to the testimony of some officers that were present, were

not at all like preaching, was however informed against as a preacher,

and so by the said Thoroton fined twenty pounds; and she being unable

to pay, the one half of the fine was charged upon her, and the other

half upon John Fulwood. At another time Thoroton gave order to seize

the goods of William Day, a miller, because he having been at a meeting

at Sutton, in the street, the fine of a pretended preacher, that was

unable, was charged upon him; though Day proved, and the officers who

kept the friends out of their meeting place, declared also, that those

words, which were called preaching, were no more than an answer to

what another had spoken. But for all that, Thoroton, to protect, and

to gratify the informer, said, ‘Though but one word were spoken, it is

sufficient.’ A poor woman at South Collingham, who was already bereaved

of almost all that she possessed, and since by her friends provided

with a bed and other necessaries, was also deprived of this little,

because she continued to frequent meetings. Matthew Hartly, a poor

man, who lived by spinning of wool, was likewise, for frequenting the

meeting there, bereaved of what he had; and so it was with many others,

whose names and surnames I could mention, if I had a mind to enlarge.

And if their friends had not taken care of them, and other impoverished

families, who had lost all by spoil, many might have perished.

In the town of Hereford the meetings were also disturbed from time to

time, chiefly by boys, who threw among those that were met, not only

stones, and excrements, but burning squibs; and used all manner of

insolency and mischief they could think of, against these harmless

people, either by breaking the glass windows, or the forms and

seats. One of the leaders of this turbulent company, was the son of

one Abraham Seward, who about this time was elected mayor; but when

complaints were made to him of the outrageous actions of the said

wicked crew, he pretended to be ignorant of his son’s doings, and for

all that threatened those that came to him, with the execution of the

law upon them, if they did not leave off to keep meetings. And as it

was well known that the chief master of the town-school was displeased

at the extravagant insolency of some of his scholars, so it was

reported also, that he was forbidden to correct them for it; and that

the college priests had set them on, and said they would hear them

out in what they did; for some of those brutish boys were choristers.

Two friends went to the justices, Robert Simons and Thomas Simons, to

acquaint them with the excessive abuses they met with. But the justices

not at all regarding their complaint, the said Robert endeavoured to

draw some confession of a meeting from one of them, intending, as he

himself said, immediately to have fined him, if he had confessed; but

he was wary. Now since the insolency of the boys was thus encouraged by

authority, it was no wonder it continued there a whole year. At length

eight men were taken from the meeting, by the aforesaid mayor, Abraham

Seward, and carried to the town-hall; and in their passage along, he

said, they should never meet there more. To which a friend, going

with him, said, ‘We are a people gathered by the power of the Lord;

and therefore the power of man cannot scatter us.’ Being come to the

town-hall, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were tendered to them,

on which they said, ‘We are Christians, therefore cannot break the

command of Christ, which forbids to swear at all; but to render just

and lawful allegiance to the king, we do not deny, nor refuse.’ And

they persisting in their refusal to swear, were committed to prison.

The next day after, one Walter Rogers, a prebend, walking by the

meeting-house, and observing how it was broken, said to some, that they

were very good boys, and had done their work better than he thought

they had.

At one of the quarter-sessions in Nottingham, one John Sayton appeared,

who, being fined twenty pounds for suffering a conventicle at his

house, in the parish of Blyth, came to appeal for justice. The witness

produced against him, said, ‘I was there on that day, and there were

several people met, but were all silent, and no words spoken amongst

them; but I did not see John Sayton there.’ And that the said John

Sayton was above sixty miles from home the same day, for which he was

fined twenty pounds, was made appear in open court by substantial

evidence. Then the counsel for the appellant said, in the first place,

forasmuch as there was neither preaching, praying, nor reading, as

their own witness doth testify, therefore it was no conventicle.

Secondly, being they cannot prove he was there, therefore how can it

be judged, that he did either wittingly or willingly consent to that

meeting, if they could make it a conventicle? To this the informer’s

counsel objected, that although there was neither preaching, praying,

nor reading, yet it was evident enough that they met under a pretence

of religious exercise; and seeing there were more than five, and not

of John Sayton’s family, therefore it must needs be a conventicle. And

as to the second, seeing they cannot prove he was there, we must leave

it to the consciences of the jury, whether he did willingly consent

to that meeting or no. After the counsel had spoken on both sides,

Peniston Whaley, one of the justices, who sat in the chair as judge

of the court, stood up, and said to the jury, ‘Although there was no

visible exercise that can be proved, yet the Quakers say, they worship

God in spirit and truth; and we know their manner is to sit sighing and

groaning,’ &c. The jury returning, and being asked by the court, ‘Do

you find it for the king, or for the appellant,’ answered, ‘For the

appellant.’ This so displeased the said justice Whaley, that he bid

them go forth again. But one of the jurymen saying, they were agreed,

and they had considered the thing very well, he thereupon fell into

such a rage, that he said, ‘You deserve all to be hanged; for you are

as ill as highwaymen.’ Perhaps he himself was either an informer, or a

special friend to such, and therefore was sorry that the jury deprived

him of the booty, or a share of it.

There was now great persecution in all parts of England, neither did

it go better in the principality of Wales. Nine persons being taken

prisoners, and brought this summer to the assizes held for the county

of Merioneth, in the town Bala, upon an indictment for not resorting

to their parish churches, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were

tendered to them, Kemick Eyton, and Thomas Walcot being judges; and

upon their refusal of taking these oaths, the said judges declared it

as their opinion in open court, that in case the prisoners would refuse

the oaths the second time, they should be prosecuted as traitors, the

men to be hanged and quartered, and the women to be burnt. But this

threat could not make them afraid; for at the next assizes the oaths

being tendered them again, they continued in refusing, though they

solemnly acknowledged allegiance to the king as supreme magistrate; and

thereupon were remanded to close imprisonment, where Edward Rees, one

of them, being above sixty years of age, and not able to hear the cold,

died about the height of the frost, not having been allowed the use of

fire.

Sometime before, it happened within the corporation of Pool, in

Montgomeryshire, that the justice, David Maurice, coming into a house

where a small number of people were peaceably met, and all silent,

required them to depart. Hereupon Thomas Lloyd, one of the company,

began to speak a few words, by way of defining true religion, and what

true worship was; and what he said was so reasonable, that the said

justice approved of it as sound, and according to the doctrine of the

church of England; yet notwithstanding he fined the said Thomas Lloyd

in twenty pounds for preaching.

This year died in prison John Sage, being about eighty years of age,

after having been in prison at Ivelchester in Somersetshire, almost

ten years, for not paying of tithes. And it appeared that since the

restoration of king Charles, above two hundred of the people called

Quakers, died in prisons in England, where they had been confined

because of their religion. I could relate abundance of occurrences

this year, if I had a mind to extend my work, but I study brevity; yet

cannot omit to mention, that in this year, in the island of Barbadoes,

in the West Indies, a law was made to prevent negroes coming into the

meetings of the Quakers, which was of this tenor:

‘Whereas of late, many negroes have been suffered to remain at

the meetings of the Quakers, as hearers of their doctrine, and

taught in their principles, whereby the safety of the island

may be much hazarded: be it enacted, that if at any time after

publication hereof, any negro, or negroes, be found with the

people called Quakers, at any of their meetings, as hearers of

their preaching, he or they shall be forfeited, one half to such

as shall seize, or sue for him or them, if belonging to any

of the Quakers, and the other moiety to the public use of the

island; provided that if he or they be seized, such as seize,

shall bring their actions upon this statute, within three months,

against the owner of the negro, or negroes: wherein the defendant

having ten days summons, shall appear, plead, and come to trial

at the first court after summons, or judgment to be given by

nihil dicit, and execution immediately to issue. And if such

negro, or negroes, do not belong to any of the persons present

at the same meeting, any person or persons may bring an action

upon this statute, against any of the persons present at the said

meeting, at the election of the informer, and so recover ten

pounds for every negro, or negroes, present at the said meeting

as aforesaid, to be divided as aforesaid, and in such actions

proceedings to be as aforesaid. And no person whatsoever, shall

keep any school, to instruct any child in any learning, unless

within one month after the publication hereof, he first take the

oaths of allegiance and supremacy, before some justice of peace

of the parish where the party lives, and have a certificate

thereof, or have a special license from the governor, on pain

of three months imprisonment, and forfeiture of 300 lbs. of

Muscovado sugar, the one moiety to the informer, and the other

to the public use of the island, to be recovered as aforesaid.

And no person whatsoever, who is not an inhabitant and resident

of this island, and hath been so for twelve months together,

shall hereafter publicly discourse, or preach at the meeting of

the Quakers, on pain of six months imprisonment, and forfeiture

of 1000 lbs. Muscovado sugar, the one moiety to such as sue for

it, the other to the public use of the island, to be recovered

as aforesaid: provided that all actions upon this statute, be

brought within six months after the offence.

‘Read, and passed the council the 21st of April, 1676,

and consented to by his excellency [the governor] the

same day.

EDWARD STEED, _Deputy-secretary_.’

Although in the beginning of this statute, the instructing of the

negroes in the doctrine of the Quakers, is represented as a thing

whereby the safety of the island might be much hazarded, yet the sequel

shows that this was not the matter, but that it was endeavoured to

deprive the Quakers of their due liberty. What was the issue hereof I

am unacquainted with.

This year Robert Barclay wrote a letter to the heer Adrian Paets, with

whom he had some discourse when the said heer returned from Spain,

where he had been ambassador for the States of the United Provinces.

This Paets having a strange opinion of the doctrine of the Quakers,

had a good while ago wrote a letter[41] to Christian Hartzoeker, at

Rotterdam, about their doctrine; and having afterwards discoursed with

Barclay concerning the inward and immediate revelation of the Spirit

of God, this induced Barclay to write a letter on the said subject in

Latin, to the aforementioned heer, wherein he made a more large reply

to his arguments, than he had done by word of mouth. This letter being

sent over from Scotland to Holland, was delivered by Benjamin Furly

at Rotterdam, to the said heer Paets, with a desire that he might be

pleased to return an answer to it, which he promised he would. But he

continuing deficient in the case, Furly at last published the said

letter in print, but without mentioning the name of him to whom it was

written, only his character, viz. _Cuidam legato_.[42]

[41] To be found in the book called _Præstantium ac eruditorum

virorum Epistolæ Ecclesiastique & Theologicæ_. Amstelodami _apud_

Franciscum Halman. 1704.

[42] To a certain ambassador.

In this letter was set down first the objection of the heer Paets,

to wit, that since the being and substance of the Christian religion

consisted in the knowledge of, and faith concerning, the birth, life,

death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ Jesus, he considered

the substance of the Christian religion as contingent truth; which

contingent truth was matter of fact. And matter of fact could not be

known but by the relation of another, or by the perception of the

outward senses; because there are naturally in our souls no ideas of

contingent truths, such as are concerning necessary truths, viz. that

God is, and that the whole is greater than the part. And since it might

without absurdity be said, that God cannot make a contingent truth to

become a necessary truth; neither can God reveal contingent truths or

matters of fact, but as contingent truths are revealed; and matters of

fact not being revealed but by the outward senses, the conclusion drawn

from thence is, that men are not obliged to believe God producing any

revelation in the soul concerning matter of fact, whether of a thing

done, or to be done, unless there be added some miracles obvious to

the outward senses, by which the soul may be ascertained that that

revelation cometh from God. All these arguments Barclay answered very

circumstantially, premising first, that it was falsely supposed that

the essence of the Christian religion consisted in the historical

faith and knowledge of the birth, life, death, resurrection and

ascension of Christ. That faith and historical knowledge is indeed a

part of the Christian religion, but not such an essential part as that

without which the Christian religion cannot consist; but an integral

part, which goes to the completing of the Christian religion, as the

hands or feet of a man are the integral parts of a man, without which

nevertheless a man may exist, but not an entire and complete man.

Yet he agrees, that the historical knowledge of Christ is commonly

manifested to us by the holy Scriptures as the means; but nevertheless

he asserts, that God could without such an outward mean manifest the

said historical knowledge to our minds: and also, that a contingent

truth may be known by a supernatural knowledge. And he saith, that when

God doth make known unto men any matter of fact by divine immediate

revelation, he then speaks as to the ear of the heart of the inward

man. And, that as when any natural idea is excited in us, we clearly

know it; so also when a supernatural idea is raised, we clearly know

that whereof it is the idea. He also holds forth, what properly is the

inward supernatural sense in man; and then he distinguisheth between

contingent and necessary truths, and shows how a divine revelation

may be known to be such, saying that natural and spiritual senses are

distinguishable by their objects, and demonstrating how godly men may

know they are in the favour of God, and how the wicked feel the wrath

of God as fire. He also relates after what manner the spiritual senses

distinguish the good and the evil; and he confesseth there is in all

men, as well the godly as the ungodly, some sort of idea of God, as

of a most perfect being: but he asserts, that the supernatural idea

of God differeth much from the natural; and that in all men there is

a supernatural idea of God. He also shows, wherein the motions of

the mind differ from those of the body; and that there are ideas as

well of supernatural, as of natural things. And showing from whence

the errors of false likenesses of reason proceed, he says, that the

natural reason cannot perceive supernatural things. He also asserts,

that the revelations to the prophets were by inward inspirations in

their minds; and that they were most certainly persuaded that they

were divinely inspired, even without any outward miracle; and that it

is by the inspiration of the same divine Spirit, by which the prophets

prophesied, that we do believe their words and writings to be divine,

concerning contingent truths, as well past as to come. Moreover he

inquires, whether faith comes by outward hearing, and he shows how the

outward senses may be deceived; nay, that often they are vitiated both

by outward casualties and natural infirmities, whereunto the godly are

no less subject than the wicked.

All this is treated at large by Barclay, as may be seen in the said

letter, and several years after, when the heer Paets was at London,

being one of the commissioners for the Dutch East India company,

Barclay spoke with him again, and so represented the matter, that he

readily yielded that he had been mistaken in his notion of the Quakers;

for he found they could make a reasonable plea for the foundation of

their religion. And thereupon R. Barclay translated the said letter

into English as follows:

‘_My Friend_,

‘Albeit I judge I did fully answer to all thy arguments in that

conference we had, concerning the necessity and possibility of

inward immediate revelation, and of the certainty of true faith

from thence proceeding; nevertheless, because after we had made

an end, and were parting, thou wouldest needs remit to my further

consideration the strength of thy argument, as that in which

thou supposedst the very hinge of the question to lie: that I

might satisfy thy desire, and that the truth might more appear,

I did further consider of it, but the more I weighed it, I found

it the weaker. And therefore that thou thyself mayest make the

truer judgment of it, I thought meet to send thee my further

considerations thereon; (which I had done ere now, had not I,

both at London and elsewhere, been diverted by other necessary

occasions,) wherein I doubt not, but thou wilt perceive a full

and distinct answer to thy argument. But if thou canst not as

yet yield to the truth, or thinkest mine answer in any part to

be defective, so that there yet remains with thee any matter

of doubt or scruple; I do earnestly desire thee, that as I for

thy sake, and out of love to the truth, have not been wanting to

examine thy argument, and to transmit to thee my considerations

thereon; so thou mayest give thyself the trouble to write and

send me what thou hast further to say: which my friend, N. N. who

delivers thee this will, at what time thou shalt appoint, receive

from thee, and transmit to me thy letter; that at last the truth

may appear where it is.

‘And that the whole matter may the more clearly be understood, it

will be fit in the first place, to propose thy argument, whereby

thou opposest the immediate revelation of God in the saints:

thence concluding thou hast fully overturned the foundation of

the people called Quakers. Which argument of thine is;

‘That since, (as thou judgest,) the being and substance of the

Christian religion consisteth in the knowledge of, and faith

concerning, the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension

of Christ Jesus, thou considerest the substance of the Christian

religion as a contingent truth; which contingent truth is matter

of fact. Whence thou reasonest, that:

Matter of fact cannot be known but by the relation of another,

or by perception of the outward senses; because there are

naturally in our souls no ideas of contingent truths, such as

are concerning necessary truths: to wit, that God is; and that

the whole is greater than the part.--And since it may without

absurdity be said, that

God cannot make a contingent truth to become a necessary truth;

neither can God reveal contingent truths or matters of fact,

but as contingent truths are revealed: but matters of fact

are not revealed but by the outward senses.--From whence thou

concludest, that

Men are not even obliged to believe God producing any revelation

in the soul concerning matter of fact, whether of a thing done,

or to be done, unless there be added some miracles obvious to

the outward senses, by which the soul may be ascertained, that

that revelation cometh from God.

‘All this thou endeavourest also to prove from the Scripture,

Rom. x. where the apostle saith, “Faith cometh by hearing:” and

because the apostle speaketh afterwards of those who were sent

in the plural number; thence thou concludest that to be spoken

of outward preaching by the ministry of men: and since the

apostle uses a question, saying, “How shall they believe unless

they hear,” thou gatherest from the induction and connexion

of the text, that the apostle treats only of outward hearing;

thence concluding, that without outward hearing, faith cannot

be produced: and therefore, that there can be no immediate

revelation by the simple operation of the Spirit in the mind,

unless there be somewhat proposed to the outward senses.

‘Before I proceed to a direct answer to this argument, some

things are necessary to be premised:

‘First then; That it is falsely supposed, that the essence of

the Christian religion consists in the historical faith and

knowledge of the birth, death, life, resurrection, and ascension

of Jesus Christ. That faith and historical knowledge is indeed a

part of the Christian religion; but not such an essential part,

as that without which the Christian religion cannot consist: but

an integral part, which goes to the completing of the Christian

religion; as the hands or feet of a man are integral parts of

a man, without which nevertheless a man may exist, but not an

entire and complete man.

‘Secondly, If by immediate revelation be understood such a

revelation of God, as begets in our souls an historical faith

and knowledge of the birth of Christ in the flesh, without

the means of the holy Scripture, we do not contend for such a

revelation, as commonly given, or to be expected by us, or any

other Christians. For albeit many other evangelical truths be

manifested to us by the immediate manifestation of God, not

using the Scripture as the means; yet the historical knowledge

of Christ is not commonly manifested to us, nor to any others,

but by the holy Scripture, as the means, and that by way of a

material object: even as when we see the person of Peter or Paul

to our visive faculty immediately, yet not without the medium

of that person concurring as a material object to produce that

sight; while the light of the sun concurs, as the formal object

of that visit or sight. So that when we livingly and spiritually

know the history of the birth of Christ in the flesh; the inward

revelation or illumination of God, which is like the sun’s light,

proceeding from the divine sun, doth shine into the eye of the

mind, and by its influence moves the mind to assent unto the

historical truth of Christ’s birth, life, &c. in the reading or

hearing the Scripture, or meditating therein.

‘Thirdly, Nevertheless we do firmly assert, that God can most

easily, clearly, and certainly, manifest to our minds the

historical truths of Christ’s birth, &c. when it so pleaseth

him, even without the Scripture, or any other outward means. And

because this argument seems to be formed against the possibility

of such a revelation, therefore I shall proceed to discuss it:

but first thou mayest mind, that the prophets who foretold

Christ’s coming in the flesh, and being to be born of a virgin,

and afterwards to suffer death, did know these truths of fact by

the inward inspiration of God, without outward means: for which

see 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. Now that which hath been may be.

‘Fourthly, This argument doth at most conclude, that we cannot

know naturally any truth of fact, but by the relation of another

without, us, or by the preception of the outward senses; because

there are naturally in our minds no ideas concerning contingent

truths, (and every truth of fact is a contingent truth,) as

there are of necessary truths. This then proveth, that we cannot

naturally know any contingent truth, but by the relation of

another, or perception of the outward senses: but that hindreth

not, but we may know a contingent truth by a supernatural

knowledge, God supplying the place of an outward relator; who is

so true, that he may, and ought to be believed, since God is the

fountain of truth.

‘Fifthly, When God doth make known unto men any matter of fact

by divine immediate revelation or inspiration, God speaking as

to the ear of the heart of the inward man, or as by his finger

writing therein, two things are to be considered in such an

immediate revelation.

[Greek: Τὸ: To][43] _Materiale_, The matter of fact, or thing

revealed, which is contingent.

[43] _The_ in Greek. Latin lacks a definite

article.--_Transcriber._

[Greek: Τὸ: To][44] _Formale_, The form or mode, how the

revelation is made: which form is an inward, divine, and

supernatural revelation, which is the voice or speech of God,

inwardly speaking to the ear of the inward man or mind of man,

or a divine writing supernaturally imprinted therein. Now as

to the material part, or the thing and matter revealed, this is

indeed a contingent truth, and of itself is not manifest to the

mind; but because of the form, that is, because of the divine

mode, and supernatural inward operation, the matter is known to

be true. For that divine and supernatural inward operation, which

the mind doth feel and perceive in itself, is the voice of God

speaking unto man, which by its nature and specific property is

as clearly distinguished and understood to be the voice of God,

as the voice of Peter or James is known to be the voice of such

men. For every being as a being is knowable, and that by its own

specific nature, or property proceeding from its nature; and

hath its proper idea, by which it is distinguishable from every

other thing, if so be its idea be stirred up in us, and clearly

proposed to us.

[44] _The_ in Greek. Latin lacks a definite

article.--_Transcriber._

‘Sixthly: Now as some beings are natural, some supernatural,

so some ideas are natural, some supernatural: and as when any

natural idea is excited in us, we clearly know it; so also when a

supernatural idea is raised, we clearly know that, whereof it is

the idea. But the voice of God speaking to the mind of man, is a

supernatural being, and stirreth up in us a supernatural idea, by

which we clearly know that inward voice to be the voice of God,

and not the voice or operation of another, or of any evil spirit,

or angel, because none of these have a supernatural idea, as the

voice of God, and his divine operation hath: for it is full of

vigour, virtue, and divine glory, as saith the psalmist, who had

often experience of it; and we also in our measures are witnesses

thereof, for the voice of God is known to be his by its divine

virtue.

‘Seventhly: The senses are either outward or inward: and the

inward senses are either natural or supernatural; we have an

example of the inward natural sense in being angered or pacified,

in love and hatred; or when we perceive and discern any natural

truth, such as the natural maxims, to wit, that the whole is

greater than the part, &c. or when we deduce any conclusion by

the strength of natural reason, that perception also in a larger

sense, may be called an inward sense. But an example of an inward

supernatural sense is, when the heart or soul of a pious man,

feels in itself divine motions, influences, and operations,

which sometimes are as the voice or speech of God, sometimes

as a most pleasant and glorious illustration or visible object

to the inward eye, sometimes as a most sweet savour or taste,

sometimes as an heavenly and divine warmness, or, so to speak,

melting of the soul in the love of God. Moreover, this divine and

supernatural operation in the mind of man, is a true and most

glorious miracle; which when it is perceived by the inward and

supernatural sense divinely raised up in the mind of man, doth so

evidently and clearly persuade the understanding to assent to the

thing revealed, that there is no need of an outward miracle: for

this assent is not because of the thing itself, but because of

the revelation proposing it, which is the voice of God. For when

the voice of God is heard in the soul, the soul doth as certainly

conclude the truth of that voice, as the truth of God’s being,

from whom it proceeds.

‘These things being thus premised, I now proceed to a direct

answer. For what is said, that God cannot make a contingent truth

to become a necessary truth, I agree; but when any contingent

truth is manifest to us by the immediate revelation of God,

there is in it two things to be considered, to wit, the thing

revealed, which is contingent; and the revelation itself:

which upon the supposition, that it is a divine revelation,

is no contingent truth, but a most necessary truth. And this

all mankind will say, that this proposition, every divine

revelation is necessarily true, is as clear and evident, as that

proposition, that every whole is greater than its part.

‘But thou wilt say; how knowest thou that a divine revelation is

a divine revelation? I answer, how knowest thou that a whole is a

whole, and a part is a part? thou wilt say, by the natural idea

excited in me of a whole, and of a part. I answer again; even so

a divine revelation is known to be such by a supernatural idea of

divine revelation stirred up in us, and that by a divine motion,

or supernatural operation. But it is no wonder that men, who have

no experience of supernatural ideas, or at least do not heed

them, do deny them; which is, as if a man naturally blind denied

light or colours; or a deaf man sounds, because they experience

them not. Therefore, we cannot dissemble, that we feel a fervent

zeal even divinely kindled in us against such an absurd opinion,

as affirms, that God cannot ascertain us of his will in any

contingent truth, but by proposing it to the outward senses. This

opinion does in a manner turn men into brutes, as if man were not

to believe his God, unless he propose what is to be believed to

the outward senses, which the beasts have common with us; yea, it

derogates from God’s power, and imputes weakness to him, as if

he could not do that, which not only both good and evil angels

can do, but which the meanest creatures can do, and the most

insensible. As for instance: the heat of the fire, the coldness

of the air and water worketh upon us; yea, if a pin prick us, we

feel it, and that by the outward sense; because the objects are

outward and carnal: but since God is a most pure and glorious

Spirit, when he operateth in the innermost parts of our minds by

his will; shall not he and his will be clearly felt according to

his nature, that is, by a spiritual and supernatural sense? For

as the nature of God is, so is the nature of his will, to wit,

purely spiritual, and therefore requireth a spiritual sense to

discern it; which spiritual sense, when it is raised up in us by

a divine operation, doth as clearly and certainly know the voice

or revelation of the will of God, concerning any thing which God

is pleased to reveal, however contingent, as the outward sense

knows and perceives the outward object. And it is no less absurd,

to require of God, who is a most pure Spirit, to manifest his

will to men by the outward senses, else not to be credited; as to

require us to see sounds, and hear lights and colours. For as the

objects of the outward senses are not to be confounded, but every

object is to have its proper sense; so must we judge of inward

and spiritual objects, which have their proper sense, whereby

they are to be perceived. And tell me, how God doth manifest his

will concerning matters of fact, when he sends his angels to men,

since angels, (as is commonly received,) have not outward senses,

or at least not so gross ones, as ours are? Yea, when men die,

and appear before the tribunal of God, whether unto eternal life

or death, how can they know this, having laid down their bodies,

and therewith their outward senses? And nevertheless this truth

of God is a truth of fact, as is the historical truth of Christ’s

birth in the flesh. And which is yet more near: how do good and

holy men even in this life most certainly know, that they are

in the favour and grace of God? no outward revelation doth make

this known unto them; but the Spirit, as saith the apostle,

beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of

God. For the mere testimony of a human conscience, without inward

testimony of the holy Spirit, cannot beget in us a firm and

immoveable testimony of our sonship, because the heart of man is

deceitful; and if the testimony thereof were true, at most it is

but a human testimony, which begetteth in us only a human faith:

but that faith, by which holy men believe they are the sons of

God, is a divine faith, which leans upon a divine testimony of

the holy Spirit, witnessing in them that they are the sons of

God. Moreover, when a good man feels in himself that undeclarable

joy of the holy Spirit, concerning which the holy Scripture

speaks, and which is the common privilege of the saints, how or

whence feels he this joy? Truly, this argument concludes no less

against this heavenly spiritual joy, which is begotten in the

souls of the saints by the holy Spirit, than it does against the

immediate revelation of God: for there is no natural idea of this

spiritual joy, else mere natural men, yea, such as are profane

and ungodly, would feel it as much as the godly: but because it

is a supernatural thing, therefore it can have no true idea but

what is supernatural. Moreover, whence is it that profane men

feel sometimes in themselves the wrath of God as fire, when all

things, as to the outward, go as prosperously with them as with

the godly, and oftentimes more prosperously? For there is no

natural idea in men of this inward wrath of God. There is also an

inward grief oftentimes raised up in wicked men from the sense of

this wrath of God, which very much vexeth and tormenteth their

minds; and nevertheless this grief hath no natural idea in us:

for oftentimes wicked men feel not this sorrow; for God sometimes

is, as it were, silent, while the wicked sin, as in Psalm 1.

‘All which things do most clearly demonstrate, that there are

in men supernatural ideas of supernatural beings; which ideas

are nevertheless not perceived by us, unless they be stirred

up by some supernatural operation of God, which raiseth up in

us supernatural and spiritual senses, which by their nature

are as distinguishable from the natural senses, whether inward

or outward, as the natural senses are distinguished one from

another by their specific difference. Of which spiritual senses

the Scripture speaks frequently, as Heb. v. and xiv. where is

spoken of the spiritual senses in general, by which the spiritual

man hath the discerning of good and evil: which good is of a

spiritual nature, and conduceth to feed in us a spiritual and

divine life; and the evil is of that kind, by which the spiritual

life is in us hurt; to wit, sins, whether carnal or spiritual;

all which cannot be discerned but by such who have spiritual

senses stirred up in them, as saith the apostle. In other

places the Scripture also speaketh of these spiritual senses

in particular; as of the spiritual seeing, Psalm xxxiv. 9. Of

the spiritual hearing, Psalm lxxxv. 9. Of spiritual tasting,

Psalm xxxiv. 8. Of spiritual smelling, Cant. i. 3. Of spiritual

touching, Acts xvii. 8, and in many other places of Scripture

we read of those spiritual senses in particular. Yea, it is the

promise of the gospel, that the glory of God shall be seen of

holy men, such as are clean of heart, even in this life: Isaiah

xxxiii. 17. Mat. v. 8. Which were fulfilled in the primitive

Christians, see John i. 14. 1 John i. 2, 3, 4. 2 Cor. iii. 18,

and chap. iv. 6. But what is this vision of God and divine glory,

which the souls of the saints enjoy in this life, which is only

as the earnest or first-fruits of that more abundant glorious

vision in the life to come, concerning which the Scripture so

much declareth, which is the highest happiness of the immortal

soul.

‘For this argument seemeth to do no less injury to the saints,

than to rob them of this most glorious treasure both in this

life, and that to come. For there is in us no natural idea of

this divine glory, as there is not of God himself which is any

ways proportionable unto so great happiness, which the Scripture

so much declareth of, by which the godly are rewarded partly in

this life, and plenarily in that which is to come. We confess

indeed, there is in all men, as well the godly as ungodly,

some sort of idea of God, as of a most perfect being; and that

therefore this proposition, there existeth a most perfect being,

doth as clearly appear to human understanding, as that the whole

is greater than the part: and therefore this proposition, that

a most perfect being existeth, ought to be numbered among the

principles, that of themselves are manifest. But this idea of God

is as manifest to ungodly, as to godly men; yea, it is clearly

perceived by the devil, as by the most holy angels: for all the

devils know that God is; but yet how blind is the devil, and all

wicked men, as to the vision of God, which is the chief reward of

the saints.

‘There is then either no such vision of God, neither in this

life, nor in that to come; or there is a supernatural idea of

God in us, by which we are made capable of this vision; which

supernatural idea of God differeth much from that natural idea of

God, which Cartesius and his followers so much talk of, (albeit

others long before Cartesius did observe this natural idea of

God, and spoke of it.) But the happiness of the saints consists

not in contemplating this natural idea of God, else the wicked

would be as happy as the godly; yea, the very devil as the most

holy angel: since, as is said, both the devil and most wicked men

do as clearly perceive this natural idea of God, as the most holy

men or angels.

‘If the Scripture then be true, there is in men a supernatural

idea of God, which altogether differs from this natural idea: I

say, in all men; because all men are capable of salvation, and

consequently of enjoying this Divine vision. Now this capacity

consisteth herein, that they have such a supernatural idea in

themselves: for if there were no such idea in them, it were

impossible they should so know God. For whatsoever is clearly

and distinctly known, is known by its proper idea; neither can

it other-ways be clearly and distinctly known: for the ideas of

all things are divinely planted in our souls; for they are not

begotten in us by outward objects, or outward causes, as the

better philosophy teacheth, but only are by these outward things

excited or stirred up. And this is true not only in supernatural

ideas of God, and things divine, and in natural ideas of the

natural principles of human understanding, and conclusions thence

deduced by the strength of human reason: but even in the ideas

of outward objects, which are perceived by the outward senses;

as that noble Christian philosopher Bœtius hath well observed;

to which also the Cartesian philosophy agreeth. For when I see

any outward object, whether it be a man, or horse, or bird, the

outward object does not treat in my eye, nor yet in my mind the

idea of those things; for the outward object does nothing but

imprint in our sensible organs a corporeal motion. Now there

is nothing in a corporeal motion that can form in us the ideas

of those things; for all ideas are of a spiritual nature: now

nothing that is corporeal can produce that which is spiritual,

because the less excellent cannot produce the more excellent,

else the effect would exceed its cause: which is against all

sound reason, that it should bring forth what were of a higher

and more excellent kind. Therefore all ideas, whether of natural

or spiritual things, are divinely implanted in our minds; which

nevertheless do not always appear, but sometimes appear, and

sometimes are as it were hid in us, and sometimes are stirred

up in us by causes outward or inward, and again do as it were

sleep and shun our observation, and seem not to be otherways

distinguished by our minds, but as thoughts and perceptions of

the mind from the mind itself; that is, as the mode from the

subject, or as a bodily motion from the body, whereof it is the

motion: for as is the relation of a bodily motion to a body,

so is the relation of a thought or perception of the mind to

the mind. In this nevertheless they differ, that the mind can

move itself, and operate in itself: which a body cannot do: but

as a body can be moved by another, so also can the mind after

this manner be moved by another, and that both by outward and

inward causes, but chiefly by God himself, in whose hand all

souls and creatures are. But of these things there is enough

said at present; and I hope, I have not thus far impertinently

philosophised.

‘As there are then natural ideas concerning the things of the

natural world; as for instance, ideas of light and colours,

ideas of voice and sound, ideas of savouring and smelling, ideas

of tasting and feeling, as of heat and cold, of grief and joy;

it follows also, that there are ideas of supernatural things,

concerning the divine and supernatural things of the divine and

supernatural world; as ideas of those things above-mentioned

in the spiritual world. And as the natural ideas are stirred

up in us by outward and natural bodies, so those divine and

supernatural ideas are stirred up in us by a certain principle,

which is a body in naturals, in relation to the spiritual world,

and therefore may be called a divine body; not as if it were

a part of God, who is a most pure spirit; but the organ, or

instrument of God, by which he worketh in us, and stirreth up in

us these ideas of divine things. This is that flesh and blood of

Christ, by which the saints are nourished; which is a mystery to

all unregenerated and mere natural men, never to be reached by

them, while they remain in that state.

‘Now if there be such supernatural ideas, there are also senses,

or perceptive faculties by which those ideas are perceived; for

those are two relatives that suppose and infer one another:

but in wicked men those senses or faculties do as it were

sleep, as the visive faculty of a blind man; but in the godly

they are stirred up. Now by these divine and spiritual senses,

which are distinct and distinguishable from all the natural

faculties of the soul, whether of imagination, or natural reason,

spiritual minded men do behold the glory and beauty of God, in

respect whereof, and for which, all the glory of this world is

despicable to them; yea, even as dross and dung. And they also

hear God inwardly speaking in their souls, words truly divine

and heavenly, full of virtue and divine life; and the savour and

taste of divine things, and do, as it were, handle them with the

hands of their souls. And those heavenly enjoyments do as really

differ in their nature from all false similitudes, and fictitious

appearances of them, which either the mind of man by its own

strength can imitate, or any evil spirit to deceive man can

counterfeit; as a true man differs from the dead image of a man,

or true bread, honey, wine, or milk, doth from the mere picture

of those things. And albeit either the imagination of man, or

subtilty of the devil, may counterfeit false likenesses of these

enjoyments, by which men may be deceived; and no doubt many are

deceived; that doth not hinder, but that those divine enjoyments

are clearly perceived in such, in whom the divine and spiritual

senses are truly opened, and the true supernatural ideas of those

things truly raised up.

‘And if there be at any time a mistake, the divine illumination

is not the cause of that mistake, but some evil disposition

of the mind; as happeneth in those things relating to natural

reason. For there are many false appearances of reason, which

differ as much from true reason, as those false and pretended

revelations, and diabolical inspirations from such as are truly

divine. Now, how many men who would be esteemed philosophers,

are miserably deceived by those false likenesses of reason,

judging their false reasons to be the true similitudes of things

and solid ratiocinations; which nevertheless moveth no man of

sound reason, to reject sound and solid reason, as doubtful and

uncertain? For even sound natural reason is an excellent gift of

God, and very useful to mankind, when used in its proper place:

but let none think to comprehend by their natural reason things

that are of a divine and supernatural kind. And as we use to

do, when any one is deceived by false appearances of reason, we

endeavour to reduce them to contemplate the first natural ideas

of natural things, and to meditate therein, which is as a test or

touchstone, by which all the appearances and likenesses of reason

are to be examined; if they contradict them, to be rejected; so

also when any one is deceived by his own imagination, or the

cunning of satan, thinking any evil inspiration of the devil to

be a true divine revelation, he that is so deceived, is to be

reduced to the natural ideas of things, (if so be that pretended

revelation doth contradict them, for no true divine revelation

can contradict the true natural ideas,) or to the supernatural

ideas of divine things, which are most simple, clear, and obvious

to the minds of men, if they will turn their minds to the divine

seed in them; or at least those ideas are readily and easily

stirred up. For as in natural ideas, so in supernatural, some are

more easily raised than others: for there is a certain order both

of natural and supernatural ideas, whereby they are gradually

excited: nor is there any mortal man, in whose mind at some

time or other there is not stirred up some idea that is truly

supernatural and divine, and who hath not felt in himself both

the wrath and judgment of God for his sins; and also some tender

and gentle taste of God’s love and goodness, by which wicked

men are invited to repentance. Now that which is thought to be

a divine revelation, and is felt to contradict any divine and

supernatural idea, which is clearly perceived in the soul, it is

a manifest token that it is not a divine revelation, but either a

false imagination, or the wicked suggestion of some evil spirit.

‘But to proceed: if we will hear the Scripture, (as all

Christians ought,) it testifies to us, that God hath declared

his mind and will even concerning contingent truths to come, in

the prophets; as that of the first to the Hebrews doth evidently

declare: “God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners spoke

to our fathers in the prophets.” Yea, let us hear the prophets

themselves; Hosea, chap. i. saith plainly, “That the word of the

Lord was made in him,” as it is in the Hebrew. Habakuk also says,

As he was standing on his watch, to see what Jehovah would speak

in him. And it is so manifest that the most heavenly revelations

are by inward illustrations, and inspirations in the very minds

of the prophets, that it is strange how any that believe in the

Scripture should doubt of it. And if it happened at any time,

such revelations were made in the natural imaginations of the

prophets, or any of their inward natural senses, then it may be

confessed, they could not be infallibly certain they came from

God; unless they also felt God in the divine and supernatural

senses, by which they did most nearly approach to him, from these

superior and most inward senses, working upon the lower and less

noble faculties of the mind. But whichever way the prophets were

certain, that they were inspired of God, even when they foretold

contingent truths to come, it is without doubt, they were most

certainly persuaded, that they were divinely inspired, and that

frequently without any outward miracle. For John the Baptist did

no miracle; and many prophesied, where there appeared no miracle:

as in the Scriptures may be often observed. And we also by the

inspiration of the same Divine spirit, by which the prophets

prophesied, do believe their words and writings to be divine,

concerning contingent truths, as well past as to come; else that

faith, by which we believe the Scripture, would not be divine,

but merely human. And thence we need no outward miracles to move

us to believe the Scriptures; and therefore much less were they

necessary to the prophets who wrote them. For we see in many

places of the prophets, where they declare prophesies as revealed

to them of God, there is not a word mentioned of any outward

miracle, as that by which alone they were certain of it.

‘Moreover, the falseness of this argument doth appear, in that

the Scripture doth declare many contingent truths to have been

revealed to the prophets in dreams. Now as natural and wicked men

do not see what they dream by a real perception of the outward

senses, but by inward ideas which are presented to the mind, and

perceived by it, so it is also in divine revelations of this

nature. Of which we have a clear example in Joseph, the husband

of the blessed Virgin, who, when he observed his wife with

child, was told in a dream, that she had conceived by the Holy

Ghost: now I would know, to which of Joseph’s outward senses was

this revealed? or what miracle had he to induce him to believe?

which could neither be proved, so as to make an infallible

application to Mary, by the testimony of the Scripture; and which

being against the order of nature, did choke his reason. The

Scripture mentions no miracle in this matter; and yet no doubt

Joseph had highly sinned had he not believed this revelation,

and notwithstanding, rejected his wife as an adultress. But if

thou sayest, that according to thy hypothesis there must have

been a miracle; that is only to beg the question: and how false

this hypothesis is, the apostle shows clearly, 1 Cor. ii. 14.

the natural or animal man knoweth not, receiveth not, the things

of God. Now divine revelations are of this nature; if either

chiefly or only those things were to be judged by the outward

senses, it would contradict the apostle. For natural men, yea,

the most wicked, have the use of the outward senses as true and

exact as the most godly. And whereas the apostle adds, “For

they are spiritually discerned,” it puts the matter out of all

question: for thence it abundantly appears, that this discerning

is not by the outward senses according to the following verse;

for the apostle saith, “The spiritual man judgeth all things:”

this then must be done by some senses or properties peculiar to

the spiritual man, and in which he excels the natural man, which

is not in the outward senses, as we all do know. Therefore the

perception of “spiritual things cannot be by the outward senses,

either as the chief or only means,” as is falsely contended for.

‘Now as to these words of the apostle, Rom. x. That faith comes

by hearing; Zuinglius observed well, that the apostle intended

not to affirm faith to come by the hearing of the outward word;

neither do the following words prove it, “How shall they believe,

unless they hear? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

and how shall they preach, unless they be sent?” for the apostle

uses these words, not as his arguments, but as objections which

might be formed; as the same apostle uses in other places; to

which objections he answers in the same chapter, as appears

verse 18. “But I say, have not they all heard? yes, truly their

voice went into all the earth:” that is, of the Father and Son,

or the Father in the word; which word is not only near us, but

according to the same apostle in the same chapter, in our mouths,

and in our hearts. But further thou canst conclude nothing from

this, but that faith is begotten by outward hearing only, and no

otherwise: for this is the strength of thy argument, that since

faith cannot be without outward hearing, therefore nothing can

certainly be believed, but where somewhat is proposed to the

outward hearing. For if thou acknowledge faith can be begotten

any otherwise than by hearing, thou losest the strength of thy

argument: and if that argument hold, that faith comes only by

outward hearing, thou destroyest the whole hypothesis. For having

before affirmed, that outward miracles are sufficient to render

one certain of the truth of any revelation; whether it be the

healing of the sick, or the raising of the dead, would avail

nothing, because those, (as for the most part all miracles,) are

obvious to the sight, not to the hearing: and if it be not by

outward hearing only, thou canst conclude nothing from this place.

‘But I the more wonder thy using of this argument, considering

the discourse we had together before we entered upon this debate:

for when we were speaking of the opinion of a certain person, who

denied the certainty of every thing, but what was discerned by

the outward senses, thou condemnedst it as most absurd; but why,

I cannot conceive, since there is no great difference betwixt

these two opinions: the one saith there can be no great certainty

concerning any truths, whether they be necessary or contingent,

but by the perception of the senses: the other affirms the same

of contingent truths, though not of necessary truths. But among

the number of contingent truths thou esteemest what belongs to

Christian religion, for thou reckons the necessary truths only

to belong to natural religion. This then is all the difference,

that that other person says, there is no certainty of any

religion, neither natural nor Christian, but by the perception

of the outward senses: but thou sayest though thou esteemest

the certainty of natural religion to be without them, yet not

of the Christian religion. But again, since thou esteemest that

not natural religion but the Christian religion is necessary to

salvation, thou must necessarily conclude, that those truths

which are necessary to salvation, are only known and believed by

the benefit of the outward senses: in which conclusion, (which is

the sum of all,) thou yieldest the matter to that other person.

‘But lastly: if all the certainty of our faith, hope, and

salvation, did depend upon the infallibility of outward

senses, we should be most miserable; since these senses can be

easily deceived, and, by many outward casualties and natural

infirmities, whereunto the godly are no less subject than the

wicked, are often vitiated; and there are, (as the Scripture

affirms,) false miracles, which, as to the outward, cannot be

distinguished from the true; of which we cannot infallibly judge

by the outward senses, which only discern what is outward.

‘There is a necessity then to have recourse to some other means.

‘From all which it does appear, how fallacious and weak this

argument is: but thanks be unto God, who would not that our faith

should be built upon so uncertain and doubtful a foundation. And

whoever hath known true faith, or hath felt the divine testimony

of God’s spirit in his soul, will judge otherwise, neither will

be moved by such reasonings. I pray God therefore to remove these

clouds, which darken thy understanding, that thou mayest perceive

the glorious gospel of Christ; this is that saving word of grace

which I commend thee unto; and that God may give thee a heart

inclinable to believe and obey the truth, is the desire of

Thy faithful friend,

R. BARCLAY.’

From the prison of Aberdeen, in

Scotland, where I am confined for

the sake of the testimony of Jesus.

November 24, 1676.

This letter, a year ago, at the desire of my friend R. B. I

delivered into the hands of the afore-named ambassador,

desiring his answer in writing, which he then promised; but not

having as yet done, it was seen meet to be published.