Quaker Heritage Press > Online Texts > Works of James Nayler > Diary of Thomas Burton
The Parliamentary Diary is ascertained, by various internal evidences,...to have been written in the House of Commons by Thomas Burton, Esquire, M.P. for Westmorland. It is now first printed from his original notebooks, which came, a few years since, into the possession of Mr. Upcot of the London Institution.
In the Painted Chamber sat James Nayler's Committee. Nayler was called to answer to a new charge touching some unseemly communications between him and Martha, his fellow prisoner. She stroked his head, and sat breast to breast, and desired him to go with her. He answered, he was not free, and several other particulars.
The Committee was ready to rise till Mr. Carey and Mr. Lister came in and desired that Nayler might be asked something as to the substance of the whole charge against him. The sense of the Committee was against asking him any more questions, lest it should intricate the report; yet, for their satisfaction, that all might be clear, he was admitted to speak; and being asked if he had any more to say he told us that he doubted some had a design to entangle his innocency, and instanced in something that one said, the other day, at the Committee (it was Mr. Downing), "We have gotten enough out of him." Nayler <601> said, this hath stuck upon his spirit ever since.
Yet, by good providence, the gentlemen that doubted were more confirmed by his second answer; and acknowledged he said more, materially, in these last words, than in all the other times of his examination. The words were thus: "I do abhor that any honor due to God should be given to me, as I am a creature. But it pleased the Lord to set me up as a sign of the coming of the Righteous One, and what has been done as I passed through these towns, I was commanded by the Lord to suffer such things to be done by me, as to the outward, as a sign, not as I am a creature."
Mr. Bampfield offered a report from James Nayler's Committee.
Sir Gilbert Pickering moved that the report for registers might be heard.
Resolved, That Nayler's report be heard.
Dr. Clarges. The order of the day was the bill of sale.
Mr. Bampfield reported these resolutions:
That the matter of fact and the resolutions of the committee was ordered to be reported.
A short history of Nayler's life.
1. Born near Wakefield.
2. In the service nine years, till he fell sick.
3. A member of an independent church, but cast out for blasphemy and suspicion of lewdness with one Mrs. Roper.
4. After he had been up and down, he went to visit the Quakers in Cornwall, where he was committed as a wanderer; his principles being, that he may lie with any woman that is of his own judgment.
The articles against him read, and summed thus—
That he assumed the gesture, words, names, and attributes of our Savior Christ.
Major-General Skippon. I do not marvel at this silence. Every man is astonished to hear this report. I am glad it is come hither; I hope it will mind you to look about you now. It is now come to your doors, to know how you that bear witness of Christ, do relish such things. God's displeasure will be upon you if you do not lay out your especial endeavors in the things of God; not to postpone them. You are cumbered about many things, but I may truly say this, unum necessarium.
It has been always my opinion, that the growth of these things is more dangerous than the most intestine or foreign enemies. I have often been troubled in my thoughts to think of this toleration; I think I may <602> call it so. Their great growth and increase is too notorious, both in England and Ireland; their principles strike both at ministry and magistracy.
Many opinions are in this nation (all contrary to the government) which would join in one to destroy you, if it should please God to deliver the sword into their hands. Should not we be as jealous of God's honor as we are of our own? Do not the very heathens assert the honor of their gods, and shall we suffer our Lord Jesus thus to be abused and trampled upon?
Wherefore do you sit in that chair, but to bear witness of the truth? to know who are for Christ, who not? My conscience would fly in my face, if I should be silent. Lay these things to heart, and make it not an ordinary concernment.
I am as tender as any man to lay impositions upon men's consciences, but in these horrid things. I have been always against laws for matters ex post facto; but in this, I am free to look back, for it is a special emergency. You would extend to punishment. This offense is so high a blasphemy that it ought not to be passed. For my part, I am of opinion that it is horrid blasphemy, and ought to be punished as blasphemy; and you ought not to let it slip through your fingers without due punishment. I know not how to extenuate the offense, or I should set myself to it.
Major-General Boteler. Though my indisposition might plead for my silence, yet I should go out with a troubled conscience if I should not have borne my witness against it. We all sit here, I hope, for the glory of God. My ears did tingle and my heart tremble to hear the report. I am satisfied that there is too much of the report true. I have heard many of the blasphemies of this sort of people; but the like of this I never heard of. The punishment ought to be adequate to the offense. By the Mosaic law, blasphemers were to be stoned to death. The morality of this remains, and for my part, if this sentence should pass upon him, I could freely consent to it.
If we vindicate not the name of Christ in this, he will vindicate himself.
They are generally despisers of your government, contemn your magistracy and ministry, and trample it under their feet.
The magistrate is to be a terror unto evil works. If we punish murder and witchcraft, and let greater offenses go, as heresies and blasphemy, which is under the same enumeration; for my part, I could never reconcile myself nor others to leave out the latter and punish the former offenses.
It is not intended to indulge such grown heresies and blasphemies as these, under the notion of a toleration of tender consciences. He <603> that sets himself up in Christ's place, certainly commits the highest offense that can be.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. Debate not the punishment till you be possessed of the matter of fact, which must be read in parts to agree with the Committee.
Old Mr. Rouse. First put the report to the question, either in part or in gross, and when you have agreed that it is blasphemy, and that you have an antichrist amongst you, then you will not, I hope, be at a stand what to do.
Mr. Downing. This man, in short, makes himself God; only distinguisheth by the visible and invisible. God is invisible, as in his own being. This distinction is threadbare.
The heathen, they worship not the stock and stone as visible, but as invisible, est Deus in coelis. Christ himself never said that the flesh was God.
Here is no liberty of conscience in this case, for he makes himself God himself. Our God is here supplanted. If he be God, then we must worship him. He is our God as well as the women's God. If a devil, is it fit he should live? Then you will have two Gods.
You know what the Parliament did with a Strafford in civil cases, and what the Parliament has done against corrupt judges. If ever there was a business for a Parliament, this is it. To supplant your God, oh horrid! If such a thing as zeal is to be allowed, certainly in this. And we cannot show too great a detestation of it.
Colonel White. There is something omitted in the Report which Nayler said, and that to me seems as blasphemous as anything: that "the old bottles were broken, and new wine poured in," intimating that he is the new Christ, and the old one laid aside. For my part I am sufficiently convinced of the matter of fact, and would have you first vote that it is horrid blasphemy; and if you make the sentence death, I think he very well deserves it. I shall give my Yea.
Sir William Strickland. The gentleman that did the Report has done it extreme faithfully. I attended the Committee all the time.
If there be such a thing as a traitor, certainly this is he, that sets up himself as a Savior. I would have you first vote the matter of fact whether it be blasphemy or no.
Mr. Solicitor-General [Ellis]. It were fit you should have the party before you at this bar, to hear what he will say to the Report when it is read to him, which is the most orderly in point of law. It is the course of proceedings in all criminal cases. This done, I shall freely give my consent for his punishment, it being as high an offense as can be committed.
Sir William Strickland. I hope you will be as zealous for your <604> Jesus as the heathens were for their Diana of the Ephesians, and that you will bear your testimony against it as solemnly as may be. I desire he may be brought to the bar and hear the report read.
Colonel White. You have matter enough against him. I attended the Report and believe it to be true; but, for general satisfaction, I would have him brought to the bar, and adjourn for an hour, and sit again immediately upon this business.
Mr. Bond. The proceedings against the Archbishop [Laud] was thus: you first agreed the matter of fact, and then drew up a bill, and so brought him to the bar, and then passed sentence upon him. I would have you first vote the matter of fact, that he is guilty of blasphemy, and then send for him.
Lord Strickland. This seems not reasonable, that a man should first be condemned, and then heard. I would have him called to the bar, to hear what he will say to the Report.
Mr. Bedford. I am glad to hear the general sense of the House, so much against this horrid blasphemy. All the eyes of the nation are upon you for it, to see what you will do for God in this business. I would have you not to leave it, but sit forenoon and afternoon till you have done the business.
Major-General Jephson. The Bishop of Canterbury's case was another than this. You were his judges. You are possessed of this business by a Committee already. I would have you put the question, whether this gentleman be guilty of blasphemy or no, and then proceed to know whether you will give sentence upon him yourselves here, or leave him to law. Happily there are some laws yet in force whereby you may proceed against him.
Mr. Attorney-General [Prideaux]. I conceive you have the matter of fact before you, sufficient to ground your indictment upon, for I think it not so needful that you should draw up a charge against him in regard the Report from the Committee is enough. I would have him come to the bar and either confess or deny, &c.
Lord Fiennes. We ought all to bear witness against such a horrid blasphemy, but I would not have you be too hasty, but would have the committee to draw up a charge against him out of the Report, and then call him to the bar to answer this charge.
Mr. Speaker. If you call him to the bar, and he deny it, then you must go over all the charge and the evidence.
Mr. Rouse. The laws against blasphemy and Ranters are in force, and you may proceed upon them; for I doubt you distrust the power which is already in force in this kind, and the government doth not alter the case.
<605> Mr. Bampfield. I should agree with this noble lord, that he might be transmitted to law to be proceeded against, according to those Acts he mentions. I doubt it will be but wholly to lay aside the business, and so render all vain. Your time seems to be short. The putting of it off will be a wholly laying it aside.
If either you refer it back again to the Committee, or call the party to the bar, you must travel into all the evidence, and so render the whole matter fruitless. He has been three times before us, and the Committee was every time more satisfied of the horridness of the blasphemy. I would have you put the question whether he be guilty of horrid blasphemy.
Judge-Advocate Whalley. Let the party be brought to the bar, and the whole matter be read unto him, and then ask him what he has further to say; and then let him withdraw, and so proceed to judgment, both upon the matter of fact and the punishment of the party.
Lord Chief-Justice. I shall not delay your judgment upon this vile wretch; but God would have us proceed in a just way, though against the vilest person.
I am at a stand which way to put in, for your direction. I believe none here can give you a precedent of this nature.
Whatsoever authority was in the Houses of Lords and Commons, the same is united in this Parliament.
The proceedings formerly in this House were only to prepare a charge, and appoint a Committee to prepare evidence. This was transferred to the House of Lords in Lord Strafford's case and the Bishop of Canterbury's. We are not now preparing a charge against Nayler. You put a great trust in a Committee, but how? It is but in order to something to be done here.
That which sticks with me is whether there is a witness against him at all, not one against him upon oath. This is a proceeding against the law of God and the fundamental law of the nation. This House (though they never used it) have power to examine upon oath.
The Report itself is so exactly done that you may easily draw out articles against him, and then call him. Haply he may confess, and then you need no witness. If not, you may examine, if it be but one witness. There must be proof in this case, and that, in this place, to justify your proceedings as agreeable with the fundamental way of proceedings.
Major-General Packer. The Report is a sufficient charge against him. I would have you call him to the bar and hear the charge read, and after you hear what he says, then proceed.
Mr. Robinson. Every man here ought to be satisfied, as fully as may be, before he gives his vote in matters of life. All our judgments are concerned in it. But I would have us not so straiten ourselves in <606> time as to neglect the order of our proceedings. I would have you call him to the bar; if he deny the charge you must allow him his traverse. If he say not guilty, you must prove. Put it off till Monday.
Colonel Markham. You need not fetch witnesses from Bristol. Twenty of the members of this House know the truth of the matter of fact, from Nayler's own confession.
I would have you proceed upon this business in the afternoon, while it is fresh in our memory.
Major-General Desborough.b I know no reason for this speed; for we may offend as well in proceeding and sudden stepping into judgments, especially in matters that concern life, which, when taken, we cannot restore. It is a weighty matter, and you may err on both hands. This is the first occasion that ever we had of this nature, here. I would have us to do things so as to justify us, before both the face of God and the nation too.
I would have it referred to a Committee of the Long Robe, to prepare a way to proceed.
Major-General Goffe. I would not have us too hasty in this matter, but refer it to a Committee, to prepare a way for proceedings in this case against tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Attorney-General. I think you are sufficiently possessed for your proceeding to judgment in this business; unless in the matter of the oath, which sticks with me most.
Sir Richard Onslow. I think, where confession is, there needs no witness, and as I understand the Report he hath confessed enough. If you had not referred it to a Committee you might have brought him to the bar.
If you declare your judgment upon former laws, then it will not be with the honor of this Parliament to transfer the matter to another judicature, having taken such cognizance of the business wherein the nation expects your result.
In Strafford's case, you proceeded upon the legislative power. I would have you, this afternoon, debate it, whether you will proceed upon the legislative way or the judicatory way. But I would have you preserve your honor, both before the nation and your enemies too.
Mr. Recorder [of London, Sir Lislebone Long]. I appeal to that gentleman, if ever he knew any confession of the party before a Committee to be evidence in this House; I know his experience is great. For instance, confession of the party before a Justice of Peace, or Grand Jury, is no evidence. If the party, after, deny it, you must <607> prove it. Proceed which way you will, that cannot be evidence against him which was only confessed at the committee.
It is fit a charge should be prepared, and he brought to the bar. If he confess it, we are then convinced of the truth of the Report, and may proceed to sentence; and it is fit he should know that he is to answer for his life. I would have a charge prepared against tomorrow morning.
Lord Whitlock. This case is new and ought to be seriously considered; for though this wicked fellow deserves all punishment that can be inflicted upon him, that which I fear is the consequence as to future, in the manner of proceedings which may hereafter concern any man's life or fortune. It is a case of blood, and you ought to proceed solemnly, by calling the party hither, and witnesses, if need be. I would have it referred to the Committee to consider of the manner of proceeding against James Nayler.
To send it back to any inferior jurisdiction is below the honor of a Parliament. I would have the Committee to resolve you how you will proceed, whether upon your judicatory or legislative power.
Mr. Bampfield. If I were against anything to be done in this business, I should be for referring it back again to the Committee, for I certainly know this is as much as to say you will do nothing in it; for it will be a work of some weeks.
The whole evidence doth arise upon his own confession. Though no witnesses were sworn before the Committee, yet depositions before magistrates, at Bristol and other places, were taken upon oath. The eyes of God, of all the nation, and all the world, are upon you; and if you lay this aside and do nothing in it, I shall say it is no more Nayler's sin, but set it upon your doors.
I would have him called to the bar this afternoon, or in the morning, seeing so many desire it.
Sir William Strickland. Let him be called to the bar this afternoon, for I would not have our zeal in this business, which seems to be so unanimous, to meet with the least damp or coldness. For my part, I am very well convinced of the matter of fact, having attended the Report for most part, so that we may proceed freely to judgment; yet, for general satisfaction, let the Report be read to him, and demand his answer.
Lord Lambert. It is matter of sadness to many men's hearts, and sadness also to mine, especially in regard of his relation sometime to me. He was two years my quartermaster, and a very useful person. We parted with him with great regret.
He was a man of a very unblamable life and conversation, a member of a very sweet society of an independent church. How he comes (by pride or otherwise) to be puffed up to this opinion I cannot <608> determine. But this may be a warning to us all, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.
I shall be as ready to give my testimony against him as anybody, if it appear to be blasphemy. You are jurors, judges, and all, in this case. I would have you careful in your manner of proceeding. It deserves consideration: witnesses, viva voce, must be heard here. You ought not to tie your judgments upon any man's eyes or ears, but come to a solemn and serious debate of it. I would have it referred to a Committee. I hope your time will be longer, that you need not scant yourselves in this matter.
I confess I did not think the business to be of this nature, though I heard much rumor of it abroad. It is very much sorrow of my heart, and I hope nothing shall quench my zeal against it; but I would have it regular.
Dr. Clarges and Mr. Butler. This proceeding has been as solemn as could be. The first day that the Committee met it was as like a Grand Committee as could be; for most of the members were there. We are ripe for a question; I would have us not to quench our zeal, but to adjourn for an hour and proceed in the afternoon.
Major-General Skippon. For my part I am fully satisfied with the matter of fact. If you put it off, I fear Nayler's sin will prove a national sin, and consequently a national judgment, for, I fear, to delay it will wholly lose the business. I would have it adjourned till tomorrow morning, and no business to intervene.
Mr. Drake. That is more than you can promise, that nothing should intervene: for if you do it the first business tomorrow, the house will be thinner; and if you enter upon any debate, you know not how long it will hold you. I would not have you delay a matter of this nature, which deserves your speedy and serious care. I would have you adjourn for an hour.
Judge Smith and Mr. Reynell. It might be taken up this afternoon, and adjourn for an hour, and bring Nayler to the bar, and read the whole matter to him.
Colonel Sydenham. We may err as well in our too hasty zeal in this weighty business. It is fit we should well consider of the manner of our proceeding, for the honor of it. For my part, I cannot but bear my testimony against the matter; but in regard it may haply reach to life, let us not do justice in an unjust way. I would have no negative, neither, in this debate, but go on unanimously into the offender's punishment, and in order thereunto, to adjourn till tomorrow morning; that you may fully debate this business.
Mr. Bacon. That we may not lose the benefit of our debate <609> tomorrow, if you do adjourn till then, I hope you purpose not that any should speak again that have spoken to this debate; otherwise your work will be endless. Whereunto the Speaker agreed that none ought to speak again to the debate adjourned.
Mr. Moody. The person himself may be brought hither tomorrow morning.
Resolved, That this debate be adjourned till tomorrow morning, and nothing to intervene.
Mr Bond. Nobody should be suffered to come to him in the meantime.
Major-General Skippon. I doubt, unless you put the question about calling him to the bar tomorrow morning, you'll lose your whole debate. I desire that question may be put.
Major-General Kelsey. If you intend this, something must be determined previous to this vote; how you shall demean yourself, whether to prepare a charge against him or read the Report as it is.
Colonel White. Put the question whether the charge now against him shall be read to him at the bar.
Colonel Whetham. We are surprised in the vote, if we must not resume the debate tomorrow, before Nayler be called.
Lord Cochrane. You will not longer suffer this fellow to personate Christ before your eyes and be so suspensive what you shall do with him. I would have you call him to the bar tomorrow morning, and proceed.
Sir Gilbert Pickering, Major-General Kelsey and Colonel Jones. Put not a question that may preclude the vote of others who think the debate is adjourned. The order of the house is that you should not proceed further.
Major-General Packer. This question is fair, for we that agreed to defer it till tomorrow are also concluded in our vote, for though the debate was adjourned it was in order to the calling him to the bar.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon and Mr. Downing. It is fit you should keep him close. He has many friends in the city, who may acquaint him with your proceedings, so that he may stand mute, or deny.
Lord Strickland. You ought not to meddle with any debate upon what you have adjourned.
Sir Christopher Pack. By this rule you cannot put a question about letting none come to him; if all further debate in order to the business be excluded.
Sir William Strickland. Such a leper ought to be separated from the conversation of all people. This is no harm to the debate.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. I am against keeping him private, but would have him rather to know the danger he is in, that it concerns his life. <610> Who can tell but the terror of death may so work upon him as that he may retract his errors. I hope there is none here but desire his repentance rather than his ruin. I speak my heart in this thing, though none second me.
Resolved, That he be kept close prisoner till further order of this house.
Mr. Downing proposed that James Nayler be brought to the bar tomorrow morning.
Sir Richard Onslow and Major-General Kelsey. The members are by this means precluded. Haply it will not be thought fit to call him to the bar at all. This was part of the debate which was adjourned, and properly you cannot proceed to put this question.
Lord Claypole. My opinion is against this question; for besides the main objection, other questions will rise about the time, which you cannot determine now, and what you shall say to him when he comes.
Captain Stone and Major-General Skippon. I would have him called to the bar tomorrow, and the report read to him, lest you lose the fruit of this debate and tomorrow too.
Colonel Shapcot. The proper question is to agree with the Committee. Haply you may have no occasion to call him, till sentence.
Colonel Whetham and Mr. Cary. I desire you would inform the House what was the debate that was adjourned. If this about calling Nayler to the bar was not the debate, I beseech you that you would not put this question. Other questions would arise upon it, and you must fetch candles.
Mr. Bedford and Mr. Bacon. It is very considerable that you should be unanimous in this debate, as you have hitherto been; and to the end there should not be a negative at all in the business, I am willing that the question be for the House to adjourn, and to forego the other question.
This debate held till almost four, and then the House adjourned.
The Grand Committee of Religion sat this night.
Colonel Rouse moved for the order of the day, Nayler's.
The House resumed the debate upon the report made yesterday, touching James Nayler, and after debate, he was sent for and heard at the bar of the House. So far in the Diurnal.
I was not at the beginning of the debate, but with the Border's Committee.
Mr. Floyd. I would have you make a court for the trial of Nayler, <611> that you may keep your legislative power, and proceed judicially. It is not only malum prohibitum, but malum in se. It is against the law of God, of nature, and nations too. Though the bishops be taken away, the law against blasphemy is not taken away. I would have a particular court erected to hear and determine.
Lord Strickland. It is a hard case that we should have no law in force to try this gentleman, but you must have recourse to your legislative power. This House never took up that power but upon extraordinary occasions, with a protestando not to draw it into precedent. If there were a law to try him without, others are better judicatories in such cases; but to condemn him first, and then try him, as was offered to you, is very hard.
I think it but fair that he should have a fair trial, to hear what he will say, and hear the witnesses, if they agree in the evidence, and then condemn him or acquit him.
Colonel Cox. This is a matter of great moment. If there had been a law to this purpose, you had not had this trouble.
The eyes of all the nation are upon you for this issue. The world abroad says it is liberty of conscience has brought this fellow before you. I am of the same opinion. I am as much for liberty of conscience as any man, but when one runs into these extravagancies I think he exceeds that liberty.
To the order of your proceedings. First, call the party hither and read the charge, and ask him, guilty or not guilty, and thereupon order your proceeding, before you prepare a bill; for I would have him have all the fair way of trial that may be. It concerns his life.
Resolved, That Mr. Bodurda be heard again to this business.
Mr. Bodurda. I am sorry it should fall to my lot to put you to the question. For my speaking, I rise not to trouble you with long speeches. I find the House divided: some would have him called to the bar; others tried at law. I offer an expedient.
I would have you first put it to the question, whether to agree with the Committee, and whether this be a sufficient charge whereon to arraign this person.
Major-General Desborough. I shall offer an expedient, though haply foolishly: that this fellow may be banished; for life is precious, and you have matter enough, already, to ground such a sentence upon.
Major Audley. I move that his Highness's advice may be desired in it, and yet, in the meantime, that you would provide a law against such blasphemy for the future, and proceed when you have thus advised.
Mr. Church. I desire he may be called to the bar, as often moved. That you would set apart one of these three days, which you have left, <612> to seek God in this business; for if we be not tender in God's honor, he will not honor us. We ought to be zealous in this business as in Achan's case.
Mr. Highland. It would make any tremble to hear these horrid things and to think what this fellow's profession was, and what it is now. To deny God, or to make himself equal with God. We ought to vindicate God's honor, if his name be upon us, but we must honor him as well in the order and justness of our proceedings; not to judge before you hear. All judges are tender in this. You have heard no witness against this man. Let him have a fair trial. I am against his banishment; for you must send him to some of your plantations, and there he will infect more; the like consequence will be if you imprison him. I would have him brought to the bar, and let him hear the charge against him read. Haply he will confess as much as you will desire of him. If he be guilty of these things, let him not longer infect the nation.
Mr. Bampfield. The calling him to the bar is but a mean to delay the business. The great argument is, that you are not to credit what you have from others' eyes or ears. You believe your Committees' Report in all other matters, that concern the lives, liberties and estates of three nations. Nay, without the report of a Committee you have, at one breath, concluded that all the men that have been cut off in the Spanish war were justly cut off, and that shall be cut off in that service; for you have, without further examination, agreed the Spanish war to be undertaken upon just grounds, and you will pursue it. The like has been formerly done, in votes that have cut off the lives of 100,000 persons without any examination. You ought to credit the Committee then, certainly, in a matter of lesser nature, though I would have you tender in this business. You see by the eyes of your Committee, and what they do is the act of this House, I am sure, in other cases.
Again, the manner of the proceeding at this Committee was more solemn and exact than at other Committees; for I believe most of the House were there.
As to that of the want of an oath: we did charge them, in the most solemn manner that we could possibly devise, that they would be careful in what they said, what was the concernment, before whom, in whose presence. We had no power to administer an oath.
But it does not only depend upon these affirmations of the witnesses, but upon Nayler's own confession. There lies the main stress. It was foul enough before, but the ugliness of it, upon his examination and his carriage at the Committee, did more appear than before. It did more than fasten the information, which was but historical to the matter.
He confessed that the woman said these words and expressions, <613> which Mr. Piggott, by providence, came to the Committee and informed: "Rise up, my love, my dove, my fairest one, why stayest thou amongst the pots"; only he denied the woman's kissing his hand.
I conceive you have the matter of fact fully before you, and the objections answered, to the evidence, which wholly depends upon his own confession.
If you bring him to the bar, upon what will you proceed? If you take his answer in parts, then you must debate the parts. If to the whole, he may, with the Archbishop, desire time to answer to it; so you shall know where you begin, but where you will end I know not, if you take this course. The first question ought to be, as it was first moved, whether this offense be blasphemy, or no.
Colonel Sydenham. I should be sorry to spend your time in this business, but I cannot advise you to go a greater pace than ought to be. I know nothing of the shortness of your time; this gentleman, haply knows more of it.
I have met with no argument to convince me that we should agree with the Committee before you hear the party. I would not have such a thing drawn into precedent. 1) It may be any man's case, hereafter, to be accused for an offense, and from the bare Report of a Committee, to have the sentence of death passed upon him without further hearing. This gentleman told you now what a full Committee there was at this examination, and yesterday he told you how hard it was to get a Committee together.
2) If the stress of the whole lie upon his own confession, your work will be easier if you call him to the bar.
3) This gentleman told you that every time that the party went off from the Committee they were more satisfied with the matter of fact than before. I would have this House also satisfied in this.
4) It is said you agree with the Committee in matters of great consequence that concern life and liberty, &c., but you do not undertake to be the executioner. For that of the Spanish war, it differs certainly from this case: we do not draw the blood upon us, for they are and were our enemies.
This Report is of many particulars, and like Strafford's case. The charge is accumulative blasphemies.
Mr. Ashe, the elder. You ought first to declare him guilty of such a crime, then draw up the Bill of Attainder against him, and then call him to the bar. But your previous question is to agree with the Committee.
Mr. Croke. Under favor, this gentleman, though an old Parliament man, is mistaken in the manner of your proceedings. It is against the orders of the House to speak again today, for at this rate I know not <614> where you will end.
We are most of us, as private persons, satisfied with the matter of fact, wherein the worthy reporter has taken a great deal of pains in the faithful report of it. Every man, I hope, that professes the name of Christ, will bear his testimony against this blasphemy.
But, by all rules of law and justice, you ought first to call him to the bar; haply he may deny matter of fact, haply matter of law. He may say it is not blasphemy. I would have him called to the bar.
Major-General Skippon. I move that he may answer positively to the Report.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. I move that it may be respited till Monday. It is now twelve, and it will take your time so long that you will be forced to sit as long as you did yesterday, which will not agree with many men's healths that are here.
Major Beake. You have two questions before you. First, to agree with the Committee. Second, to call Nayler to the bar.
I am for the first. The objection, it seems, lies against the truth of the Report. Certainly greater solemnity could not be at a Committee than was at this Committee; almost 150 there. You have given greater credit to a Committee in matters of property and liberty, instanced in the bills for sale, &c.
A matter of the like nature cannot possibly fall before you as private persons. I presume few of us but do believe that the confession was, re vera, true, and it is fixed in every man's breast. Those that argue from the greatness of the punishment look further than I can divine.
I suppose none can tell what his sentence shall be till the offense be agreed on. If you want a law, who can supply it, as in the case of a Strafford, but a Parliament? Shall punctilios and modalities and forms bind and tie up a Parliament? We are not thus strait-laced; arguments from consequences are not good in these cases, when the nature of the thing ties us punctually to perform it.
Every man is satisfied that this ought highly to be taken notice of. You are no more bound to precedents than in Strafford's case. You may create a form when you please. It is a notorious reflection upon the Committee, to give them absolutely the lie.
If the party stand mute or deny, where are you then? For my part, I conceive your proper question is, to agree with the Committee.
Major-General Goffe. By the orders of the House the other is the proper question.
Captain Baynes. However others look upon Nayler, I look upon him as a man, an Englishman. I would have him so tried as to bring in a bill of attainder against him, or leave him to the law. It is below <615> you to honor him with a trial here; but if it must be otherwise, let him be called to the bar, and proceed judicially against him, lest the precedent be of dangerous and ill consequence to other persons, whose lot it may be, in other cases.
Mr. Bedford. When, in the long Parliament, you did by a law confiscate men's estates and lives and liberty, both in England and Ireland, had you any more, nay so much, evidence as in this case, though, I presume, justly too. For my part, as a private person, I am sufficiently convinced of the matter of fact. Yet, to the end we might be unanimous in this thing, I desire he may be called to the bar and heard: but although he should deny it, I dare affirm it. He did speak blasphemy in my hearing, which is sufficient to conclude my judgment.
Sir William Strickland. I have taken an oath to stand for the liberty of Parliament. I always understood a Report from a Committee to be good evidence against an offender. I would not have this passed without clearing the honor of Parliament. With this salvo for your honor and liberty, for general satisfaction call him to the bar, that all the world may know you do him more liberty than you needed. I would have your proceedings justified as much as may be, and him left inexcusable.
Colonel Briscoe. Qui per alium per se is the case of your Committee, and if you agree with the Committee, what needs further examination? I always understood a Report to be evidence, else you reject what is your liberty, as I have heard, though not so well acquainted with the orders of the house, that frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora. My opinion is clear that the question is to agree with the Committee.
Mr. Lister. That no more time may be spent, call him to the bar. For my part, I am not satisfied with the Report in all particulars. I desired at the Committee, in the close of the business, that he might be heard again, to see whether the notes that the gentleman had taken did agree with Nayler's sense or no. So I desired he might be called, but was overruled.
Resolved, That Nayler be forthwith called to the bar and have the charge read to him, whereunto he is to give his answer Yea or No.
Captain Hatsel was speaking to have the debate put off till Monday, but Colonel Purefoy took him down.
The Master of the Rolls resumed Captain Hatsel's motion. In a matter of this consequence you ought to take time fully to hear the whole matter.
Mr. Bond. That gentleman ought to have asked your leave before he had spoken against the vote, immediately before he was orderly taken down.
<616> Mr. Speaker. In regard the third part of the House was gone, it was properly moved to adjourn.
Mr. Downing. I wonder what the word "forthwith" means, if it may be taken away by a subsequent vote. It is to no purpose to make laws or orders, if the word "forthwith" cannot be understood. I think it looks more like immediately than like Monday morning; else I understand nothing.
James Nayler being brought to the bar, refused to kneel or to put off his hat. The House agreed beforehand that they would not insist upon his kneeling, being informed that he would not do it, and that he might not say that was any part of his crime. They would not give him that advantage, but commanded the sergeant to take off his hat.
Mr. Speaker asked him of his name and country as in the Report, whereunto he answered after the old way of canting; confessed all but that passage about Mrs. Roper. "It might be," said he, "she kissed me. It was our manner; but when I found their extravagancies I left them. All that knew me, in the army and elsewhere, will say I was never guilty of lewdness, or so reputed. I abhor filthiness. See if any can accuse."
The clerk read the charge to him in parts, which he, upon the matter and in effect, confessed what was in the Report, saying, "I do not much mind what is behind; I believe the Committee, many of them, will not wrong me"; or, "I stand to what they testify"; or the like expressions he used; "It is likely I said so"; "I cannot say against it," &c.
Being asked about assuming the title of "the fairest of ten thousand," he shifted it notably thus. He that has a greater measure of Christ than 10,000 below him, the same is the fairest of 10,000.
Question. King of Israel; assumed you thus?
Answer. As I have dominion over the enemies of Christ, I am king of Israel spiritually.
Q. Are you the judge of the world?
A. I cannot deny what I said at the Committee. But the speaker, desirous to help him, here said, "Mind what you say; are you the judge, have you no fellow-judges?" Then he answered "No"; saying again, "I hope you have so much justice and charity as not to wrest my words.
"God set up this vessel as a sign of his coming, but not limited in this vessel, though it is thence that the hope of Israel springs."
Q. Why did you ride into Bristol in that manner?
A. There was never anything since I was born so much against my will and mind as this thing, to be set up as a sign in my going into those towns; for I knew that I should lay down my life for it.
Q. Whose will was it, if not yours?
A. It was the Lord's will, to give it into me to suffer such things <617> to be done in me; and I durst not resist it, though I was sure to lay down my life for it.
Q. How were you sure?
A. It was so revealed to me of my Father, and I am willing to obey his will in this thing.
Mr. Speaker. A sign is not only set up to direct the _____1 to his own, but to direct others.
A. True; such as will turn to Christ, by this sign to repentance, Christ is come to them. Haply some are not able to bear this.
Q. Are there any more signs than yours?
A. I know of no other sign. There may be other signs in some parts of the nation; but I am set up as a sign to this nation, to bear witness of his coming. You have been a long time under dark forms, neglecting the power of godliness, as bishops. It was the desire of my soul, all along, and the longing expectation of many godly men engaged with you, that this nation should be redeemed from such forms. God hath done it for you, and hath put his sword in the hands of those from whom it cannot be wrested. That sword cannot be broken, unless you break it yourselves, by disobeying the voice, the call, and rejecting the sign set up amongst you to convince them that Christ is come.
He denied their kneeling to him as was informed.
It is likely the women kneeled as much to others. It is an evil that bears that testimony. It is not true. They gave no worship to me; I abhor it, as I am a creature.
Mr. Speaker. Christ came long since, and you say he is but now come in the flesh.
A. It is well for those that can witness him long since come in the flesh. It is but of late he is come to me; but I say he is again come in the flesh, and he is daily manifested in the flesh; though none can bear it.
As to those words of the woman, "Arise my love, my dove, my fairest one, why stayest thou amongst the pots?" I own it no other way than as it was spoken in the Canticles, of Christ's church.
I am one that daily prays that magistracy may be established in this nation. I do not, nor dare affront authority. I do it not to set up idolatry, but to obey the will of my Father, which I dare not deny. I was set up as a sign to summon this nation, and to convince them of Christ's coming. The fullness of Christ's coming is not yet, but he is come now.
After a great deal more said to this purpose, which I could not take, he withdrew; and the Speaker desired if he had omitted anything <618> he would inform him, or if any desired any more questions might be asked him.
Sir Gilbert Pickering offered another question (being unsatisfied) about what his hope was in Christ's merits, and how he prayed to that Christ that died at Jerusalem. Whereupon Nayler was called in again, and answered pretty orthodoxly to those questions, and gave an account of his faith in God and Christ, &c.
Major-General Skippon. Was against calling him in, or asking any more questions, saying, He hath confessed enough to vindicate the Committee, who deserve thanks, for they have been very faithful and painful in the business. It now lies with us (being fully possessed of the matter of fact) not to suffer the honor of God and the truths of the gospel to be thus trampled upon. We shall see what judgments will come upon us. God now looks what you will do. Indeed, my heart trembles at those things remarkable, which will follow your remissness herein. I am afraid there will nothing come of this business, and then sin and judgment lie at your doors. These Quakers, Ranters, Levellers, Socinians, and all sorts, bolster themselves under thirty-seven and thirty-eight of Government,2 which, at one breath, repeals all the acts and ordinances against them.
I heard the supreme magistrate say, "It was never his intention to indulge such things"; yet we see the issue of this liberty of conscience. It sits hard upon my conscience; and I choose rather to venture my discretion, than betray conscience by my silence. If this be liberty, God deliver me from such liberty. It is to evil, not to good, that this liberty extends. Good Sir, discharge your duty to God in this thing, and put the question to agree with the Committee.
Lord President [Lawrence]. The business before you is of great weight; the House is thin, the time spent. I desire you would adjourn <619> this debate till Monday.
Mr. Ashe, the elder. I hope you are fully satisfied that the matter of fact is fully represented to you, so as you may freely agree with the Committee.
Colonel Briscoe. It is very clear that he does assume the peculiar attributes of Christ, though he does it with a distinction of visible and invisible; an evasion obvious to every sophister. But, in the thing, I am very ready to give my vote to agree with the Committee.
Mr. Butler. It lies much upon your hands to vindicate the honor of God. This fellow has not only committed blasphemy himself; but, I fear me, he caused many others to commit blasphemy.
The time of discovering this business works much with me; that such an indignity to Christ should be done, sitting a Parliament that professes so highly to the interest of Jesus Christ. Do we not undertake his cause, to manage it against Spain, where his name is blasphemed, and shall we suffer him to be blasphemed at home?
I confess my own weakness and timidity bid my silence; but, I humbly beseech you, make no delay in it. I cannot hold my peace, lest my conscience dog me to my chamber, to my curtains, to my grave.
Mr. Pedley. Put the question, whether what you have heard from James Nayler is not, in substance, agreeable with the Report before you from the Committee, and then proceed to your judgment.
Mr. Speaker. It were best to adjourn.
Sir William Strickland. Nothing has been reported from the Committee, but is, to a grain, agreed by the party's own confession at the bar. I hope you will approve of the way of the proceedings of the Committee, and adjourn the rest till Monday. You have now hell groaning under expectation of this issue, what you will do in this business. I would have us put on courage; and let not the enemies of God have the upper hand, to have liberty to blaspheme his name. It is the cause of God, and ought not to be slighted.
Colonel Sydenham. Adjourn till Monday morning. Nobody has been James Nayler's advocate: but this business ought to be fully debated, whether it is blasphemy. Some will say it is but an error, &c. If you put the question to agree with the Committee, you exclude their votes that would weigh the matter of fact; and haply some may demur to the matter in point of law; some, in matter of fact; so that, in my opinion, you are not ripe for such a question, to agree with the Committee. Again, there are many circumstances and things of small consequence in respect of the main; will you, in the gross, agree all this to be blasphemy?
Mr. Downing. You are judge and jury. You have heard the <620> prisoner at the bar, and will you leave the business in the midst, after issue joined? Can I charge my memory till Monday with what is fresh in my memory now? Have you not the evidence plain before you, and how can you leave off in the midst of an examination? Are not juries kept without meat and drink; yea, carried from cart to cart, county to county, till they agree in lesser matters, and shall we break off in this?
Mr. Speaker. I remember what a gentleman in another Parliament said of the result of our long debates, that it was but as the verdict of a starved jury. It will not be so with us, for many members have dined, though others fast.
Mr. Bedford. You should put the question, whether by the evidence you have heard, James Nayler is guilty of horrid blasphemy, and not delay the business further; for it is high time to proceed in a matter of this nature.
Major-General Goffe. I am of opinion with Nayler in one thing, that he is set up as a sign. He has fulfilled a scripture, that false Christs should arise, "to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect." It ought to be a warning to us, to know how we stand. The Scripture is fulfilled saying, "Lo! here, lo! there is Christ; but do not believe them."
The Report helps us well to understand the matter of fact, and what he hath confessed; I would have you, upon the whole matter, agree that James Nayler is guilty of blasphemy.
Mr. Speaker. Do not complicate the question, for he may be guilty of matter of fact, and not of matter of law. You involve all by this means. I would put the question simply.
Colonel Chadwick. The proper question is, to agree with the Committee in the Report; or, otherwise, whether that question should be put.
Major-General Desborough. I believe that James Nayler is guilty of blasphemy, but I shall not hinder your question to agree with the Committee in the Report.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. It is most Parliamentary to agree with the Report, in parts, and debate it so all along.
Major Audley. It is a gross mistake to agree with the Report in gross. I cannot agree to this; but rather to proceed upon your own knowledge. What you have heard with your own ears from him, may be the ground of your proceeding now; or otherwise to examine it in parts.
Captain Hatsel. The Committee did proceed with much integrity and care, to answer all ends. While I was there, his own answers were sufficient convictions, as to the matters charged against him.
Resolved, To agree with the Committee in the Report.
Resolved, To adjourn the further debate of this business till Monday, and no other business to intervene.
<621> This debate held till almost four, which spoiled the sitting of all committees. I question whether it has not left them all sine die, unless some met only to adjourn. I went to look after committees after five, but found none, only Sir Gilbert Pickering very serious with the clerk in the lobby, copying out Nayler's charge, to be better prepared against Monday.
The House resumed the debate upon the Report in the business of James Nayler, and sat both forenoon and afternoon, and came to the resolutions infra.
Sir Thomas Wroth. Seeing Nayler must die, I desire to see what manner of death it must be.
Sir William Strickland. Do not go to the punishment, but go to the matter of fact. First examine that.
The Master of the Rolls. The matter of fact should be stated, whether blasphemy or no.
Major-General Whalley. For my part, I am of opinion that this person is guilty of horrid blasphemy; and we ought to be tender in this, lest we draw this sin upon us.
Major Audley. I think there is no man so possessed with the devil as this person is. I am of opinion, with that noble gentleman that spoke last, that he is guilty of blasphemy; but would not condemn any man upon general terms. I am glad to see such a Christian spirit and sound principle, as in that person that spoke last. God has forsaken him: yet, in matters capital, I would have us go from part to part, and so vote it blasphemy all along as you go. This is the most proper way, in my opinion.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. I think it is not so much the possession of the devil. He does arrogate to himself the person, attributes, and what not, of Christ. No man here, I believe, will open his mouth against any part of this charge, but agree that it is horrid blasphemy. I am not for taking it in parts. The Committee is agreed with, who have determined it to be blasphemy. As Major-General Whalley said, take this man's practice and opinion together, and it is apparent horrid blasphemy.
I desire that you would not call into question the particulars again; but put the question, whether you will agree with the Committee, that the matter of fact in the whole is horrid blasphemy, for it is not for your honor abroad to proceed otherwise.
Major-General Desborough. We must not proceed without rules; though the offense be heinous enough. We must either take the law of God, or of man, to regulate our judgment herein.
Upon the common sense of scripture, there are few but do commit <622> blasphemy, as our Savior puts it in Mark, "Sins, blasphemies"; if so, then none without blasphemy. It was charged upon David, and Eli's son, thou hast blasphemed, or caused others to blaspheme.
But the law of God is more particularly set forth in Leviticus. "He cursed and blasphemed," and was brought before Moses, who instituted the law, that "he should be stoned." The Jews, when they come to charge Christ, say "He is a blasphemer, makes himself equal with God, and will destroy this temple": the like charge against Stephen.
I speak not to extenuate Nayler's offense, but if we judge by Christian rule, the other persons are more guilty of blasphemy in that sense, than he. They gave him the honor. Yet I will not say but, in the other sense, he is guilty of blasphemy. He is a greater sinner, a vile sinful man; but to call him a horrid blasphemer, I shall not give my vote. The wretched Jews came to particulars before they went to judgment. It is either by the rule of the Scripture, or the law of the land; else how can you judge what is blasphemy. I know no such words as "horrid blasphemy" in Scripture.
Mr. Drake. So you will agree it blasphemy, I stand not much upon the word horrid; but do rather insist upon it in regard the noble person said there was difference of blasphemies. We have gone to particulars already. Did he not suffer himself to be honored as our Savior, in his riding through all the towns? What would you do if one should ride triumphantly through the country, as a ruler of the nations? Were not he to be proceeded against as a traitor? I think him worse than all the papists in the world, worse than possessed with the devil. God is jealous of his own name. He has been jealous of your honor, and we shall neither have Turk, nor atheist, nor pagan converted here; and it is now brought to you, either to bring blood upon this nation or to acquit it.
My motion is to vote this offense horrid blasphemy. What does he less than set himself up as God and man both, by his distinction of visible and invisible? All people would kick and despise him, if he should say in plain terms he were God or Christ, but he does as much in effect as say so. I have heard of Herod, but this is worse than he; for he makes himself to be the Christ, and to dethrone our Lord and Savior. Does not he assume the honor and names, titles and attributes of Christ? If he should say it in plain terms, none would believe him; but he insinuates as much to the full, both in gesture, &c.
Lord Strickland. This fellow is one made up of contradictions. The Quakers teach humility, but he exalts himself. I doubt he is but too bad, yet I do not believe (by what I have heard) that he did say he was Jesus or Christ, though I think the women do believe him to be Christ.
I never heard of any man given up to so high a delusion, to so <623> much pride and arrogancy, as this person instanced in his pleasant answer to his being the fairest of ten thousand. I believe he is under the saddest temptation of Satan that ever was; but I believe he does not believe that he is the only Christ, that died at Jerusalem, or that the essence of Christ is in him, but I fear he cannot distinguish of Christ's being in him. I think his opinion is little else than as that of John Baptist, a forerunner of Christ.
In all these respects, I look upon him as a man exceeding scandalous, proud, and sinful; but to say he is a blasphemer I cannot agree. He does not blaspheme God. He says he honors God wherever he finds him. He nor curses nor reviles at God. I believe he is one of those that would sit on the right or left hand of God. He has no evil spirit or malice in him against God; but he is under a sad delusion of the devil. By that means, perhaps, he might have been excommunicated. He believes that more of Christ is in him than in any other creature; but he showed no malice to Christ, or envy.
If you have any rule, I would have you proceed against him as a seducer, and to let none be allowed to come to him: to shut him up as one that has the plague upon him. Haply you have some persons here, that will find you out a law to secure him from doing any further hurt; to act rather as a magistrate than by another power, whereby you have not a rule to proceed.
But for us to judge of blasphemy, unless we were so learned in the original as to define what is blasphemy, lest we be judged abroad whether we be adequate judges in this case of blasphemy, send him to Biddle in the Isle of Scilly.
Lord Whitlock. I cannot but dissent from the gentlemen that have opened it to be blasphemy. I think it is an offense of a higher nature. I know blasphemy in Scripture is defined to be sin. But to assume these titles and attributes of Christ is more than blasphemy. He calls the saints his brethren, so did Christ himself say. The Committee did well to add the word "horrid," but this is a particular offense, which cannot be said what it is, but by expressing the offense itself.
But to the manner of your proceedings. I have not found that the Parliament hath given judgment in any matter where there was not a law before. They have not proceeded in that case, but by Act of Parliament.
To give a judgment in point of life, no law being in force to that purpose, my humble opinion is to go by way of bill. To order a bill to be brought in with a blank for the punishment, where the grand Committee, if you please, may appoint the punishment, and by this means you have others to join with you in your legislative power. The like case was the Bishop of Rochester's cook, who, by Act of Parliament, <624> had new punishment appointed him, i.e., to be boiled in a hot lead. Hackett's case was otherwise, for he set himself up as a king.
By a bill of attainder, this bill may be brought in, and the party heard; which will certainly be your best and readiest way, and most agreeable to the sense of a great many of this house.
Major Beake. I conceived you ought first to determine the offense, what it is; and then prepare a proportionable punishment, which you may do then by a bill.
I conceive the judgment of Parliament is so sovereign, that it may declare that to be an offense, which never was an offense before. The Roman senate did the like in cases of parricide.
I have read some counsels for ordinances and acts of Parliament that have positively defined what is blasphemy. I wonder it should be so questioned here as to hedge out every man's knowledge in this matter. The word of God is express and plain in it. I can produce you very good authors confining it to these limits. It is a crime that deposes the majesty of God himself, crimen laesae maiestatis, the ungodding of God. And if we cannot reduce it to this, I desire that he should not be punished. He assumes Jesus instead of James.
"Holy, holy." These are attributes properly belonging to Christ; doing miracles, raising the dead.
I would have the Report read over, that it may be fresh in every man's memory. If it be so that he has assumed these attributes, why should it stick in your hands to determine of it?
You agree lesser sins to be blasphemy, and why do you stick to call it horrid blasphemy? I know not yet what will be an adequate judgment, or punishment, nor is it proper to determine it yet.
Captain Baynes. If you proceed by laws now in being, it is one thing; but, otherwise, you must make a law for it, else how can you do execution in this matter? Then you must go upon the legislative, wherein my Lord Protector must have a negative. We may bring him into a snare unless he heard the matter. His opinion may stick and demur as to the offense; for the Instrument of Government says, all shall be protected that profess faith in Jesus Christ, which, I suppose, this man does. If you declare it to be such an high offense, and have no punishment in the case, what better are you? If you have laws in being, then send him to some of your Courts of Justice.
Colonel White cited the proviso in the Article of Liberty, holding these principles out to civil injury.
I propound it to you to proceed against him as an actual disturber of the public peace, by abusing his liberty. Haply, you may find a lesser punishment than death, which may discourage him, and the <625> generation of them. I question whether the power of the Parliament can put a negative upon any part of the Government.
Mr. Downing. You have voted the Report, in the gross, to be fully proved; so that if there be anything of blasphemy in the Report, it is blasphemy in the gross. If you go to particulars, you will never come to an end; for then, whether will you proceed upon his confession at the bar, or upon the Report? His being possessed with the devil is no extenuation of the offense, but as introductory to the offense, as in a case of an indictment.
I am not against a bill, but something must be voted first, as to the matter of fact, else what shall your bill be called, or how will you proceed?
Blasphemy so taken, in general gives the more reason to pass this vote, for the greater comprehends the lesser. Cursing of God is treason, but the making oneself equal with God or Christ is treason, blasphemy, with a witness! assumes the incommunicable attributes of God and Christ, and suffers adoration as God and Christ. This you have voted already.
No offense can be higher than treason, none higher than blasphemy. Let us not lose this word, lest we have none.
Observe how careful they are not to give honor to any authority. You saw how he behaved himself at the bar. Not a cap to you, though you be gods in one sense; yet he will take cap, knee, kisses, and all reverence. His distinction of visible and invisible makes his blasphemy plain.
God manifested and come down in the flesh, at Exeter, in James Nayler! Did not he say that where God appoints Christ his honor, there he must be honored. If thus come down, we ought all to go and worship James Nayler. How did the Jews and Rabbins interpret blasphemy? Not the cursing of God, but the making himself equal with God. Christ never denied it to be blasphemy to make oneself equal with God, but he stood upon it that he was. If this be the case of this man, shall you not vote it blasphemy?
It is brought to you, sitting the Parliament. If it had been brought to his Highness, I am confident he would have been zealous in it, and extended the laws.
We have made a law against treason, upon earth, to be tried without juries. I gave my vote for it. It was just. If there be such a thing as treason against Heaven, if I be not most zealous in this matter, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.
There was no law against blasphemy in the Scripture, till one committed a fault. He did not escape that offended, and he was the occasion <626> of a good law. You have made laws in lesser matters than this.
As to the Instrument of Government. I hope it shall never be made use of as an argument to let this wretch escape. I am as much for tender consciences as any man; but I deny that this has any share in such liberty. Does this man profess faith in Jesus Christ? Nothing! He destroys and disannuls the power of Christ, and sets up himself only with a distinction of the invisibles. God could have made him a pillar of salt immediately, if he had pleased; have struck him dead, but he has left it to you to vindicate his honor and glory. Now see what you will do. This is the day of temptation, and trial of your zeal. I can call this offense no less than blasphemy. I desire you would vote it so, and then to speak of a bill for his punishment.
Lord President. This gentleman has spoken very zealously, yet they were honest men, too, that called for fire from heaven, and we know how they were reproved.
I have lived some time in the world, and seen what is abroad, and how careful wise men have been in proceeding in this kind.
I wonder why any man should be so amazed at this. Is not God in every horse, in every stone, in every creature? Your Familists affirm that they are Christed in Christ, and Godded in God.
This business lies heavy upon my heart. Imprudent persons run away with these notions, and not being able to distinguish, sad consequences arise. But this is but from the abuse of good, sound, and high notions, and thence they argue liberty of sinning. Some look upon this as a bridge to bring them to this perfection.
If you hang every man that says "Christ is in you the hope of glory," you will hang a good many. You shall hear this in every man's mouth of that sect, and others too, that challenge a great interest in Christ.
I do not believe that James Nayler thinks himself to be the only Christ; but that Christ is in him in the highest measure. This, I confess, is sad. But if, from hence, you go about to adjudge it, or call it blasphemy, I am not satisfied in it. It is hard to define what is blasphemy. I believe you think Arianism is blasphemy; and so it is, to deny the divinity of Christ; but this is to themselves, about the notion of God. This is not to us.
It is the happiness of this nation that every mother's son should know Christ. But I doubt there are many in this nation that pass for Christians, that know not the mystery of Christ manifest in the flesh. I have discoursed with some of that sect, and have read some of their books, that every man had a light within him to bring him to Christ; and that the first creature that God made was light (i.e.) Christ; which <627> is a fallacy, for Christ was not created. Their bottom is much tending to Arminianism, and I would have the venting such principles restrained. I shall say nothing to the punishment now; but have you read the Report over, and let every man give his reasons why such a part is blasphemy?
Major-General Skippon. By the rule that this honorable person offers, none shall meddle at all in matters of religion. I cannot agree with him, in that Providence has brought this offense to your doors. We ought to be careful how we draw down national judgments by passing it by. There may be errors in our zeal on both sides. The question will come, whether you honor more the things of God or your own things. I would not willingly weaken one stone of the Government, but rather be a means to establish; but the 37th article was never intended to bolster up blasphemies in this nature. I have heard it otherwise. This may admit of your future explanation. I hope I offend not. I may haply offend man.
I beseech you, consider how this comes before you, consider what it is when it comes, consider the chair you sit in. I am still of the same opinion I was; nay, I am more established, being convinced of my own conscience, and your duty, that you ought to agree with the Committee, in the gross, that it is blasphemy, horrid blasphemy. If it be more, as some gentleman has said, let that be further considered. God's glory has been trampled upon sufficiently in these things. Voting it to be horrid blasphemy is my humble opinion.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. I did not hear the lord that spoke last but one, say anything to take off your hands in this matter. He reserved his judgment as to the punishment. It was a jealousy of Major-General Skippon, without a foundation. His speech was all along otherwise. It seems, as it is laid before you, it is now with you to consider whether you will mind more the honor of God or your own honor in this business.
If this gentleman thinks it is blasphemy, and thinks it ought to be punished with death, he must give others leave to dissent, if their judgments will not agree to it. Some haply have the same zeal for God, yet haply they may not have the same appetite to give sentence in these things, without special tenderness respecting the sad consequence. If I were of that opinion, that this offense amounts to blasphemy, I should not stick to say so; but give me leave a little to understand whether this be that blasphemy which was first committed. Which of the sorts of blasphemy that was, I am truly ignorant, not affecting ignorance herein, whether it was cursing God, or, I doubt, a higher offense rather. If you lay an interpretation upon the Rabbin's definition of blasphemy, you will wholly frustrate the word of God. (Instanced their interpretation of the word "Corban").
<628> I am at a stand what to call this offense. It does highly return upon God to his disgrace, &c., but to determine it blasphemy, I confess I am ignorant in it.
It is a gross, thick, dark idolatry in the persons that followed him on horseback: they are not only equally but more guilty in this business than himself. But the proper proceeding is, as to what is done by the person himself; wherein you ought to take as well what he said for himself, as against himself, as that question which he answered upon his second calling in. I thank you for it; I was much satisfied in it. He did admonish the people to take heed what they did, and to do nothing but what God commanded them; and repeated his answer to the last question. I would have this to be used as an extenuation. Mr. Seldon said upon Bests's answer, at your bar, that he was a better man than he understood himself to be. That may be this man's case. He gives himself not out, plainly, to be the son of God, but that he is a prophet, a type, a sign, to warn men of the second coming of Christ, and thus he argues: "If any man see more in me than in another, what have I to do to resist what is the Father's will."
My present apprehension, in short, is this, that the person is both a flat idolater, and idolatry itself. I am ready to give my sense in it, as to the punishment of this, but to give my vote for blood I shall be very tender in it. Haply, some will say I am fallen from the faith. I speak my conscience, the will of God be done in it.
Mr. Rouse. If it be agreed to be idolatry, I think it is enough. You have spent a forenoon to consider what to call it. I think this will be sufficient to bring him to what punishment you shall think fit.
It was the idolatry in that person, that was in the same person punished. Those that worshipped him were not the offenders; but the idol was pulled down, the person that suffered such worship to be done unto him. For my part, I think, call it what you will, it is an high offense and encroachment upon the honors of God, and ought to be punished, as blasphemy, or idolatry. Either way will meet with the offender, in the same end as is propounded to you.
Sir William Strickland. This debate is likely to hold some time. I desire you would adjourn for an hour or two, and take it up again, that it may bear its weight with it.
Resolved: That this House do adjourn till three o'clock upon this debate.
We met in the Army Chamber, and adjourned the Committee for the courts at York, till Wednesday, at two.
The order for adjournment was read.
Mr. Speaker said, you have heard the order.
Silence a pretty long while, and the question called for.
Mr. Speaker said, he could put no question unless to adjourn again.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. The question in the morning, which was firsted and seconded, was to agree with the Committee, that Nayler's offense was horrid blasphemy.
Sir William Roberts. If you would put the question, you should not say, as the Committee called it, "horrid blasphemy"; but, if you will put it horrid blasphemy, put it.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. I brought in a petition, which was the order of the day. I desire that might be read.
Colonel Rouse and Sir Thomas Wroth. The proper question is what you should call this offense. Would have you put the question, if it be horrid blasphemy.
Mr. Speaker. There were several questions before, about the way and manner of your proceedings, whether by the legislative or judicatory, besides this question.
The Master of the Rolls. I have heard this debate, and, in my opinion, it was very learnedly debated. I never heard of such a horrid sin as this, in all my life. Some would have it idolatry; some, blasphemy of one sort; some, of another sort. It is not the matter what he said here; but his carriage before this judicature is most remarkable with me. He does not disown this honor here to Christ in him.
That of setting himself up above ten thousand was blasphemy, insinuated as highly as could be.
Consider how you stand in the opinion of the world; what an ill construction is upon us from the malignant party. They will say you have had one before you for calling himself Christ, and done nothing in it. Consider Paul's case, how he denied any honor to be done to him by the barbarians. Is there more of the Spirit in him than in Paul. Yet he sets up himself, as one to be worshipped. It is flat idolatry, both in him and in those that follow him. Call it little or great blasphemy, it is blasphemy if it be but a grain.
I would have the question put, whether James Nayler be guilty of abominable idolatry and damnable blasphemy.
Mr. Highland. We have a saying in our country, "Give the devil his due." The poor man is bad enough, we had not need to add. Does he deny either God, or Christ, or the Spirit? Lay no more stress upon it than it deserves. It differs from Paul's case. He is much filled with spiritual pride, that he has more of Christ in him than another. The <630> women said they did not honor James Nayler, but the Lord.
I hope you are not of opinion that he should suffer death for this, though it be a heinous offense. Labor, if it be possible, in a peaceable way, to reclaim those that are misled by his delusions; for I suppose we all agree it to be a great and horrid crime. Yet, from the whole, to judge it blasphemy, I conceive it is not proper, nor can I give my 'yea' to it.
Mr. Bedford. You have lately had the offender before you, and you are now debating what the offense should be. I would not have it made more than it is. It appears bad enough to me, so that I think it comes under whatsoever has been offered to you, i.e., both idolatry and horrid blasphemy.
He has owned the names, attributes, titles, power, and honor of Christ; he has assumed them all. He will not tell you where Christ is, or that he is on the right hand of God. Yet he came down fully in the flesh, at Exeter, upon him: he takes that.
The Long Parliament tried Hackett because he said he was the King of Saints, and the crown ought to be set upon his head, and this by your legislative power.
He has robbed God and Christ of his honor. I can call him no less than a traitor in that. I desire that the question might be that James Nayler is a horrid blasphemer.
Mr. Bacon. This fellow is not the fairest of ten thousand as his disciples would have him, but the foulest of ten thousand rather. It is much controverted here, whether a law may be made for a matter ex post facto. Nothing more ordinary in a Parliament. Was it not the case of the Bishop of Rochester's cook? He made broth which poisoned all the family, and the beggars at the gates. Here was a law made, both for the offense and the punishment.
The like in Hackett's case.
The like in the Holy Maid of Kent's case, Hen. VIII, who said she had immediate intercourse and letters from the Virgin Mary. Her offense was adjudged high treason.
Resolved, That candles be called for; two Noes.
Colonel Sydenham. Here are several things before you of several natures and kinds; some against God immediately, some against the civil peace, some against manners and honesty.
I look upon it, on the whole, as a laying a ground to overthrow the gospel. If so, our labor is in vain.
It is a confounding of Christ and his attributes.
It is against the civil peace; for, by this rule, we must lay aside all civil submission to any supreme power, and throw down the scepter at Christ's feet, wherever we find him reigning, though in this impostor. <631> Another against common honesty, as his lying with the woman, the curtains drawn, &c. Will you confound all these crimes under such an improper title as in the gross, to call it blasphemy? This offense is not homogenial. It differs from that offense of the Holy Maid of Kent. The Parliament did justly declare that to be treason.
If this should be taken as a blasphemy upon the whole, it would be left as a record to posterity.
I cannot be in the world but I hear some of their opinions, both in print or otherwise. These Quakers or Familists affirm that Christ dwells personally in every believer. That which I fear is to draw this down into precedent, for by the same ground you may proceed against all of that sect. Again, that which sticks most with me is the nearness of this opinion to that which is a most glorious truth, that the Spirit is personally in us. The precedent in this case will be dangerous to posterity. I submit it to you whether you should not go upon the whole matter of fact, which is the most natural way of proceeding.
If some of those Parliaments were sitting in our places, I believe they would condemn most of us for heretics. The most safe way is to go upon the whole. Who can tell what may be the spirit or temper of other Parliaments? We should be in this more unanimous, and come sooner to the question. It is for your honor. I fear this long debate will make them without say one half of the House are Quakers, the other half anti-Quakers.
Sir Richard Onslow. I am glad to hear of anything that will shorten your time. I shall not undertake to define what blasphemy is, but I can describe what this is. My opinion is, as it was, that it is blasphemy. There is officium altior officio. It is our duty, with a witness, to do something in this business, and that with all possible zeal. I cannot tell what to call horrid blasphemy, if this be not it. Have not Parliaments, in all matters of this extraordinary nature, had recourse to their legislative power, and have given titles to offenses and new punishments adequate? Why should you boggle at this? My motion is that it may be voted horrid blasphemy.
Mr. Briscoe. You have voted the Report, which is the ground and substance of the crime, so that I think you need not long contend what shall be the title. If the Report were not full enough, my judgment is from his own acknowledgment, that he assumed, or connived at the receiving, the honor and attributes of Christ; consentiens and agens in law are pari gradu. He confesseth it to be evil to give adoration to him, but, God commanding it, he durst not refuse it. By this means he lays the sin and evil upon God, if it be a sin. If not, then it is a real truth that he ought to be worshipped as a God.
<632> "Hope of Israel stands." This must be a peculiar person, more than ordinary, in whom this hope stands; for by Israel certainly must be meant all believers, and by Hope must certainly be meant Christ. It can stand in no other person.
Acceptance of the woman's salutation, "Arise, &c. My love, &c." To me this seems a plain owning the honor due to Christ. He never reproved them for giving it, but said they might obey what the Lord commanded them.
We have no law against blasphemy under the gospel, yet the jus naturale is of force. It is an offense against the moral law. By the light of nature, as divines say, we may know the Deity.
If against the judicial law, the equity remains. It is a sin against a greater light, a more transcendent light. If ignorance doth extenuate, so doth knowledge aggravate; and the greater his knowledge the greater his offense. He owns it knowingly.
The circumstance of time works much with me. It is our duty. If we neglect it, let us consider Eli's judgment. Qui non vetat, jubet. That it should come to our doors in this juncture of time!
The spreading of it in England and Ireland, and other plantations, appears to me to proceed from some encouragement it hath. I would have us, however, bear witness against it.
This is a spiritual judgment and wickedness amongst us. We draw guilt upon us. We know what Phineas did in such a case, and what was the consequence: the plague was stopped. Let us obviate these evils, meet them in the threshold. My motion is, That you would vote James Nayler to be guilty, upon the whole matter, of horrid blasphemy.
Major-General Desborough. The great business before us, this day, is to consider which way we may proceed according to knowledge. Our zeal is hot enough, as it was in former times with the Israelites. All the difference is about the manner of expressing it. I would have us as unanimous as may be. We are now waiting upon God for the issue. I shall not need to aggravate it. It has been sufficiently done. We are left to our rules in this case, and herein we differ. Sharp punishments are denounced against blasphemers; but this way is not revealed to us. We all agree it to be a most horrid crime.
Blasphemy is taken in divers senses in Scripture. I do really believe that this man is guilty of blasphemy in one sense; but I have not heard one scripture urged this day, that this offense is comprehended under this or that rule or text touching blasphemy.
It is such a leprosy that ought to be shut out from all others. So far I can agree.
You heard in the gospel, of false Christs to arise; but no judgment <633> is passed upon them, but only to bid us take heed of them, beware, and the like.
The work of a magistrate is distinct from every private person. He ought to take heed that such persons do not infect others. This offense is horrible enough as to God; but as to the civil magistrate, how shall he be guided in this case?
But I do not see how it answers, either the rule, or the law, or the gospel, to call this offense, as is offered to you, horrid blasphemy.
Where the law of God and law of man is silent, I never heard it in a Christian commonwealth, to condemn any man in that high nature as is offered. You may witness against them as far as you can by a rule. I would have you vote that James Nayler is guilty of horrid crimes, and to take it in gross as was offered to you by Colonel Sydenham. You will effect the end we all aim at. Enumerate, if you please, blasphemy, heresy, idolatry, and that he is a seducer and an imposter. I believe he is all this, but to vote it horrid blasphemy, I cannot consent to it.
Mr. Bodurda. A man had need premise something of himself before he say anything in this business. I cannot agree, from the whole, to call it horrid blasphemy. I would have any man lay his finger upon any part of the charge, and say this particular is horrid blasphemy. If this vote pass, and any without ask me, what have you called this offense? how can I convince them, from any part of it, that it is such an offense as you have voted it?
When have you passed any such vote as this in the gross?
I would fain know how I shall answer this objection. I cannot pretend to any skill in the original
tongue. Thus much I remember of Greek 
,
defamatio, a pertinacious holding of heresy. You have not any such part of Nayler's
offense before you, which he hath pertinaciously persisted in. The proceeding of the church in
this case ought to be followed, who heard a heretic three or four times before they passed
sentence. Either you must proceed upon what was proved against him, or what he confessed.
His riding into Exeter was a horrid piece of pageantry and impostery, but how to call that
blasphemy in him I know not.
Upon the account of the Millenaries, I look upon this of Nayler's crimes, I am very much troubled. I would have the growth of them suppressed, for they are a dangerous generation, and certainly much influenced upon by this sort of Quakers.
In 2d Eliz. John Moore said he was Christ, and William Jeffrey did so worship him. They did not evade, but were plain and express in their opinions. Divines had him under consideration, and could not convince, but he stood in it that he was Christ. They sentenced him to be whipped from the prison to Bedlam, where, remaining some time, <634> he confessed his imposture and cheat. Before you vote it anything, I desire you would take it in pieces. Otherwise go to the punishment first, lest you debar a great many votes that would concur in the crime, but for the consequence of the punishment.
Colonel Gorges. I would demand this question of these gentlemen: is there such a thing as blasphemy? Consider what he said at the bar. He said the voice, the spirit, that spoke in him, were the words of Christ. If he be infallible, then let us worship him. If fallible, what is that less than blasphemy to own such a spirit in him. His practice is idolatry. His excuse is, Christ is within him. He makes an idol of himself; and ought not an idol be dashed in pieces? He never reproved his disciples, nay, rather encouraged them, to obey the command of God, &c. My motion is, that it may be called horrid blasphemy.
Sir John Reynolds. If you agree not what shall be the crime, how will you agree in the punishment? I would have you defer it for a time, and take the advice of some able divines about you. The long Parliament did so in these cases. Your time, in appearance, is short, and many weighty businesses before you, &c.
Dr. Clarges. I thought you had been so near a question that I should not have needed to have troubled you. You have here before you the greatest matter that ever came before a Parliament. This impostor hath not only poisoned himself, but too many others. I have made some collections, and I have a bad memory; I crave your pardon if I read my notes.
Blasphemy defined in three things.
Question. Whether blasphemy and cursing be not two distinct things? "They came to Christ, they mocked him" (22 Luke), one blasphemy.
"A knowing and an ignorant blasphemy" (1 Tim. 1:13). "I was a blasphemer," said Paul. "I did it injuriously."
"Whoever shall set up a sign" (Deut. 27), he is an idolater, and has not Nayler set himself up so?
If any of these people had a mind to adore the invisible God, they need not flock about James Nayler. He owned the letter wherein he was called Jesus. His relation of the manner of his going into Exeter very much confirms me that he assumed the honor done to Christ when he was upon the earth. He rebuked none of them for it. "My father," not mentioned in any part of Scripture but in Christ's person, yet this impostor assumes it.
In my opinion James Nayler is guilty of horrid blasphemy; what greater expressions of it than to assume honor as to a Deity, though invisible.
In murder, a man destroys, as much as in him is, the seed of <635> mankind: blasphemy much more. Perjury destroys a man in the same sense by consequence in his life, and it perisheth society.
I shall speak no more; but let us all stop our ears, and stone him—for he is guilty of horrid blasphemy: nothing so apparent.
Major-General Desborough. You should put the word blasphemy distinctly. If it be simple blasphemy, I can freely give my yea to it; but if blasphemy in the restrained sense, I shall be against it: both in respect I understand not how the offense will amount to it, nor what the punishment may be. I would not have any here be surprised in this vote.
Mr. Margets. It is surely obvious to you that there is a different sense in the House, what kind of blasphemy this shall be called. I would have you put the question whether it shall be put or no, and so determine it.
Sir William Strickland. I hope the more you hear of this, the more your ears tingle at it. Here is no ignorant person before you. Did he not own the honor due Christ? Did he reprove those that gave him that honor? Did he not rather excuse them by laying the sin to God's charge? for said they and he both, "God commanded it."
He that puts himself in the place of Jesus Christ, and sets himself up above Christ, all other things are but mint and cummin in respect to this. Let us not betray God Almighty. The report was made very justly and faithfully. I am of the opinion that it is blasphemy, nay, horrid blasphemy, and I desire you will put the question.
Colonel Jones. You should instance in some part of the Report that makes it blasphemy, as his assuming the attributes of Christ, lest after ages take another thing for blasphemy in the Report than you judge him on.
Colonel Clarke. I take this person to be under a very high delusion, strong and devilish delusion, that has tossed him up and down in the world. I take it not to be under any designed malice or wickedness, and if so, you cannot call it blasphemy. I shall be as ready as any man to bear my testimony against him; for I take him to be the greatest impostor that has been in our days.
I would have the question put, that he is a notorious impostor and seducer of the people.
Mr. 3. If you consider the number of them abroad, you would apply some speedy remedy; for that they are seduced is apparent enough. I have heard of one that was strangely deluded by this person, and he came off from them. The like of Sedgwick in Hertfordshire. If it were not to reach his life, I believe a great many would be free in this vote.
<636> I know not whether it is knowledge or what it is, that puffs him up. This opinion of his does border upon a very glorious truth. I would have us very tender as to what name you give it; lest, by the words "horrid blasphemy," many be drawn in, to vote what their mind is not; that may be of ill consequence.
Major Audley. I was not for passing this matter in the lump, but in censu diviso. It was well offered to you, to send some divines to undelude this man, if it be possible, to try this delusion. I cannot agree with voting this horrid blasphemy. There is something else which will follow, wherein haply I shall not agree. His matter of opinion sticks not so much with me as his matter of practice. I doubt others have deceived him, as well as he hath deluded others.
If you make blasphemy a generical sin, it must consist of particulars.
You christen this offense like Diapente, five ingredients, and that the least of them; yet you will give it denomination from that drug, and out of the whole extract a name for the offense. I submit it to you whether this will look well in after ages, or no; to condemn one upon such an accumulative and general account, without distinguishing the parts and particulars, to make it up.
Colonel Mathews. In my opinion James Nayler is guilty of horrid blasphemy. I would have added to the question, that he is a great impostor and a seducer, which will answer all senses.
Mr. Robinson. I am against the word horrid in your question. I wish it could have been tried out of doors. Spare that word, and I shall not be against the question. I wish any could assign to me, from what part of the Report you ground your judgment upon, that this is horrid blasphemy. I do not find the scripture so clear in it what it is; instanced in that of Job's wife.
This word spared, I can the better tell how to give my opinion as to the punishment, that he may no longer pester the nation with these poisonous principles.
Colonel Shapcot. Put the question whether the word horrid should be part of the question, and this will determine the debate and save your labor.
Mr. Speaker. Agreed.
Lord Claypole. A word or two before your question. It is a great many more's concernment than James Nayler's case. In other debates you make the title last. I would you observed this rule in this also. Admit you leave out the word horrid. If he be only guilty of blasphemy—if you extend not a proportionable punishment, how strangely will this look upon your records. I would have the parts read over, and debate it along, what is blasphemy and what not.
<637> Mr. Ashe, the elder. If any man speak to this business now, it is against the orders of the House, not to keep to the question, which is, whether the word horrid shall be in the question. Keep close to that which is your proper work, else you will go contrary to your orders.
He might have taken Lord Claypole down, and at first, if he durst.
Major-General Howard. I thought not to have troubled you in this business; but you are launching into a matter of great consequence. Whatever you do in this, it may be of ill consequence to posterity.
I could freely give my vote, that he is a grand impostor and seducer, and that his opinions are heretical and blasphemous. His confession will justify me thus far; but then, to vote it horrid blasphemy, I cannot consent.
This vote of yours will be very conclusive; so that I desire to declare my conscience in it, that I am not satisfied from what I heard at the bar, that Nayler is guilty of blasphemy. Were it not that such a punishment is to ensue, I could be freer in it; but I know this is but in order to a greater vote, &c.
Mr. Reynell. I would have you wholly lay aside the Report, and go upon what Nayler confessed at the bar; which, in my opinion, was full enough and pregnant, that he did own and assume the honor and attributes due to Christ only, with a distinction. My humble motion is, that you would vote it horrid blasphemy; for I cannot conceive how it should be less, both from his own confession here and at the Committee, besides the other proofs.
Mr. Waller. I would not have the offense made greater than it is, lest the punishment prove also greater. These two rubs must be removed before I can give my consent:
1. What blasphemy is.
2. What shall be the punishment.
I am for the moderater title, that he is a great impostor and a seducer. This will fully bear your witness against it. I incline to the moderate way, lest you open such a vein of blood as you will scarcely close.
Colonel Holland. I hope he may speak now that has spoken nothing in this business. Consider the state of this nation, what the price of our blood is. Liberty of conscience, the Instrument gives it us. We remember how many Christians were formerly martyred under this notion of blasphemy; and who can define what it is? I am wholly against the question. I may transgress your orders, it being the first day I sat here.
A greater punishment do they deserve that are thus deluded, than he that suffers such things.
Resolved, That the word 'horrid' be added to the question.
Resolved, That the main question shall be put.
<638> Resolved, That James Nayler, upon the whole matter, in fact, is guilty of horrid blasphemy.
Major-General Goffe and Captain Hatsel. That you would also add this to the question, that James Nayler is a grand impostor, and a great seducer of the people.
The Master of the Rolls. Add the word, likewise.
Resolved, That the said James Nayler is also a grand imposter, and a great seducer of the people.
Mr. Bampfield and Major-General Skippon. Adjourn this debate till tomorrow, and nothing to intervene.
Colonel White. A little time will end this business. You may now soon come to a determination as to the manner of your proceeding, whether by attainder or not.
Dr. Clarges. In hopes of the party's repentance, upon the converse of some godly divines, adjourn this debate till Monday next.
Mr. Robinson. Put off this debate till Monday, and go on with your more serious affairs.
Mr. Berkeley. Let another day be appointed for petitions.
Captain Hatzel. I am for adjourning till tomorrow; but I would have two or four gentlemen appointed to bring in a bill of attainder against him.
Sir William Strickland. I am very inclinable to mercy; and to that purpose do second that motion, that some godly divines might talk with Nayler, and in the interim suspend the debate. I desire his conversion.
Sir John Reynolds. I would have some ministers to speak with him, as Dr. Owen, Mr. Caryl, and Mr. Nye. Possibly some good may be wrought upon him, and in the meantime, adjourn the debate.
Major-General Goffe. I shall second that motion of mercy, for that worthy person. It was Christian; I desire it may not die. Let us use all possible means to convert him.
Sir Christopher Pack. I do freely agree to that Christian motion, to send to him some divines, and go on with your debate at the same time. I would have Dr. Reynolds.
Major-General Whalley. First consider his punishment, and then send divines to him. When he is made apprehensive of his danger, you may have the better hope of his reclaimer.
Sir Gilbert Pickering. I am against sending any divines to him, till you have proceeded further in the business, and then let him have all the benefit of conversion that may be. He will say, you only court him to forsake his opinions, with the arguments of death. First, let him apprehend the danger he is in.
Resolved, That this debate be adjourned till tomorrow morning.
<639> It was offered to have Thursdays for hearing petitions, but no resolutions therein. Some desired that petitions might be heard in fifth and sixth and seventh places.
Judge-Advocate Whalley brought in a book, which contained witchcraft and blasphemy and free-will, &c., desired the House would take it into consideration, and do something in it.
Mr. Speaker. In such cases, the gentlemen ought to extract such heads out of the book as are blasphemous or heretical, &c., or the like, and upon those heads charge the author; for it is not likely that every member has read that book, so as to pass judgment upon it.
This gentleman may bring it in some other day.
The House sat till past six, half an hour.
Colonel Holland came this day into the House.
The order of the day read, about Nayler.
Major-General Howard. I offer a petition from some ministers of the North in relation to this business of the Quakers. Haply it may be some information to your proceedings in this particular.
Mr. 4 brought in another long petition from Cheshire, to the same purpose; desired that they might be read.
Mr. Robinson. I would not have you make any use of these petitions, or admit them upon your records as evidence. It is collateral matter, and ought not to be any direction to you, either to aggravate or extenuate the offense. These petitions may be offered more properly after.
Major-General Howard. True, there is nothing in this petition relating particularly to James Nayler. I would not offer anything that might aggravate the offense. For my part, I said something to express that I was not so severe as haply others are, especially in matter of punishment.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon and Colonel Shapcot. I hope you will not rest here, but proceed to further judgment: lest it be said abroad, you have declared an offense, and have not a law to bring the offender to justice. I would have it referred to the same Committee to bring in a Bill of Attainder, with a blank for the punishment. I was sorry to hear it said in this House, that there was not such a thing as blasphemy.
Colonel Sydenham. Nothing said yesterday ought to be repeated today. I know not what you mean by a Bill of Attainder, if it be not to take away a man's life.
<640> If you bring a precedent to this purpose, you must set it upon the rack. To take away a man's life by a subsequent law, it is of dangerous consequence. I fear there is something in the bottom of such a motion which scarcely agrees with the rule of the gospel. To take away his life I am not satisfied, but am for some other secure way of punishment.
If Nayler be a blasphemer, all the generation of them are so, and he and all the rest must undergo the same punishment. The opinions they hold do border so near a glorious truth, that I cannot pass my judgment that it is blasphemy. I shall choose rather to live in another nation, than where a man shall be condemned for an offense done, by a subsequent law. I am against the Bill of Attainder.
Judge Smith. I have as tender a conscience as any man to tender consciences, and I am also as tender of the honor of God. How tender are we of our own privileges! not an arrest upon a footman but severely punished, as done to us; I doubt we shall be but too tender in this business.
What are we called in other nations, but the great nursery of blasphemies and heresies; and what will they say, now we have passed a vote against a horrid blasphemer, and we are at stand what to do with him. But we are afraid of a precedent. For my part, I am not afraid of this precedent; I am sorry there is occasion for it; but it were without precedent if we let it pass unpunished.
Was not the king justly condemned by the legislative power for tyranny, treason, and oppression? It was a just sentence. The like for the Earl of Strafford and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rochester's cook, and Hackett, &c. Six or seven were condemned and hanged at Tyburn for speaking against the Book of Common Prayer, a slenderer offense than this.
Our laws make it death for robbing a man, though he take but 12d. from him. Burglary by night, though nothing be taken away, is death. Yet we make nothing of robbing God of his glory. My motion is, that a Bill of Attainder may be brought in; and if you have no other punishment, that you would fill up the blank with the old way of punishment, that he may be stoned to death.
Lord Strickland. I do agree with your vote, that he is guilty of blasphemy; but I hope, when you come to prepare your bill, you will not put in the word blasphemy; for it is a reproach of a man as well as against God.
The text of the Israelitish woman was that she blasphemed. The original is, "She cursed God." It is a word of a general acceptation. I would not have it in your bill generally, but as blasphemy against God, with a blank for the punishment. I would have his offenses <641> summed up, as his taking adoration, &c., in the preamble.
A man may be attainted of a riot, a trespass, but the proper attainder is of felony. The king's case was not by attainder, but by a high Court of Justice was he tried.
In the Earl of Strafford's case, counsel was heard on both sides, and he was attainted of treason. The Archbishop of Canterbury's case was upon the same ground. Hackett was proceeded against as a rebel. Some proceedings were by the bishops against heretics, but I never knew any law for it in England. I speak it not to extenuate this wicked wretch's offense, nor to lessen the power of Parliament; but I conceive it very proper for the consideration of a Parliament to beware of a precedent of this nature to posterity. There may be a Bill for banishment; for by the law no Englishman ought to be banished but by Act of Parliament. Nor can you properly pass any sentence upon him but you must do it by Bill. I am not satisfied in your judicial way of proceeding. I would have every Englishman be careful in this case. It has been our happiness to be governed by a known law. The Earl of Strafford's case is particularly excepted, not to be drawn into precedent.
I cannot say but we have laws enough to reach this offender, if the gentlemen of the long robe would direct us. Where most power of the gospel, most prodigies of heresies and opinions; which will happen always, unless you restrain the reading of the Scriptures.
Hackett was punished for setting himself up as a king; this fellow did more. He made himself higher, a pope, by suffering his feet to be kissed.
Heresies are like leaden pipes underground. They run on still, though we do not see them, in a commonwealth where they are restrained. Where liberty is, they will discover themselves, and come to punishment. There is no such need of drawing you out to such punishment as death. Restrain him, rather, to some country or place; banish him, &c. This House is a living law, but make as little use of the legislative power as you can. It is a dangerous precedent to posterity. It is against the Instrument of Government to proceed to further punishment upon this business. Confine him, banish him, or do what you will.
Major-General Jephson. I wonder such a doctrine should be broached in this House, that it is against the liberty of the people to have recourse to the legislative power. I think rather the contrary. The case of the Earl of Strafford only limits the judges not to proceed upon that law; but surely the gentlemen are mistaken who say the Parliament is restrained thereby. I know no such clause in that Bill. Doubtless you may resume that power when you please. I would, to choose, leave a precedent in this case to posterity. There is no danger at all in it.
<642> I hope God will stir up your zeal in a matter that so eminently concerns the cause of God. We ought to vindicate his honor. For my part I am clearly satisfied that upon the whole matter this person deserves to die.
Major-General Desborough and Mr. Robinson. You should adjourn this debate for an hour. Some had dined and were upon an advantage.
Resolved, That this debate be adjourned till three o'clock.
I went with Mr. Desborough to dine with cousin Highmore and the company of cloth workers, in London, and the reading their brief of eleven sheets kept me till night, so that I was not at the beginning of this debate. But Major Brooke told me some part of it.
It seems there had been strong endeavors to qualify and lessen the crime. Captain Baynes used the argument to spare him thus: "Nayler prophesied of his death; let us make him a liar by saving his life." Major Brooke answered: "By this rule the murderer, and felon, and robber, may say they prophesied their death. Will you, therefore, spare them? You will have a good many prophets upon this account." Sir Gilbert Pickering had been speaking a good while, to lessen the offense, and was at it when I came in. He concluded for some lesser punishment than death, to be inflicted, as whipping.
Sir Charles Wolseley. It is most orderly, first to agree of the punishment, and then to bring in a Bill, if a Bill be proper; which I question.
The legislative power of Parliament is great, but not so as to be taken up upon this occasion. I am afraid of an ill precedent. As I would have us bear our witness against this crime, yet I would have us do justice in a just way. We may not, by the legislative power, do what we please, call that an offense which is not. We have also a Master in heaven, to whom we must give an account.
I cannot apprehend this matter to be of that height as to merit the punishment of death. I am for a lesser punishment, as pillory, imprisonment, whipping, or the like.
Major Beake made a long speech to prove it to be blasphemy. It was dark, and I could not take it; but his conclusion was, that he conceived it was a fit punishment to cut out his tongue, and cut off his right hand, and then turn him beyond seas, and let him go with the mark of a blasphemer.
Lord President made a long speech to extenuate the offense, and concluded for a moderate punishment, as whipping and imprisonment. Mutilation was as bad as death. He made an apology, that he had nothing to say for Nayler; he had no favor for him more than upon account of tenderness. He called him an erring person.
Sir Richard Onslow. I am fully satisfied that the offense is blasphemy, <643> and deserves to be punished as blasphemy; but would have a blank brought in for the punishment, in the Bill of Attainder. Make the punishment what you will, you