And did not the Apostle say in Rom. i. 9, that he served God in the Spirit. And is it not the Duty of all Christians, to serve God in the Spirit? And is not that a sufficient Rule that will teach them to know how to serve God (to wit, his holy spirit) by which Spirit they may know God, and Christ, and the Scriptures, and know one another in the Spirit, and in it have Fellowship, and so keep the Unity of the Spirit, the Bond of Peace, yea, the Bond of the Prince of Princes, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords Peace, which none can take away from them?

And doth not Christ say, They that worship the Father, must worship him in Spirit and in Truth? And is not that a sufficient Rule, to worship him in, the Grace of God, which brings Salvation, which teacheth the Saints? is not this a sufficient Rule to teach and to establish the Heart, and season thy Words, and bring Salvation.

And the Apostle saith, Rom. viii. 26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our Infirmities. So is not the Spirit sufficient, that helps Peoples And the Spirit it self makes

Infirmities?
Intercession.

And in Gal. v. 16. I say, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the Lusts of the Flesh.

And is not this a sufficient Rule for People to walk by?

And the Apostle saith in Gal. ii. 19, 20. For I through the Law am dead to the Law, that I might live unto God; I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the Life that I now live in the Flesh, I live by the Faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. [Mark] This should be every CHRISTIAN'S Life and Living.

Worcester Prison, the 9th day of the 11th Moneth, 1674.

GEORGE FOX.

For obeying the Command of Christ and the Apostle James his Doctrine, who say, Swear not at all, Mat. v. Jam, v.

*

*

*

*

[Title-page of a pamphlet by Whitehead the Quaker, which only contains 26 pages.]

The

PATH OF THE JUST CLEARED;
and

Cruelty and Tyranny laid Open.
Or a few Words to you Priests
and Magistrates of this nation

(who say we deny the Scriptures, and that we are Antichrists and Deceivers, and that we deny the Word of God.)

Wherein your Oppression and Tyranny is laid Open, which by you is unjustly acted against the Servants of the Living God, who by the World which hate the Light of Christ, are in Derision called Quakers.

Wherein also is something declared both to Judge and Justices so called, concerning Contempt of Authority.

Also the Ground and Cause of the Imprisonment of George Whitehead and John Harwood, who are Sufferers for the Innocent Truth's sake, in the Goal of Bury in Suffolk.

Also a Copy of a Paper, which a Servant of the Lord, called Richard Clayton, was moved to set upon a Steeple-house Door at Bury in Suffolk, for which he was caused to be whipped by one Thomas Waldegrave, Justice of Peace in the said County.

But though hand joyn in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished; but the Seed of the Righteous shall be delivered. Prov. xi. 21.

From the Spirit of the Living God in me, whose name in the flesh is George Whitehead, who for Sion's sake cannot hold my peace, but testifie against her Oppressors: who am a Sufferer as aforesaid, the 4 day of the 7 month, 1655.

Also a Paper against the Sin of Idleness, which we declare against, and live out of; and are diligent serving the Lord, though that sin be cast upon us, yet it we deny, with all other sins and ungodlinesses, which is contrary to the Gospel of Christ.

London, Printed for Giles Colvert, at the BlackSpread-Eagle, near the West End of Paul's, 1655.

XII

HALIFAX

[George Savile, Marquis of Halifax (c. 1630-1695) was one of the first statesmen of his time, and his pamphlets entitle him to a place among English classics. Raised to the peerage for his assistance in bringing about the Restoration, he had been dismissed from the Lord Presidency of the Council two years before the appearance of the Letter to a Dissenter, for his strenuous opposition to the repeal of the Test Act. Two years afterwards it was he who was chosen to present the Crown to William III.

James II. in 1687 issued the Declaration of Indulgence, the object of which was to remove all the disabilities under which Roman Catholics suffered. In order to win support for his measure the King included in the Declaration all moderate Presbyterians and Quakers. The balance of power thus lay with the Dissenters. If they were tempted by the promise of toleration to side with the King, he would probably have been strong enough to carry his way. The Dissenters, who had been treated with especial severity since the fall of Shaftesbury in 1681, suddenly found themselves courted on all sides: at first some of them wavered, but in the end their fear and hatred of Romanism

overcame all else, and they sided with the Church and the people against James' toleration. Halifax's Letter had a large share in this result. Its effect was immense; over 20,000 copies were circulated by the post, and thus it told in every corner of the Kingdom. Twenty-four answers were published to the Letter, "but the town pronounced that they were all bad." The Government was greatly irritated at the success of the tract, and spared no pains to discover its author. Some fancied they recognised the style of Sir William Temple. "But in truth,” says Macaulay, "that amplitude and acuteness of intellect, that vivacity of fancy, that terse and energetic style, that placid dignity, half courtly half philosophical, which the utmost excitement of conflict could not for a moment derange, belonged to Halifax, and to Halifax alone."

"In this masterly little tract," continues Macaulay, "all the arguments which could convince a nonconformist that it was his duty and his interest to prefer an alliance with the Church to an alliance with the Court, were condensed into the smallest compass, arranged in the most perspicuous order, illustrated with lively wit, and enforced by an eloquence earnest indeed, yet never in its utmost vehemence trangressing the limits of exact good sense and good breeding." Mackintosh, in his History of the Revolution, calls it the most perfect model of a political tract. "Although its whole argument," he says, "unbroken by diversion to general topics, is brought exclusively to bear with concentrated force upon the question, the parties, and the moment, it cannot be read after an interval of a century and a half without admiration of its acuteness, address, terseness, and poignancy."]