Chapter XLIV: Appendix: to VOL. I (12)

‘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.

B. F.

Rotterdam, the 28th of March, 1678.

* * * * *

_A brief and distinct Solution of the Argument which the
Ambassador aforesaid useth against_ Robert Barclay’s Thesis,
_whereby he attempts to evince, that not the inward revelation
of the_ Holy Spirit, _but the outward by the Scripture, is the
principal rule, and foundation of our faith: at least to us
Europeans, who have the Scriptures._

As to his argument, as it was transmitted to us, if he considers the strength and substance of it, thus it stands: ‘The history of the outward coming, nativity, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, is either necessary to their salvation, to whom the Scriptures came, or it is not necessary, viz. to be known and believed. If we say the second, namely, that the history is not necessary to be known and believed in order to the salvation of us Europeans who have the Scriptures, then it will follow that we are not Christians, because we deny that true, essential, and constitutive character of the Christian religion, which consists in believing that Christ was sent into the world, born of the Virgin Mary, dead and buried, rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, &c. But if they say the first, viz. That the knowledge and faith of the history are necessary to our salvation, then it will follow, that the Scripture, and not the inward revelation of the holy Spirit, is the principal rule and foundation of that historical faith and knowledge.

Now this he endeavours to prove, both from some other principles of the Quakers, so called, and from R. B.’s sixth Thesis, after this manner:

That, said the ambassador, is the principal rule and foundation
of our faith, which is the only medium or mean, whereby that
historical knowledge and faith are brought unto us: but,
according to the Quakers, and the sixth Thesis, the Scripture is
the only medium or mean, whereby that historical knowledge and
faith are brought unto us: therefore, according to the Quakers,
and the sixth Thesis, the Scripture is the principal rule and
foundation of our faith.

The minor he proves thus: the author of the Thesis, (says he,)
confesseth in his sixth Thesis, that there is a people, to whom
God, by some inevitable accident, hath made that historical
knowledge and faith impossible: and the reason why that
historical knowledge and faith are impossible to that people, is
because they are destitute of the Scriptures, and live in those
corners of the world, whereunto the outward preaching of the
history never came; from which argument it will follow, that the
Scriptures are the only medium or mean, whereby the historical
knowledge and faith of Christ came to any people.

For the clearer understanding the solution of this argument, some things worthy observation are to be considered:

1. First then observe, that the force of this argument at most
intends to prove this, viz. That the Scripture is the principal
rule and foundation of historical faith and knowledge; but we
with good reason distinguish between historical and saving
knowledge, and between historical and saving faith; because
many may have an historical knowledge and faith, who have not
that which is saving. Yea, it is possible, that a man, by the
inward revelation of the holy Spirit, may have an historical
knowledge and faith, who yet may not have that faith which is
saving; because saving faith hath regard to God, not precisely as
revealing some outward history concerning God and Christ but as
revealing very God and Christ by his grace, goodness, mercy, and
power, ready and willing to save us, according to his unspeakable
good-will towards us: by which saving faith we rest upon God
through Christ, our light and life, as upon our most merciful
Father; which faith can neither exist, nor be conceived without
love to God, humility before God, denial, and diffidence of self;
and therefore such a faith is saving. But historical faith,
though wrought in the hearts of men by the inward revelation and
operation of the holy Spirit, may be without that divine love,
humility and self-denial: wherefore precisely considered in its
own nature, it is not saving. It was this kind of knowledge and
faith which wicked Balaam had, who saw and knew many historical
futurities, and believed them, but had not saving faith.

2. Observe, secondly, That the knowledge and faith necessary to
salvation, are to be understood two ways, either by a necessity
antecedent, or in way of priority, or by a necessity consequent,
or in way of posteriority. Necessity antecedent, or in way of
priority, is, when something is absolutely necessary to our
salvation, that we both know and believe it; and because it is
necessary, God doth therefore reveal it to us; of which sort are
such principles as these, viz. That God follows men with his love
and good-will; that he invites and persuades them to come unto
him; that he is ready to show favour to men, and pardon their
sins, if they sincerely repent themselves of their past misspent
life, and lead a new one for the time to come; that God hears
the prayers of those that are truly humble and suppliant; that
he is a glorious rewarder of all that live soberly, righteously,
and godly; that he is a most just avenger against all those who
despise his grace and love, and repent not of their sins, &c.
All which, in some degree, are to all men, even to those who are
destitute of the Scriptures, revealed by that inward evangelical
light, which enlightens all men. Necessity consequent, or in
way of posteriority, is, when something is not absolutely
necessary to our salvation, but after a certain sort, or under
some respect, condition, and limitation; of which kind are those
things which are not revealed, because they are necessary; but
because they are revealed, they are necessary to be believed by
us: for example; if God should reveal to any man, that it was
his will and command, he should go to Rome to reprove tyranny
and superstition; certainly this revelation were necessary to
be believed to that man’s salvation, by a necessity consequent,
because that faith is an act of obedience; and to obey God is
necessary to salvation.

3. Observe in the third place, that among those things that are
necessary to be believed to salvation by a necessity consequent,
there are some things, though not absolutely necessary, yet are
they very profitable and conducive means to our salvation; of
which sort are the historical knowledge and faith concerning God,
the creation and government of the world. Christ’s taking flesh,
and dying therein for our sins, &c. whether that historical
knowledge come to us, either by the sole inward revelation of
the holy Spirit, without the medium or mean of Scripture, or
also by both, to wit, both by the inward inspiration of the holy
Spirit, and by the Scriptures; which two mediums or means, do
sometimes concur in producing in men historical knowledge and
faith concerning God and Christ, as is said before, but in a
different manner. The outward revelation, as it is called, of
Scripture, is a medium or mean, by way of material object, in
producing that historical knowledge and faith: but the inward
inspiration and revelation wrought in the hearts of men by the
holy Spirit, are a medium or mean by way of formal object,
in producing the same historical knowledge and faith. By the
material object we understand that which is believed; and
therefore the Scriptures which are believed, are the material
object of historical knowledge and faith. By the formal object
we understand the principal motive in respect to the object,
for which the Scriptures are believed. But the principal motive
in respect of the object, is not the Scripture itself, but that
inward testimony of the holy Spirit, which when we hear or read
the Scriptures, when it pleaseth the most good and great God to
inspire the hearts of men, works an assent in us, whether it
inclines us to assent to the historical truths hitherto declared
in the Scriptures or no: wherefore we do not affirm that the holy
Spirit doth ordinarily and commonly speak in us something that is
new, or declare to our inward hearing those particular histories
of God and Christ, (though God may, if he shall please, do it at
this day;) but we say, that God doth by his holy Spirit, through
his sensible and perceptible motions and operations objectively
representing themselves, move and incline us to assent unto, and
believe the Scriptures, and the historical truths declared of in
the Scriptures.

These things considered, we affirm, that though the Scriptures
are ordinarily and commonly a certain medium or mean, by way of
material object or condition, for the producing of historical
knowledge and faith in us; and that, commonly speaking, a
necessary mean too, as being that without which God doth not
ordinarily reveal the outward history of God and Christ; yet we
utterly deny that in true Christians the Scripture, or outward
history in the Scriptures, is the principal motive, foundation,
or principal rule of that historical faith, much less of saving
faith, to the producing of which the letter of the Scripture doth
very frequently, (as to many of its acts, if not all,) not concur
or co-operate, either as a material object, or as a necessary
condition, which is wont commonly to be called in the schools,
_Causa sine quâ non_, or a cause or condition without which a
thing cannot be done, though it doth not influence the effect.

Now for a direct solution of the argument aforesaid, we answer,
that the historical knowledge and faith concerning Christ’s being
born, dead, buried, &c. to us Europeans, who have the Scriptures,
are necessary to salvation, that is to say, by a necessity
consequent, or in way of posteriority, (as was before explained,)
which assertion of ours nevertheless militates not against the
sixth Thesis, which granteth, that that historical knowledge
and faith are impossible to those who live in those corners of
the world, where the knowledge of the history is wanting: which
impossibility is not absolutely to be understood, but after a
sort, and in some respect; because, without doubt, God doth
ordinarily communicate that historical knowledge unto men, by the
medium or mean of the Scriptures; yet not as the principal medium
or mean, much less as by the only one: because certainly that
inward motion of the holy Spirit wrought in our hearts, moving
and inclining us objectively to assent unto, and believe the
Scriptures, is the principal motive in respect of the object, for
which we believe the Scriptures, and therefore is the foundation
and principal rule of our historical faith also.

Wherefore we answer unto the minor proposition of the last
syllogism, by plainly and directly denying that minor
proposition, viz. That the Scriptures are the only medium or
mean for attaining to the knowledge of the history: they are
indeed one certain medium or mean, and that necessary; but they
are not the only or principal. An example for the illustration
hereof, occurs in natural and outward vision: for when I see a
white or red rose, that white or red rose is the material object
of my sight, and one necessary medium for the producing of that
sight; yet that rose is not the only medium or mean; for the
light is another, no less necessary, concurring to produce my
sight, by way of formal object, by means of which I see that rose
represented under such or such a colour and figure. Moreover, in
that he asserts, these inward motions wrought by the holy Spirit
in the hearts of believers, are so undiscernible by us, that
believers cannot clearly and infallibly distinguish them from
their own private and proper motions; this he supposes but proves
not. And therein he is deceived, either through his inexperience,
or want of that due waiting, and attention to those motions in
the divine illumination of Christ, wherewith he hath enlightened
both him [the ambassador] and all men coming into the world. But
our experience, together with the experience of the holy prophets
and apostles, is a stronger motive to induce us to believe, that
divine inward revelation is sufficiently clear and convincing
by its own light and evidence, than his own bare and jejune
supposition to the contrary, by reason of his want of experience
or attention.

As to the Latin, we have not been very curious in this writing,
by reason of haste; yet have briefly answered the argument as
a friend communicated it to us by letter; if he hath omitted
any thing in this transmission, or we may seem not to have
understood, or touched the strength of the argument, let it be
remitted to us; and we, through divine assistance, shall answer
it at large.

GEORGE KEITH, AND
ROBERT BARCLAY.

This solution was delivered to the said
ambassador, not long before the epistle cited
page 537, and at page 17, in the Appendix to
Sewel’s Dutch History.

* * * * *

_A brief Enodation of an Argument proposed by another person._

Moreover as to what relates to another person’s argument against that part of R. B.’s second Thesis, which asserts, that divine inward revelation is that which is evident and clear of itself, moving the well-disposed understanding by its own evidence, &c. to the end of the Thesis.

The argument is thus formed: Such an evidence as is asserted in the Thesis, is destructive of faith, because it is not the evidence of faith. He proves the antecedent by the words of the Apostle, “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. xi. 1. By which words the apostle seems to intimate, that faith hath not this kind of evidence; for if it were of things seen, it would contradict the apostle.

The solution of this argument is easy; for evidence is three-fold.

The first is the evidence of things sensible, appertaining to the outward senses.

The second is the evidence of things intellectual, but natural, appertaining to natural reason.

The third is the evidence of things spiritual and supernatural, as they are proposed to the understanding by the inward illumination and revelation of the Holy Spirit.

The first evidence may be called the evidence of sense, or animal evidence.

The second, the evidence of reason, or rational evidence.

The third, the evidence of faith, or spiritual evidence.

But faith is the evidence of things not seen, that is, neither visible by the outward senses, or by natural reason; yet these things hinder not, but that faith may be the evidence of things not seen by the understanding of a man, not as operating in its own natural way, but as divinely elevated and assisted by the inward illumination and operation of the holy Spirit. Wherefore, though things appertaining to faith may be very obscure, and as it were mere darkness, both to the outward senses, and natural reason; yet they have their evidence, if duly proposed to an understanding divinely enlightened. Is it not said in the same chapter to the Hebrews, concerning Moses, that by faith he saw God? That is to say, not by the outward eye, nor by the eye of natural reason, but by the eye of faith.

The curious may see the original Latin, from which the preceding are translated, in the Appendix to William Sewel’s Dutch History of the Quakers.

THE TENTH BOOK. 1677-1688.

1677.

The year 1677 was scarce begun, when G. Fox, though the roads were yet covered with snow, travelled again. After he had passed many places, and preached in the meetings of his friends, he came to York, and going from thence to Nottingham, went to the house of John Reckless, who was sheriff there when G. Fox preached the first time in that town, and was imprisoned on that account: but he taking G. Fox into his house, had been so reached by what he spoke, that he embraced the doctrine he held forth, and never departed from the profession thereof. From hence G. Fox passed through Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire, where he met with William Dewsbury, and so came again to London, where having assisted at the annual meeting, he, with William Penn, Robert Barclay, George Keith, &c. went over to Holland, to see his friends there, and to edify them with his gift. William Penn and Robert Barclay travelled up into Germany, and since R. Barclay the year before had spoken with the princess Elizabeth of the Palatinate, daughter of Frederick, king of Bohemia, and sister of Sophia, late duchess of Hanover, mother of George, king of Great Britain, W. Penn had also written two letters to her from England, which she answered by this following:

_Hereford, May 2, 1667._

‘This, friend, will tell you that both your letters were very
acceptable, together with your wishes for my obtaining those
virtues which may make me a worthy follower of our great King and
Saviour Jesus Christ. What I have done for his true disciples
is not so much as a cup of cold water: it affords them no
refreshment; neither did I expect any fruit of my letter to the
duchess of L. as I have expressed at the same time unto B. F.
But since R. B. desired I should write it, I could not refuse
him, nor omit to do any thing that was judged conducing to his
liberty, though it should expose me to the derision of the world.
But this a mere moral man can reach at; the true inward graces
are yet wanting in

Your affectionate friend,
ELIZABETH.’

G. Fox also from Amsterdam wrote a letter to this virtuous princess, wherein he commended her modest and retired life, and exhorted her to piety and godliness: to which she answered with this letter:

‘_Dear Friend_,

‘I cannot but have a tender love to those that love the Lord
Jesus Christ, and to whom it is given not only to believe in
him, but also to suffer for him: therefore your letter, and your
friends’ visit, have been both very welcome to me. I shall follow
their and your counsel, as far as God will afford me light and
unction; remaining still

Your loving friend,
ELIZABETH.’

Herford, the 30th of August, 1677.

This correspondence gave occasion to William Penn and Robert Barclay, to pass towards Herford, a town on the frontiers of Paderborn, and to give the said princess, who resided there, a visit. With her lived Ann Maria, countess of Hornes; and in one of the chambers of the princess, William Penn and Robert Barclay had a meeting with the princess, the countess, and several others, to their great satisfaction. And the countess, who was one of Labadie’s adherents, signified to William Penn, that she wished a meeting might be had where the inferior servants might freely appear. William Penn not refusing this, the princess consented to it; and after the meeting, (where she was not present, that so her servants might have a more free access,) she expressed much satisfaction in having had that good opportunity. And then so earnestly invited William Penn and Robert Barclay, (who lodged at an inn,) to sup with her, that they not being well able to refuse the invitation, yielded to it. There was then with her a French woman of quality, who having had before a very slight opinion of the Quakers, now became deeply broken, and very affectionately kind and respectful to William Penn and Robert Barclay. The next day was the first of the week; and it being agreed with the princess to have another meeting, William Penn desired that not only as many of her own family, but as many of the town as would willingly be there, might be admitted. To this she yielded. And thus William Penn and Robert Barclay had a large opportunity to preach effectually, and to discharge themselves. After the meeting was done, the princess came to William Penn, and taking him by the hand, she spoke to him of the sense she had of the power and presence of God that had been among them; and thus going on she broke forth into an extraordinary passion, crying out, ‘I cannot speak to you, my heart is full,’ clapping her hand upon her breast. This affected William Penn not a little, yet he spoke a few words to her by way of admonition; and then taking his leave of her, she said, ‘Will you not come hither again? Pray call here as ye return out of Germany.’ To this he returned, ‘We are in the hand of the Lord, and being at his pleasure, cannot so fully dispose of ourselves.’ Solemn leave then being taken, Robert Barclay returned to Amsterdam, and William Penn went to Paderborn, and so by the way of Cassel, (where he spoke with the aged and learned Dureus,) to Frankfort. Here he found several persons of note, with whom he had several times a meeting, and once at the house of a young gentlewoman, noble of birth, called Johannah Eleonora Merlane, who said to him, ‘Our quarters are free for you, let all come that will come; and lift up your voices without fear.’

Departing thence William Penn came to Chrisheim, a village near Worms, where then lived some of his friends, who afterwards went to Pennsylvania, and settled themselves there. Whilst William Penn was in the Palatinate, he wrote an exhortatory epistle[45] to Elizabeth princess Palatine, and Anna Maria countess of Hornes; and then went to Heidelberg, the chief city of the Palatinate, to speak with the prince Elector, Charles Ludowick, brother of the said princess Elizabeth; but the said prince then happened to be out of town: and since this chief message was to desire the prince that the Quakers at Chrisheim might be treated more mildly, for tithes were exacted from them not only by the parson of the village, but also by the popish priests of Worms; and the vaught, or mayor of the town, endeavoured to restrain their due liberty of religious meeting together, he from thence took occasion to write a letter in their favour to the said prince,[46] because he had not been able to speak to him. Returning afterwards to Chrisheim, and preaching there in a meeting of his friends, he was overheard by the vaught, or chief officer, who stood at the back-door that he might not be seen, who was so well pleased with what he heard, that he afterwards told the parson, that it was his work, if the Quakers were heretics, to discover them to be such: ‘But for my part,’ continued he, ‘I heard nothing but what was good; and therefore I would not meddle with them.’ For the parson had busied himself to persuade the vaught that it was his duty to suppress heresy: but the vaught made it appear that he had no mind to persecute for religion’s sake. W. Penn having now cleared his conscience, returned by way of Frankfort, Cologne, Cleves, &c. to Amsterdam, where at Cologne he received a letter from the princess Elizabeth, in answer to that he had written to her from the Palatinate: the said letter was as followeth:

[45] See Penn’s Travels in Holland, &c. 3d impression, p. 77.

[46] Ibid. p. 84.

‘_The 4/14 of September, 1677._

‘DEAR FRIEND,

‘I have received your greetings, good wishes, and exhortations,
with much joy, and shall follow the latter as far as it will
please our great God to give me light and strength. I can say
little for myself, and can do nothing of myself; but I hope the
Lord will conduct me in his time, by his way, to his end, and
that I shall not shrink for his fire. I do long for it; and
when he assures my ways, I hope he will give me power to hear
the cross I meet therein; I am also glad to hear the journey
hath been prosperous both in the constitutions of your bodies,
to withstand the badness of the weather, and in the reception
you had in Cassel, Frankfort, and Chrisheim. Nothing surprised
me there but the good old Dury, in whom I did not expect so
much ingenuousness, having lately wrote a book, intitled, _Le
vêritable Chrétien_, that doth speak in another way. I wish to
know what reception you have had at Fredericksburg, and if this
find you at Cleves, I wish you might take an occasion to see the
two pastors of Mulheim, which do really seek the Lord, but have
some prejudice against your doctrine, as also the countess there.
It would be of much use for my family to have them disabused; yet
God’s will be done in that, and all things else concerning

Your loving friend in the Lord Jesus,
ELIZABETH.’

Whilst William Penn made this journey into Germany, George Fox was gone to Hamburg and Frederickstadt, to visit his friends there; and Penn being returned to Amsterdam, went from thence to Friesland, and met George Fox as he was coming back to Holland, at Leewarden; from whence he made a step to Wiewart, where a society of the Labadites dwelt. Here he spoke with the famous Anna Maria Schurman, the gentlewomen Somerdykes, the French pastor Peter Yvon, and others. After some discourse from both sides, when Yvon had given a relation concerning John de Labadie, how he was bred among the Jesuits, and deserted them, and embraced the Protestant religion, and how becoming dissatisfied with the formal Protestants, he with some that adhered to him, had separated themselves from the vulgar assemblies, Anna Maria Schurman began to speak, and gave an account of her former life, of her pleasure in learning, and her love to the religion she was brought up in, but confessed she knew not God or Christ truly all that while. And though from a child God had visited her at times, yet she never felt such a powerful stroke, as by the ministry of John de Labadie: and then she saw her learning to be vanity, and her religion like a body of death; and therefore resolved to despise the shame, desert her former way of living and acquaintance, and to join herself with this little family, that was retired out of the world. This and much more she spoke in a sensible frame, and with a serious mind, not without some trembling. And then one of the Somerdykes gave also an ample relation, concerning her inward state, and how she had been reached by the preaching of Labadie; and how before that time she had mourned because of the deadness and formality of the vulgar Christians, and said within herself, ‘O the pride, the lusts, the vain pleasures in which Christians live! Can this be the way to heaven? Is this the way to glory? Are these followers of Christ? O no! O God where is thy little flock? Where is thy little family that will live entirely to thee, that will follow thee? Make me one of that number.’ Then she told how being pricked to the heart, when she heard Labadie preach, she had resolved to abandon the glory and pride of this world; and further said, that she counted herself happy to have joined with this separated family. After some others had likewise given an account of their change, William Penn also gave a circumstantial relation, how he had been gradually drawn off from the vanity and pride of life; what adversities he had met with in the university at Oxford, because of his not joining with the debauchery committed there; and how, after having lived some time in France, he had been convinced by the effectual ministry of Thomas Loe, and so came to be joined with the despised Quakers. This his relation he concluded with a serious admonition how they ought to go on, and to grow in the true fear of God. At parting, one of the pastors asked him if the truth rose not first amongst a poor, illiterate, and simple sort of people. ‘Yes,’ answered William Penn; ‘and it is our comfort that we owe it not to the learning of this world.’ To which the pastor returned, ‘Then let not the learning of this world be used to defend that which the Spirit of God hath brought forth; for scholars now coming among you, will be apt to mix school learning amongst your simpler and purer language, and thereby obscure the brightness of your testimony.’ W. Penn, having answered to the purpose, took his leave, and travelled by way of Groninghen to Embden, where the Quakers at that time were persecuted severely with imprisonments and banishments: but I wave the relation thereof, because it hath long ago been published in print, and the magistrates there, being afterwards moved to pity by the persecution the protestants suffered in France, came to a better resolution, as may be mentioned in the sequel.

When W. Penn came to Embden, he went to speak with the burgomaster André, at his house, and asked him if he and the senate had not received a letter in Latin[47] from an Englishman about two years since, concerning their severity towards the people called Quakers? The burgomaster said he had. W. Penn then replied, ‘I am that man, and am constrained in conscience to visit thee on their behalf,’ &c. The burgomaster deported himself with more kindness than was expected, and gave some faint hope of alteration; but it appeared sufficiently that the senate was not as yet so disposed, for persecution continued there yet a long while.

[47] Which being translated into English, runs thus, and deserves
the serious consideration of all magistrates.

To the Council and Senate of the City of Embden.

_The King of kings, and Lord of lords, who is God of all the
families of the earth, incline your hearts to justice, mercy,
and truth._

The noise of your severe treatment of several persons that are
inhabitants of your state, reproachfully termed Quakers, hath
reached these parts, and filled several with compassion and
surprise; compassion to hear of the [48]miseries of men innocent
and upright, against whom you have nothing to object, but the
pure exercise of their conscience to God; surprise, that you,
a Protestant state, should employ your civil power to deter,
punish, and grievously afflict men for answering the convictions
of their consciences, and acting according to the best of their
understanding. Methinks you should not be oblivious of your
own condition in the loins of your ancestors, who, you think,
with great reason and justice, strenuously advocated the cause
of liberty of conscience against the pope’s bulls and the
Spanish inquisition; how did they antichristian all force on
conscience or punishment for non-conformity? Their own many and
large apologies, and particularly their demands at the diets of
Nurimburg and Spire, are pregnant proofs in the case; and your
practice doth not lessen the weight of their reasons; on the
contrary, it aggravates your unkindness, let me say, injustice.

[48] Our account says, some were cruelly beaten by order;
others banished; some put in a dungeon, and fed with bread
and water only; several fined greater sums of money, it is
thought, than they had to pay.

Protestants, (and such you glory to be thought,) got their name
by protesting against imposition; and will you turn imposers?
They condemned it; and will you practise it? They thought it
a mark peculiar to the beast; and can you repute it the care
of a Christian magistracy? I mean, that persons must not live
under your government, unless they receive your mark in the
forehead or right hand? Which in plainer terms is, to submit
their consciences to your edicts, and to ask your leave what
religion they should be of. Remember, that faith is the gift of
God; and, that what is not of faith is sin: nothing can be more
unreasonable, than to compel men to believe against their belief,
or to trouble them for practising what they believe, when it
thwarts not the moral law of God.

You doubtless take yourselves to be Christians, and would esteem
it no little injury to be otherwise represented; yet what more
unchristian, than to use external force to sway the consciences
of men about the exercise of religious worship.

Christ Jesus, the Lord and author of the Christian religion,
censured his own disciples, that would have had fire from heaven
to destroy those that conformed not to what their blessed
Master taught: are you surer of your religion? Are you better
Christians? Or, have you more Christian authority, than they
that were the chosen witnesses of Jesus? However, remember, they
called but for fire from heaven; and can you kindle fire on
earth to devour them? Them, I say, that are of your own people,
merely for their religious dissent from you? Doubtless, if that
was then thought no fit argument to induce men to conformity
by him that was wiser than Solomon; it reflects greatly upon
your modesty and prudence, that you should find out new ways,
or rather old exploded ones to effect so ill a design. Besides,
you do not say you know all you ought to know, or that there
is nothing further to be revealed; have a care therefore, that
you persecute not angels, by being harsh to that which you call
strange; think not ill, much less speak, and least of all act,
that which is so against what you do not perfectly understand. I
am well persuaded, that those you inflicted such severe penalties
upon, mean well in what they believe, (to be sure much better
than you think they do, or else you are extremely to blame,) and
that the reason of their present distance from you, is not to
introduce or insinuate dangerous or exotic opinions, but to live
a life of more holiness, purity, and self-denial, than before:
they do not think that you walk up to your own principles; and
have reason to believe the power of godliness is much lost among
you; and having long lain under a decay and languishing of soul
for want of true spiritual nourishment, they have now betaken
themselves to that heavenly gift and grace of God in themselves
for divine satisfaction, even that holy anointing that is able to
teach them all things necessary for them to know; as the blessed
apostle speaks; and they find the joys of the Holy Ghost in so
doing: and I am persuaded they are not less peaceable, sober,
just, and neighbourly than formerly, and altogether as consistent
with the prosperity of civil society; and I am sure it is both
found and confest among us here by some men of quality, learning,
and virtue. Further, be pleased to consider with yourselves,
that you justify the ancient persecutions of the Christians and
first reformers, whose superiors thought as ill of them, as you
do of these men; nay, you show the Papists what to do in their
dominions to your own brethren. Do as you would be done by: if
you would have liberty, give it; you know that God’s witness in
your hearts dictates this to you as an immutable law.

Could you give faith, it were more excusable for you to punish
such as should resist; but since that is impossible, the other
is unreasonable; for it is to afflict men for not being what
they cannot be unless they turn hypocrites: that is the highest
pitch your coercive power can arrive at; for never did it convert
or preserve one soul to God; instead thereof it offers violence
unto conscience, and puts a man either upon the denial of his
faith and reason, or being destroyed for acting according to
them: but what greater disproportion can there be, than what
lieth between the intellect of man, and prisons, fines, and
banishments? They inform no man’s judgment, resolve no doubts,
convince no understanding: the power of persuasion is not to be
found in any such barbarous actions, no more than the doctrine of
Christianity. This course destroys the bodies and estates of men,
instead of saving their souls: were they in the wrong, it would
become you to use God’s weapons, his sword of the Spirit, that
saveth the creature; and slayeth the evil in him; this course
tends to heart-burnings and destruction; I am sure it is no
gospel argument.

I beseech you for the sake of that Lord Jesus Christ, that
suffered so patiently for his own religion, and so sharply
prohibited making other men to suffer for theirs, that you would
have a care how you exercise power over men’s consciences. My
friends, conscience is God’s throne in man, and the power of
it his prerogative: it is to usurp his authority, and boldly
ascend his throne, to set lords over it. Were their conversation
scandalous, and destructive to the good of your state, you
were to be held excusable: but verily, no man of mercy and
conscience, can defend your practice upon poor men so peaceable
and inoffensive. Gamaliel will rise up in judgment against you,
if you persevere in this course. Do not you help to fill the
catalogue of persecutors: in much love I intreat you; but as
becomes Christian men and true Protestants, leave men to their
particular persuasions of affairs relative of the other world,
which have no ill aspect on the affairs of this: but vice hath an
evil consequence as to both: therefore punish vice, and affect
truth and righteousness, and bend not your civil power to torment
religious dissenters, but to retrieve good life, lamentably lost
amidst the great pretences that are made to religion. Doubtless
magistracy was both ordained of God, and elected by men, to be
a terror of evil-doers, and not to them that do well, though of
different judgments. You oppugn the Roman church for assuming
infallibility to herself, and yet your own practice maketh you
guilty of the same presumption or worse: for either you do
exercise that severity upon an infallible knowledge, or you do
not; if you do, you take that to yourselves your principle denies
to any church whatever, which is a contradiction; if you do not,
you punish people for not conforming to what you yourselves deny
any certainty about: and how do you know but you compel them
to that which is false, as well as that which is true? Verily,
this dilemma is not easily avoided, as well as that this inhuman
practice will stain your profession, infame your government, and
bring a blot upon your posterity.

Remember that they are men as well as yourselves, born free,
and have equal plea to natural and civil common privileges with
yourselves: the different persuasion of their consciences about
things relating to another life, can no ways render them unfit
for this; it neither unmans nor uncivilizes them. They have the
same right to their liberty and property as ever, having by no
practice of theirs in the least forfeited any of those human
advantages, the great charters of nature and Scripture have
conferred upon them: and the opulency of your neighbours and
prosperity of their affairs, prove to you that indulgence is
not inconsistent with policy; howbeit, you have now tried the
sincerity of their procedure by what you have already inflicted,
and they sustained; let the time past suffice, and make them
not sacrifices for their conscientious constancy. If they are
in the wrong, it is more than they know; will you persecute men
for being what they must be, if they will be true to themselves;
this were great violence; rather commiserate than thus violently
compel them. I beseech you, seek some cheaper way to accommodate
yourselves, than by their destruction, who are so very remote
from seeking yours. Oh! the day will come, wherein one act of
tenderness about matters of conscience, shall find a better
reward, than all the severity by which men use to propagate their
persuasions in the world; and there is great reason for it, since
the one flows from the Saviour, the other from the destroyer of
men. In fine, let your moderation be known unto all men, for the
Lord is at hand, whose reward is with him; and he will recompense
every man, family, state, kingdom, and empire, according to the
nature of their works, committed in his mortal body; at whose bar
it shall never be laid to your charge, that out of fear of taking
God’s office out of his hands, and being unmerciful to tender
consciences, you admitted men of differing judgments to dwell
quietly among you: truly, you cannot be too tender in this point.

Imitate the God of nature and grace, by being propitious to all;
his sun shineth on all; his rain falls on all, he gives life and
being to all; his grace visits all, and in times of ignorance
he winketh: and though such you may repute ours, I hope you
cannot think you wink at it, who make such broad tokens of your
displeasure. Oh! how forbearing and merciful is he towards you?
Have you so lately escaped the wrath of enemies, and can you
already thus sharply treat your friends? Had he entered into
judgment with you, what had become of you? Let his goodness to
you prevail with you, to express clemency to others, that so
the great God of the whole earth, even the God of the spirits
of all flesh, who respects not the persons of the rich, poor,
or powerful in judgment, may show you mercy in the day of his
righteous judgments. Amen.

Your friend with the greatest integrity in the
universal principle of love and truth,
W. PENN.

_London, December 14, 1674._

After W. Penn had staid some time at Embden, he took a turn again to Herford, where he was received very kindly by the princess Elizabeth, and the countess of Hornes; and more than once he had a meeting in her chamber; and the princess was so reached and affected by his speaking, that she said, ‘I am fully convinced; but oh my sins are great!’ this gave occasion to W. Penn to speak to the princess and the countess apart, with respect to their particular conditions; which made a deep impression on their minds, especially the countess’s. Being much pressed by the princess to stay and sup with her, he yielded: and the countess from a serious sense of her compliance with the world, told him, ‘_Il faut que je rompe, il faut que je rompe_,’ i. e. ‘I must break off, I must break off.’ And at another time with a weighty countenance she cried out, ‘O the cumber and entanglements of this vain world; they hinder all good.’ Once the princess said to them, ‘It is a hard matter to be faithful to what one knows. I fear that I am not weighty enough in my spirit.’ At another time she told him, ‘Among my books I have records that the gospel was by the English first brought from England into Germany; and now it is come again.’ Thus this excellent princess signified how highly she valued the preaching of the gospel to her by W. Penn, and how much she esteemed his labour and ministry. When he took his leave of these eminent persons, having taken the princess by the hand, which she received with a weighty kindness, being much broken in spirit, he wished the blessing and peace of Jesus with and upon her; and then exhorting the countess, she frequently besought him to remember her, and implore the Lord on her behalf.

Next taking wagon for Wesel, from thence he travelled to Duisburgh, Dusseldorp, and Cologne, and then back again to Dusseldorp, to see if he could get an opportunity at Mulheim, to speak with the countess of Falkenstein, who was reported to be a very religious person, and therefore in his former journey he had endeavoured to visit her, but in vain; for the count of Bruch and Falkenstein, her father, kept her as it were under a confinement, because she was of a religious temper; and therefore he called her a Quaker, though she did not at all converse with any of the Quakers. He had also used W. Penn very roughly, when, being necessitated to pass by his castle, he being lord of that country, asked him and his friends from whence they were, and whither they went? to which they answered, that they were Englishmen come from Holland, and going no further in those parts than his town Mulheim: but they not pulling off their hats, the count called them Quakers, and said, ‘We have no need of Quakers here. Get you out of my dominions, you shall not go to my town.’ And he commanded some of his soldiers, to see them out of his territory. Thus W. Penn, and those with him, were necessitated to lie that night in the open air. But the next day he wrote a letter to the said count, and therein told him, ‘For thy saying, we want no Quakers here, I say, under favour, you do; for a true Quaker is one that trembleth at the word of the Lord, that worketh out his salvation with fear and trembling.’

W. Penn being come to Mulheim, could now no more find opportunity to speak with the countess than the first time he was in those parts; and therefore he went to Duisburgh, Wesel, and Cleves, where having had conferences with some religious people, he returned by way of Utrecht to Amsterdam, where G. Fox was also come back again.

Here W. Penn and G. Fox had a conference and dispute with Dr. Galenus Abraham, an eminent Baptist teacher, and some of that persuasion. Galenus asserted, that nobody now-a-days could be accepted as a messenger of God, unless he confirmed his doctrine by miracles. W. Penn wanted no arguments to contradict this, since the Christian religion had been once already confirmed by miracles, and that therefore this now was needless among Christians. G. Fox now and then spoke also something to the matter; but he being somewhat short breathed, went several times away, which some were ready to impute to a passionate temper; but I well know that therein they wronged him. This dispute was indeed a troublesome business; for the parties on both sides were fain to speak by an interpreter, which generally was performed so imperfectly, that at last the conference was broke off, without coming to a decision, although many weighty arguments were objected against the position. Certainly it cannot be denied that John the Baptist was sent of God to preach repentance; and yet in sacred writ it is said positively, John did no miracle; and yet many believed in him. And although there were some among the prophets that wrought miracles, yet we do not find in the holy Scriptures that Jonah, who was indeed a notable preacher of repentance, did any miracle, and nevertheless the Ninevites believed him, and deprecated those judgments he denounced, unless they repented. Of several other true prophets we find not the least mention of any miracles they did; but on the contrary, the Scriptures signify, that possibly false prophets might arise, and give signs or wonders; and that the doing of miracles could not always be a proof, or sure evidence, that any one was sent of God, appears plainly from what our Saviour himself said, viz. that among those to whom he should one day say, “Depart from me,” would be such that should say, “Have we not in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works?” And what shall we think of the sorcerers of Egypt; did not they seem to do the same wonders as Moses and Aaron did? And yet those wonders wherewithal they deceived Pharaoh and his men, were in no ways wrought by a divine power. Now, since it appears plainly from the holy Scriptures, and Christ himself said, “There shall arise false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders,” we might with good reason suspect the doctrine of one, who now-a-days wrought miracles, on purpose to make what he denounced, pass for truth.