[39] No single sentence better sums up George Fox's whole theology than this: "I told them they were not to dispute of God and Christ, but to obey Him."
[40] These answers sufficiently differentiate George Fox from the "Ranters."
[41] Here begins Fox's first serious imprisonment. The charge was direct and distinct. He was committed as a blasphemer. Under the law passed by both Houses of Parliament, in 1648, Fox might easily have been condemned to suffer a death penalty. It was an offense, punishable by death, to deny that the Scriptures are the Word of God, or that the bodies of men shall rise after they are dead. It was blasphemy to say that the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not commanded by God. It was also blasphemy to declare that man has by nature free will to turn to God. It was, of course, not difficult to find a charge of the violation of this drag-net act.
From Derby prison he wrote many letters, to the magistrates, to the justices, to the "priests," to the court at Derby, to the mayor, to the individual justices, and to "the ringers of bells in steeple-houses." He calls them all to obedience to the light within them. "Mind that which is eternal and invisible." "Keep in the innocency and be obedient to the faith in Him."
[42] This is the whole of our data for the origin of the name "Quaker." Fox told the Justice to tremble at the word of the Lord, and the Justice thereupon fixed the name "quaker" upon him. There is probably, however, something back of this particular incident which helped give the name significance. The editors of the New English Dictionary (see the word Quaker) have discovered the fact that this name for a religious sect was not entirely new at this time. Letter No. 2,624 of the Clarendon collection, written in 1647, speaks of a sect from the continent possessed of a remarkable capacity for trembling or quaking: "I heare of a sect of woemen (they are at Southworke) come from beyond the Sea, called quakers, and these swell, shiver and shake, and when they come to themselves (for in all this fitt Mahomett's holy-ghost hath bin conversing with them) they begin to preach what hath been delivered to them by the Spirit." It seems probable that Justice Bennet merely employed a term of reproach already familiar. It is, further, evident that the Friends themselves were sometimes given to trembling, and that the name came into general use because it fitted. (See Sewel's "History of the People Called Quakers," Vol. I., p. 63. Philadelphia, 1823.) The name first appears in the records of Parliament, in the Journals of the House of Commons, in 1654.
[43] This is the true ground of opposition to war, namely, that a Christian is to live a life that does away with the occasion for war.
[44] He was imprisoned on a definite charge for six months, and then, without any further trial, apparently because he would not join Cromwell's army, he was held in close confinement for nearly six months more.
[45] It must be remembered that this act of George Fox occurred at the close of a year of imprisonment, part of which had been in a horrible jail. He was throughout his life restless and active to an extreme degree. For an entire year, just as his work was getting well begun, he had been forced to live in this nut-shell of a prison—day after day inactive. Now he was free again, and the old restlessness to be doing something came upon him with irresistible force. He was in no condition to inhibit suggestions. It is quite possible that some subconscious memory here gave the suggestion. In 1612 one Wightman was burned at the stake in Lichfield, and the deed was fresh in the minds of men at this time. Then the name Lichfield means "field of dead bodies," a name which doubtless had its origin in some baptism of blood, and George in his boyhood may have heard some tale of those bloody times.
[Q] The light of Christ working on the heart.
[46] This is the foundation for the famous passage on George Fox, in Carlyle's "Sartor Resartus," Book III., Chap. 1. There is, however, no foundation for Carlyle's picture of Fox cutting and stitching his own leather suit. Sewel distinctly says that these leather breeches had no connection with "his former leather work." Croese says that his entire suit was leather. This form of dress was not very unusual at the time, and was probably chosen for its durability.