‘Which it is hoped will not be difficult to answer one by one, and that to reasonable satisfaction.
‘And to the first, viz. the doubt of certainty. It may be rationally affirmed, that whosoever is bound to tell the truth, especially against men’s own interest, where the temptation, if any, mainly lies, such are either so bound by the law of God, or the law of men, or both.
‘Now the obligations by the law of God are binding on good men, whether they give answers on oath, or on their solemn affirmation in the fear of God; and knaves are only bound by the penal laws of men; which if made equally severe to those that give fallacious answers, as well without oath as by oath, would be equally effectual and binding, both to them that give answers without swearing, and to them that swear.
‘The second objection, That it would be an alteration of the law. Not of the substance of the law, but of a circumstance; and if that hath no detriment in it, but that the alteration be really an amendment, and a conveniency to an honest industrious people, pray why should it not be done? What sessions of parliament is there that passes, but some law or other is made for the ease, security, or relief of the subject?
‘If foreigners are too hard for our sea-faring people, out goes an act of navigation to prevent it.
‘If our poor at home want silk to work with, how soon is it granted, notwithstanding the same act, to come over land, and not directly in shipping, from the places of its produce, as the said act before did enjoin; and shall the ease of trade be so soon granted against a positive statute; and the ease of conscience be so long denied in this, as positive a command of Christ, at least really so believed and accepted?
‘And for the third objection, That it is to rase old foundations. Answer, No, as it was said it is rather to mend them; a proper work for parliaments.
‘Did not parliaments abrogate popery, with all its claim to antiquity? Did not a parliament make the act of Habeas Corpus against the claim of prerogative? And was it more reasonable to secure the subject from perpetual imprisonment by a king without a trial, than it is to secure one subject from imprisoning another till death, for not giving an answer in chancery or exchequer upon oath? Does it belong to parliaments to secure other subjects in their estates, liberties, and properties, and is it unparliamentary to secure the Quakers from sequestrations against their whole estates, because they dare not comply to a circumstance of the law, when, as they understand it, it is against an express command of Christ? Surely no: and therefore their relief in parliament is a fitting case to be there tenderly taken notice of, and provided for.
‘May it not then be well worth the while for the present parliament to relieve these distressed people, and afford their suffering case redress: that thereby their causes may the sooner come to an issue, whether they sue for just debts, or are sued; whereby many unjust and vexatious suits, by injurious and litigious persons, may be prevented; which have often tended rather to the Quakers’ ruin and others’ damage, than recovery of their right?