In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 Friends’ Beginnings in England “. . . if anything be commanded of us by the present authority which is not according to equity, justice, and a good conscience toward God . . . we must in such cases obey God only . . . and deny active obedience for conscience’s sake, and patiently suffer what is inflicted upon us for our disobedience to men.”1 From their earliest beginnings in mid-seventeenth-century England, Quakers were mavericks, often in conflict with established law, and moreover, for religious and sociocultural reasons, had a marked irreverence toward the legal system.2 Friends such as George Fox, Edward Burrough, and others believed that law should be based solely on commands of the Spirit. Because Quakers disobeyed English laws they believed conflicted with these commands, hundreds died and thousands were jailed. Early Friends’ Civil Disobedience of English Laws Early Friends’ refusal to swear an oath placed them at odds with a fundamental requirement of English common law procedure and left them vulnerable to charges of obstruction of justice. In early 1659, Yorkshire justices sent a petition to Richard Cromwell, Lord Protector, “these populous Places and Parts adjacent, now are, and for a long Time have been miserably perplexed, and much disettled by that unruly Sect of People called Quakers, whose Principles are to overturn, overturn, overturn Magistracy, Ministry, Ordinances. . . . These will not know nor acknowledge any Subjection they owe to any Powers upon Earth.”3 The genesis of Friends’ refusal to swear can be traced to Matthew: . . . Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths; But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne; Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt 29 30 Friends at the Bar thou swear by thy head. . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evi1.4 Fox contended that the refusal to swear oaths was not from obstinacy but from obedience to this scriptural command. Friends believed that yea and nay were all that need be offered their government, and the saying, “Let your yea be yea and your nay, nay,” is occasionally spoken by modern Quakers, regarding their efforts to be forthright and speak the truth. Another important reason for Friends’ refusal to swear was that they sought to tell the truth at all times, not only on particular occasions. Friends believed that one who truly and uprightly feared God would no more speak falsely than swear falsely and so would testify from his good conscience as truly as if he had sworn. Oath-taking was a futile redundancy for Friends because truthfulness was a compelling element of their faith and a basic part of their lives. The words of Margaret Fell forcefully imparted the importance of plain speaking and truthfulness: “Now, Friends deal plainly with yourselves, and let the Eternal Light search you . . . for this will deal plainly with you; it will rip you up, and lay you open . . . naked and bare before the Lord God, from whom you cannot hide yourselves . . . Therefore give over deceiving of your Souls. . . .5 Margaret, Judge Thomas Fell’s widow, later became George Fox’s wife. However, because oaths had been the “immemorial core and sanction of English jurisprudence,”6 this attitude was an abiding source of friction between Quakers and the English legal establishment. The Quaker Act of 1661–16627 specifically targeted them because legal officials believed their civil disobedience obstructed the administration of justice. On September 7, 1664, Justice John Kelyng denounced their refusals to swear: “without swearing we can have no Justice done, no Law executed, you may be robbed, your Houses broke open, your Goods taken away, and be injured in your Persons, and no Justice or Recompense can be had, because the Fact cannot be proved.”8 The first Conventicle Act, passed that year, formalized this rationale into law.9 During Fox’s imprisonment at Worcester, Friends delivered to King Charles II, his Council, Members of Parliament, and other officials “People Called Quakers Relating to Oaths and Swearing,”10 complaining about the imprisonment of 130 Yorkshire Quakers for refusing to swear oaths and charging that magistrates in York who had known for years about this stand of conscience had nevertheless imprisoned them for it.11 Court officials would often ignore the original cause of a Quaker’s indictment and, knowing of their refusal...

Share