Parting from thence, he came to London, where he heard that a Jesuit, who was come over with an ambassador from Spain, had challenged all the Quakers, to dispute with them at the earl of Newport’s house. G. Fox then let him know by some of his friends, that they would meet him: whereupon the Jesuit sent word, he would meet with twelve of the wisest learned men they had. A while after he sent word, he would meet with but six; and after that, he sent word again, he would have but three to come. Then G. Fox went, with Edward Burrough, and Nicholas Bond, to the aforesaid house, and bade them to go up, and enter the discourse with the Jesuit, whilst he would be walking in the yard, and then come up after them. He had advised them to state this question, Whether the church of Rome, as it now stood, was not degenerated from the true church which was in the primitive times, from the life and doctrine, and from the power and spirit that those believers were in? They having stated the question accordingly, the Jesuit affirmed, that the church of Rome now was in the virginity and purity of the primitive church. By this time G. Fox being come in, the Jesuit was asked, whether they had the Holy Ghost poured forth upon them, as the apostles had? And he said, ‘No.’ Then said G. Fox, ‘If ye have not the same Holy Ghost poured forth upon you, and the same power and spirit that the apostles had, then ye are degenerated from the power and spirit which the primitive church was in.’ And he asked the Jesuit, what Scripture they had for setting up cloisters for nuns, abbeys and monasteries for men, and for their praying by beads and to images, and for making crosses, for forbidding of meats and marriages, and for putting people to death for religion? ‘If,’ said he, ‘ye are in the practice of the primitive church, in its purity and virginity, then let us see by Scripture, wherever they practised such things?’ For it was agreed mutually, that both the Jesuits and the Quakers, should make good by Scripture what they said. Then the Jesuit said, there was a written, and an unwritten word. Which made G. Fox ask, what he called his unwritten word? And he answered, ‘The written word is the Scriptures, and the unwritten word is that which the apostles spake by word of mouth, which are all those traditions that we practise.’ Then G. Fox bid him prove that by Scripture; and the Jesuit alleged the words of the apostle, 2 Thess. ii. 5. “When I was with you, I told you these things:” ‘That is,’ said he, ‘I told you of nunneries and monasteries, of putting to death for religion, and of praying by beads and to images,’ &c. This he affirmed to be the unwritten word of the apostles, which they told then, and had since been continued by tradition unto these times. Then G. Fox desired him to read that Scripture again, that he might see how he had perverted the apostles words, since that which the apostle said there he had told them before, was not an unwritten word, but was written down there; namely, that the man of sin, the son of perdition, should be revealed before the great and terrible day of Christ, which he was writing of, should come. And therefore this was not telling them any of those things the church of Rome practised. Besides, the apostle in the third chapter of the said epistle told the church, of some disorderly persons he heard were amongst them, busy bodies, who did not work at all; concerning whom he had commanded them by his unwritten word, when he was among them, that if any would not work, neither should he eat; which now he commanded them again in his written word in this epistle, 2 Thess. iii.

The Jesuit now finding no other scriptural proof for the tradition of the church of Rome, let that point fall, and came to the sacrament of the altar, to prove the reality of which, he began with the paschal lamb, and the showbread, and so came to the words of Christ, “This is my body,” and to what the apostle writ to the Corinthians, concluding from thence, that after the priest had consecrated the bread and wine, it was immortal and divine, and that he who received it, received the whole Christ. To this G. Fox said, that the same apostle told the Corinthians, after they had taken bread and wine in remembrance of Christ’s death, that they were reprobates if Christ was not in them. But that if the bread they eat was Christ, he must of necessity have been in them, after they had eaten it. Besides, if the bread and wine which the Corinthians ate and drank, was Christ’s body, how then (continued he,) hath Christ a body in heaven? And he also signified to him, that both the disciples at the supper, and the Corinthians afterwards, were to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Christ, and to show forth his death till he came; which plainly proved that the bread and wine which they took, was not his body. For if it had been his real body that they ate, then he had been come, and was then there present; and it would have been improper to have done such a thing in remembrance of him, if he had been then present with them; as he must have been, if that bread and wine, which they ate and drank, had been his real body. And as to the words of Christ, “This is my body,” G. Fox told him, ‘Christ calls himself a vine and a door, and is called in Scripture a rock: is Christ therefore an outward rock, door, or vine?’ ‘O,’ said the Jesuit, ‘the words are to be interpreted.’ ‘So,’ said G. Fox, ‘are those words of Christ, “This is my body.”’ And having thus stopped the Jesuit’s mouth, he made this proposal: that, seeing he said the bread and wine was immortal and divine, and the very Christ, and that whosoever received it, received the whole Christ; a meeting might be appointed between some such Papists as the pope and his cardinals should appoint, and some of those called Quakers: ‘And then,’ said he, ‘let a bottle of wine, and a loaf of bread be brought, and divided each into two parts, and let them consecrate which of those parts they will; and then let the consecrated and unconsecrated bread and wine be set in a safe place, with a sure watch upon it; and let trial then be made, whether the consecrated bread and wine will not lose its goodness, viz. the bread grow dry and mouldy, and the wine turn dead and sour, as well and as soon as that which was unconsecrated; for by this means the truth of this matter may be made manifest. And if the consecrated bread and wine change not, but retain their savour and goodness, this may be a means to draw many to your church. But if they change, decay, and lose their goodness, then ought you to confess and forsake your error, and shed no more blood about it, as hath been done, especially in queen Mary’s days.’ To this the Jesuit made this reply: ‘Take a piece of new cloth, and cut it into two pieces, and make two garments of it, and put one of them upon king David’s back, and the other upon a beggar’s, and the one garment shall wear away as well as the other.’ ‘Is this,’ said G. Fox, ‘thy answer?’ ‘Yes,’ said the Jesuit. ‘Then,’ said G. Fox, ‘by this the company may all be satisfied, that your consecrated bread and wine is not Christ. Dost thou now say that the consecrated bread and wine, which you have told people was immortal and divine, and the real body and blood of Christ, will wear away, or decay as well as the other? Then I must tell thee, Christ remains the same to day as yesterday, and never decays; but is the saints’ heavenly food in all generations, through which they have life.’ To this the Jesuit replied no more, but let the thing fall; for he perceived that those which were present saw his error, and that he could not defend it.

Then G. Fox asked him, why the church of Rome did persecute, and put people to death for religion? and he answered, it was not the church did it, but the magistrates. G. Fox asked, whether those magistrates were not counted and called believers and Christians? ‘Yes,’ said he. ‘Are they not members of the church?’ asked G. Fox. ‘Yes,’ said the Jesuit. Then G. Fox left it to the people to judge, whether the church of Rome did not persecute, and put people to death for religion. Thus they parted; the Jesuit’s subtilty being comprehended by the simplicity of G. Fox, and his friends.

Whilst G. Fox was at London, his friends, both in England and Ireland, were under great sufferings, which made him write to the protector about it: and there being much talk of making Cromwell king, he went to him and warned him against it, because of the dangers that would attend it; and which, if he did not avoid, would bring shame and ruin upon him and his posterity. Which counsel Cromwell seemed to take well, and thanked him for it: yet G. Fox wrote also concerning the same thing to him in this manner:

‘O Protector,

‘Who hast tasted of the power of God, which many generations before thee have not so much, since the days of apostacy from the apostles, take heed that thou lose not thy power; but keep kingship off thy head, which the world would give to thee; and earthly crowns under thy feet, lest with that thou cover thyself, and so lose the power of God. When the children of Israel went from that of God in them, they would have kings as other nations had, as transgressors had; and so God gave them one; and what did they do then? and when they would have taken Christ, and made him a king, he hid himself from them; he was hid from that which would have made him a king, he who was the king of the Jews inward. O Oliver, take heed of undoing thyself, by running into things that will fade, the things of this world that will change. Be subject and obedient to the Lord God.

GEORGE FOX.’

About this time G. Fox wrote also another letter to O. Cromwell, wherein he signified to him, that if he had been faithful, and thundered down deceit, he would yet have done many mighty things. And he also advised him, not to slight sober men, and true hearts; but to mind the law of God, and his fear and dread; to take heed of flatteries, and to prize his time now he had it.

The lady Claypole, Cromwell’s most beloved daughter, being sick, and much troubled in mind, so that none that came could minister any comfort to her, G. Fox visited her with the following letter:

‘Friend,