He added not his sirname, in imitation, as it seems, of the apostle John. He omitted it likewise in another letter he wrote from the prison at Rome, which began thus:
‘I John the prisoner, being in the sense of the spirit of life with you all,’ &c.
Who were the two lambs he mentions in his letter, I cannot tell; whether they were persons that had been imprisoned with him in the inquisition jail, and converted by him, as he thought; or whether he meant John Stubbs and Samuel Fisher, I know not; it may rather be supposed that he meant Charles Bayley and Jane Stoakes, who went to Rome to procure his liberty: but J. Stubbs and S. Fisher came away long before; yet if I am not mistaken, it was about this time that these were at Rome, and they perhaps, having endeavoured to obtain his liberty, departed before him towards England.
When Perrot afterward lived in America, about the beginning of the year 1665, John Taylor wrote thus from Jamaica concerning him:
‘One of the judges of this place told me, that he never had seen one who so severely exacted an oath from people as John Perrot did; for he saith, that if they will go to hell, he will despatch them quickly. And another judge that was also present, said, that Perrot had altogether renounced his faith, and aimed at nothing but his profit.’
Such a one was John Perrot, though even some wise men admired him for a time; but he became a man of a rough behaviour. Whether he ever repented sincerely, I cannot tell. Robert Rich, who took too much part in the extravagancies of James Nayler, as hath been related, did also combine with Perrot, and became estranged from the Quakers, and in that condition he died: but he was of the number of those, of whom the apostle John said, “They went out from us, but they were not of us.”
Now since persecution continued in England, Edward Burrough, who continually was laborious with the pen to oppose this evil, wrote also a small book, which he called, ‘The Case of Free Liberty of Conscience in the Exercise of Faith and Religion, presented unto the King and both Houses of Parliament.’ In this treatise he showed, that to deprive honest and peaceable people of liberty of conscience in the exercise of worship to God, was unjust, an intrenching on God’s sovereignty, and an usurpation of his authority. He also recommended it to consideration, that to impose by force a religion upon men, was the way to fill the land with hypocrites. And he showed with sound reasons, that to persecute people for the exercise of religion and their worshipping of God, must unavoidably tend to destroy trading, husbandry, and merchandise. To which he added, that such as were called heretics were punished, as malefactors, whereas drunkards and other vicious persons were left unpunished; which to inculcate with more strength, he made use of the words of Dr. Taylor, a bishop in Ireland, who said thus: ‘Why are we so zealous against those we call heretics, and yet great friends with drunkards, and swearers, and fornicators, and intemperate and idle persons? I am certain a drunkard is as contrary to the laws of Christianity as an heretic: and I am also sure that I know what drunkenness is; but I am not so sure that such an opinion is heresy,’ &c.
It happened about this time in England that some covetous persons, to engross inheritances to themselves, would call the marriages of those called Quakers in question. And it was in this year that such a cause was tried at the assizes at Nottingham. A certain man dying, and leaving his wife with child, and an estate in copyhold lands: when the woman was delivered, one that was near of kin to her deceased husband, endeavoured to prove the child illegitimate: and the plaintiff’s counsel willing to blacken the Quakers, so called, asserted the child to be illegitimate, because the marriage of its parents was not according to law; and said bluntly, and very indecently, that the Quakers went together like brute beasts. After the counsel on both sides had pleaded, the judge whose name was Archer, opened the case to the jury, and told them, that there was a marriage in Paradise, when Adam took Eve, and Eve took Adam; and that it was the consent of the parties that made a marriage. And as for the Quakers, said he, he did not know their opinion; but he did not believe they went together as brute beasts, as had been said of them, but as Christians; and therefore he did believe the marriage was lawful, and the child lawful heir. And the better to satisfy the jury, he related to them this case: ‘A man that was weak of body, and kept his bed, had a desire in that condition to marry, and did declare before witnesses that he did take such a woman to be his wife; and the woman declared, that she took that man to be her husband. This marriage was afterwards called in question: but all the bishops did at that time conclude it to be a lawful marriage.’ The jury having received this instruction, gave in their verdict for the child, and declared it legitimate.
It hath been mentioned before, that G. Fox being prisoner at Derby, in the year 1650, was exceedingly vexed and ill treated by the keeper of the prison. But this man being struck with the terrors of the Lord, became such a notable convert, that in the year 1662, he wrote the following letter to G. Fox: