but he added, that neither the pope nor the Papists were in that Catholic Faith; since the true faith worked by love, and purified the heart; and if they were in that faith which gives victory, by which they might have access to God, they would not talk to the people of a purgatory after death; neither would they ever use prisons, racks, or fines, to force others to their religion because that was not the practice of the apostles and primitive christians; but it was the practice of the faithless Jews and heathens, to use such forcing means. "But," continued G. Fox, "seeing thou art a great and leading man among the Papists, and sayest, there is no salvation but in your church, I desire to know of thee, what it is that bringeth salvation in your church." To this the Roman Catholic answered, a good life and nothing else? said G. Fox. Yes, replied the other, good works. "Is this your doctrine and principle?" said G. Fox. "Yes," said he. Then G. Fox replied, "Neither thou, nor the pope, nor any of the Papists know, what it is that brings salvation." Then the Roman Catholic asked him, what brings salvation into your church? G. Fox answered, that which brought salvation to the church in the apostles' days, namely the grace of God, which the Scripture says brings salvation, and hath appeared to all men; and teaches us to deny ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this present world. By this it appears, it is not the good works, nor the good life, that brings the salvation, but the grace. What! said the Roman Catholic, doth this grace, that brings salvation, appear unto all men? Yes, said G. Fox. I deny that returned the other. All that deny that, replied G. Fox, are sect-makers, and are not in the universal faith, grace, and truth, which the apostles were in. Then the Roman Catholic began to speak about the mother church, which gave occasion to much discourse, and G. Fox asserted, that if any outward place had claim to be the motherchurch, above all other churches, then Jerusalem had much more right to it than Rome. But in conclusion he said, that there was no other mother-church but Jerusalam, which is above, and is free, and which is the mother of us all, as saith the apostle. Upon this subject G. Fox did so paraphrase, that Esquire Marsh said at length to the Roman Catholic, O you do not know this man. If he would but come to church now and then, he would be a brave man. After some other discourse together, G. Fox got an opportunity to go aside with the said Marsh into another room, and to desire that he who had much of the management of affairs, would prevent the persecution of his friends as much as possibly he could. Marsh shewed himself not averse to this, but said, he was in a straight how to act between the Quakers and some other dissenters. "For," said he, " you say ye cannot swear, and the Independents, Baptists, and fifth monarchy people, say also, they cannot swear." To this G. Fox said, “І will shew thee, how to distinguish: the members of those societies thou speakest of, do swear in some cases, but we cannot swear in any case. If any one should steal their cows or horses, and thou shouldst ask them, whether they would swear they were theirs; many of them would readily do it. But if thou triest our friends, they cannot swear for their own goods. Therefore when thou puttest the oath of allegiance to any of them, ask them whether they can swear in any other case; as for their cow or horse? Which, if they be really of us, they cannot da, though they can bear witness to the truth." Then G. Fox gave him a relation of a trial in Berkshire, viz. "A thief having stolen two beasts from one of those called Quakers, was imprisoned; but somebody having informed the judge, that the man that prosecuted was a Quaker, and he (the judge) perceiving that he would not swear, would not hear what the man could say, but tendered him the oath of allegiance and supremacy, which the said Quaker refusing, the judge premunired him, and let the thief go free." Esquire Marsh having heard this relation, said, that judge was a wicked man. And by what G. Fox had told him, he sufficiently perceived how he might distinguish between the Quakers and other people. True it is, the Baptists in those days made some profession of the unlawfulness of swearing, but when they came to be tried on that account, they soon desisted from that part of their profession, as will be shewn more at large in the sequel. But they and the Independents, &c. were very loath to take the oath of allegiance, because of a grudge they had to government; and this was well known to those that were at the helm. But the innocent Quakers were continually exposed to the malice of their persecutors, and bore the hardest shock of the laws made against dissenters. But now justice Marsh did not omit to free the Quakers from persecution as much as was in his power: for he kept several from being premunired in those parts where he was a justice. And when sometimes he could not avoid sending those that were brought before him to prison, he sent some only for a few hours, or for a night. And even this was such hard work to him, that at length he told the king, he had sent some of the Quakers to M . prison contrary to his conscience, and that he could not do so any more. He also advised the king to give liberty of conscience; and he was so serviceable to stop the violence of persecution, that about this time little was heard about disturbing of meetings. About the forepart of this year, (if I mistake not) there happened a case at Edmondsbury, which I cannot well pass by in silence, viz. A certain young woman being delivered of a bastard child, destroyed it, and was therefore committed to prison; whilst she was in jail, it is said William Bennit, a prisoner for conscience sake, came to her, and in discourse asked her, whether during the course of her life, she had not many times transgressed against her conscience? And whether she had not often thereupon felt secret checks and inward reproofs, and been troubled in her mind because of the evil committed; and this he did in such a convincing way, that she not only assented to what he laid before her, but his discourse so reached her heart, that she came clearly to see, that if she had not been so stubborn and disobedient to those inward reproofs, in all probability she would not have come to such a miserable fall as now she had: for man not desiring the knowledge of God's ways, and departing from him, is left helpless, and cannot keep himself from evil, though it may be such as formerly he would |