and direct blaspheming of God; detracting from him his honour and deity.

'He that blasphemeth the name Jehovah, or 'the name of Jehovab, shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall stone

6

that the Hebrews some of them will not sentence this blasphemer with death, unless Jehovah be named; which opinion he disalloweth, saying, That the word is not so much, but the thing is to be respected. But he seems to require, that the blasphemer must immediately speak ill of God, or blaspheme him, or else be is not subject to this punishment.

Christians, to bear our testimony against these abominable crimes, and against this poor wretch, I do agree; but that the punishment for those offences must be death, I am not satisfied. That the law of God is so, many gentlemen have urged the case of the Egyptian, the Israel-him. Upon this, Aynsworth is of opinion, itish woman's son striving with the Israelite, in the 24th chapter of Leviticus, because God determined that he should die; and therefore, as their argument is, James Nayler must also die, By the same argument he must be stoned to death; and so must every rebellious son, and even he that gathereth sticks on the sabbath day and the like. Very learned divines are of opinion, and I think it not to be confuted, That no part of the law of the Jews doth bind any other nation, but that part of it only which is moral. The laws of the Israelites were by the wisdom of God, suited to the inclinations and dispositions of that people; and others (as there is great difference between the inclinations of people) must have different laws: and none hath ever yet affirmed, that this or that punishment of any offence is moral, though the offence itself be so.

Grotius agrees with the Rabbins, who say, that every cursing of God was not punishable with Death, but that the punishment in some cases was arbitrary, as the godly Judgment of those, who were to censure, should determine. But if Jehovah were named by a Jew, or others under their government, and so expressly and immediately dishonoured, that was be punished with death. Wherein he doth distinguish be tween immediate and express blasphemy, and that which is so interpretatively only; and signifieth, that the punishment by stripes was only inflicted upon him that did blaspheme bu interpretatively, and not maliciously nominating Jehovah.

This judgment of Grotius seems to me to be reasonable, and that the offence of James Nayler is within the 15th verse of this text, a blasphemy interpretatively only, and therefore punishable with stripes or the like. But that it is not within the 16th verse, an immediate and direct reproaching of the name of God; for at your bar he did acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the world, &c.

But to come to a more particular disquisition of the case of this Egyptian. He was one bred up in the worship of the idol gods of Egypt; and in striving with the Israelite, it is conceived, that he preferred his own god before the God of Israel, and said, that their god did not bring them out of the land of Egypt, nor was able to do it. There is a difference to be observed in this chapter between the offence of this Egyptian, and the offence of blaspheming, or cursing of God in another case. In the 15th verse of this 24th chapter of Leviticus it is said thus And thou shalt speak to the chil• dren of Israel, saying, ww man, man,' i. e. 'Whosoever or whatever man shall pit curse God shall bear his sin;' that is shall be punished as the nature of the fact shall require; so saith Aynsworth in locum, shall bear the punishment due for his sin.

The word 'curse' in Hebrew is Jicallel, the root of which signifieth, to count light of; and in the conjugation Piel is found to signify to curse out of evil will,' to speak ill of, or to imprecate; and also, to speak evil, so as by speaking to bring it.

This 15th verse in Grotius's opinion (in his exposition upon this text) is to be understood of him that curseth, but not distinctly naming the sacred name Jehovah, nor taking from him his reverence and deity, as if he were no God, and so is to be punished with an arbitrary punishment, as stripes, or the like.

But the 16th verse is thus, And he that blasphemeth pa Nokeb' from the root Nacabh, which signifies, to run through,' or to bore through,' and also to speak or name to one's disgrace; and is the same with the Latin phrase,configere nomen alicujus maledictis.' The emphasis is not in this word, but in the other Shem, and Jehovah; and when that name was named, it was a most immediate

And if it be not within the 16th verse, then is not punishable by death according to that law of the Jews, admitting the same to be binding amongst us Christians; as with submission to better judgments I think it is not, no more than those other laws of theirs of the like nature. Nor can any sort of punish ment be construed to be moral. I (therefore) conclude this point, that there is no binding rule or law of God, that for these offences James Nayler ought to be put to death.

And if the matter be but doubtful, we should, in favorem vita, incline to the way of

most mercy,

Thirdly, The Third Ground is, The Law of the Land,

And hereupon hath been observed, That by the laws of other nations blasphemy is punishable with death; And shall we do less for the gentleman reported a case, which did lately honour of God, than others? And a worthy happen in France, where the parliament of Bourdeaux adjudged an Englishman to death, upon the complaint of the protestants there, for blasphemy, in saying, That he was Christ.'

I know not what might be lately done there, but I find the laws of France concerning Blasphemy, in the code of foreign decisions, and of

Henry 3, to be this: That for the first four offences, a blasphemer may be committed to prison to bread and water; for the fifth offence, to have his under lip slit; for the sixth, that his under lip should be cut so that his teeth be seen; for the seventh, his tongue to be bored; and for the eighth offence he is to be put to death.

work the effect he intended, as appears (blessed be God) at this day. Yet if it should be admitted that Heresy was punishable by death at the Cominon Law, that cannot include Blas phemy.

They are offences of a different nature; Heresy is Crimen Judicii, an erroneous opinion: Blasphemy is Crimen Malitia, a reviling the name and honour of God. Heresy was to be declared in particular, and by the four first general Councils. But the Blasphemy in this Vote is general; and I do not find it reckoned in those Councils for Heresy.

It is true, that the Popish countries, where the inquisition is in force, do put Protestants to death as blasphemers; but I hope that will be no precedent for us to imitate. The Lutherans do hold the Ubiquity of Christ in such sort, that the news of James Nayler's being put to I remember a Case in our Book of H. 7, death for these offences, would not be pleasing where the bishop committed one to prison for to them. But to come to that which is most a heretic, and the heresy was, denying that proper for your consideration, and for my dis-tythes were due to his parson. This at that course, The law of England.

I must acknowledge my own ignorance, that I do not know any law of this nation now in force, for the putting of James Nayler for these offences to death.

It is held that the Ordinance of the Long Parliament concerning blasphemy is not now in force, and I do agree to that opinion; nor do I know any other law in that case. That ordinance cost much debate, and therein was a great diversity of judgments; and so I presume we shall again find it, whensoever these matters shall fall under consideration. The objection was very weightily urged, That there is a law in force against Heresy, as appears by the writ De Harelico comburendo, which (they say) was by the common law; and that blasphemy is an Heresy within that law; by which he may be put to death. This objection may receive

a clear answer.

I am not of opinion, That Heresy was punishable by the common law with death, not withstanding the writ De Hæretico comburendo be in the Register; for it is not in the ancient manuscript registers, which indeed is a true part and demonstration of the Common Law †. But this Writ was of later date, and brought in by Arundel archbishop of Canterbury, in Henry the 4th's time, for the punishment and suppression of Lollards, who were good Christians, and of the same profession that we are. But the bloody practice of that prelate did not

This Ordinance bears date May 2, 1618, and ordains, that whoever should maintain any one of the several opinions (there called Errors), unless he would abjure the same, or after Abjuration shall relapse, should be guilty of Felony without benefit of Clergy.

+ See the preceding cases of Heresy in this Collection, particularly that of Willian Sautre, vol. 1. p. 163, and the authorities referred to in the notes. See also in Blackst. Comm. B. 4, c. 4, a succinct account of our laws concerning Heresy, in the course of which that learned Judge takes occasion to observe that, "Christianity being upon the continent thus deformed by the Demon of Superstition, we cannot expect that our own island should be entirely free from the same scourge."

time was a very great heresy; but now I believe some are inclinable to think, that to say, Tythes are due to the parson,' is a kind of heresy.

So in this Case, That which now may be accounted Blasphemy, and the offender to be put to death for it; in another age the contrary may be esteemed Blasphemy, and the offender likewise put to death for that; which may be warranted by the present case before you, if James Nayler should be put to death upon the general Vote for being guilty of horrid Blasphemy, the particulars thereof not being exprest.

And what mischief and inconvenience in the consequence thereof may ensue to the people of England, and to posterity, is worthy the care of a parliament, and to be avoided, we being sent hither to provide for the good and safety of the people; and not to do that, which may bring them into snares and dangers. If this wretch be put to death, it must be either by judgment of the parliament, as the supreme court of justice; or by act of parliament to attaint him of the crimes, and to inflict the punishment of death upon him for those crimes.

If you shall think fit to proceed in the judicial way, I hope you will be pleased to consider the weight of the consequences thereof, and to be very clear in the foundation, we being here in a constitution different from the former. And whosoever will take the pains to read the Records of the Parliament-Rolls in Edward the 2nd, and Richard the 2nd's time, of the Judgments then given in parliament, (with quickness and sharpness enough) and the speedy executions thereupon, will be the more tender of making new precedents of such proceedings in parliament.

I am far from derogating from the honour and authority of parliaments, and of this especially; but I humbly inform you what I have observed, and submit it to your better judgment. It is held, That antiently the judicatory of parliaments was in the lords' house, and particularly in criminal causes, which was very frequent; but seldom without an impeachment by the then house of commons, who were as the grand jury in that respect of the whole nation.

You are now the sole parliament of England,

and have the sole power in you; yet probably some may object, whether in a judicial proceeding the Lord Protector ought not to join with you. I do not know any Judgment given in parliament, but where there was a known law then in force against the offence adjudged, and the Judgment given according to that known law.

In this case of James Nayler there is no known law in force for the punishment of his offence with death, and therefore I am not satisfied, that we should by Judgment of parliament condemn him to death; nor to make a new law for the punishment of an offence by death, which law was not known nor made at the time of the offence committed; and this to be done by a Judgment.

Perhaps it will be said, That this may be done by a Bill of Attainder, and I perceive many gentlemen inclined thereunto; they have remembered the cases of the earl of Strafford, and of the archbishop of Canterbury, who were attainted by Bill; and the offences by them committed were not treason by the known law at the time when they were committed, and yet by act of parliament they were attainted of treason for those offences.

But here we are to observe, That in those Acts of Attainder is a clause, That they shall not be drawn into precedent; and I hope they

shall not.

And further give me leave to inform you, That there is a great difference between those

cases, and that now before you. By the stat. 25 E. 3, Treasons are enumerated, and a power is left in the parliament to declare any other facts to be treason. And the facts of the earl of Strafford, and of the Archbishop, in the general was the same, endeavouring to subvert the fundamental laws of the land, and to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government; which were maintained by the arguments of a very learned and honourable person, now a chief justice, to be treason by the common law of England.

But it will be hard to maintain, that the of fences of James Nayler are punishable by death by the common law of England, and therefore it will be very dangerous in the consequence of it to inflict this punishment upon him by a new law.

I shall not mention the loss of time (whereof too much hath been already spent about this matter) in case you shall proceed by Bill. All the matter must be again debated and examined by you, and after that by my Lord Protector. But the mischief which it may produce to the people of England in the precedent of it, wherein no man can be safe, that by a law now to be made you should inflict the punishment of death upon James Nayler for offences which were not by the law of England punishable by death at the time when they were committed, is the strong argument with me to be against the question for the putting of James Nayler ta death for these offences.

From the Harleian Miscellany, vol. 6, p. 392.

The grand Impostor examined: Or, the Life, Trial, and Examination of JAMES NAYLER, the seduced and seducing Quaker; with the Manner of his Riding into Bristol.

We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." John xix. 7.

"But these are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that, believing, ye might have Life through his Name." John xx. 31. London, Printed for Henry Brome, at the Hand in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1656. Quarto, containing 56 pages.

TO THE READER.. Courteous Reader; I do here give thee an account of what passed between James Nayler and his judges, as thinking it a part of my duty, towards God and Man; that thereby, thou mayest see and know, there is but one only God, and one only Jesus, which is the Christ, who was crucified by the Jews at Jerusalem; which whosoever denies, let him he accursed.

It hath been the custom, in former times, to inmure, stone, or otherways punish with death, such as did falsely stile themselves the only Sons of the most High God; as thou mayest see in

that faithful Chronologer, John Speed; who affirmeth, That, in the Reign of King Henry the Third, there appeared a grand impostor, somewhat, in wickedness, resembling this, of whom we are to treat: this man (or rather Devil) thinking himself to be somebody, boasted himself to be nobody in the eyes of the world, but as being sent from Heaven; and, having a grave and impudent aspect, pretended himself to be no less than the Saviour of Mankind and to strike a belief into the easily seduced people, he had wounded his hands, feet, and side; affirming these to be the wounds, which the Jews had given him at Jerusalem. For which blasphemous and horrid doctrine,

he was sentenced to be starved to death, between the walls of a strong prison, where he and his doctrine died: even so let thine enemies perish, O Lord.

Thou wilt, in his Examination, discover some difference to be between him and George Fox; but I suppose they are again reconciled. I shall not trouble thee with all the many letters, which were conveyed from him to others, or from them to him, lest I make my relation swell too big I shall only give thee two or three of the chiefest; out of which if thou canst pick but a little sense, and less truth, thou canst do more than, Dec, 16, 1656.

:

Thy loving Friend.

ment in the Gaol at Exeter, from whence, passing through Wells and Glassenbury, this party bestrewed the way with their garments. But, to be short, they were searched, and letters were found about them, infinitely filled with profane nonsensical language; which letters I shall not trouble you with, only some of the chief, lest your patience should be too much cloyed. We shall haste now to their Examinations; and, because Nayler was the chief actor, it is fit he have the pre-eminence of leading the way in their Examinations; we shall therefore give you a full account of what passed between the magistrate and him, which take as followeth :

The Examination of James Nayler, and others.

Being asked his name, or whether he was not called James Nayler, he replied, The mea of this world call me James Nayler.

Answ. I did ride into a town, but what its name was I know not, and, by the spirit, a woman was commanded to hold my horse's bridle, and some there were that cast down clothes, and sang praises to the Lord, such songs as the Lord put into their hearts; and it is like it might be the Song of Holy, holy, holy, &c.

Q. Whether or no didst thou reprove those women?-A. Nay but I bade them take heed, that they sang nothing but what they were moved to by the Lord.

letter was shewed him) which Hannah StranQ. Dost thou own this letter (whereupon a ger sent unto thee?

A. Yea, I do own that letter.

Q. Art thou (according to that letter) the Fairest of Ten-Thousand?

Reader; Thinking it a very good foundation to my building, to give you the manner of his progress, before you come to his confession, or before his blasphemy aspires to the Stool of Quest. Art not thou the man that rid on Repentance, I shall thus begin: James Nayler of Wakeheld, in the county of York, a deluded horse-back into Bristol, a woman leading thy and deluding Quaker and impostor, rode, Oc-horse, and others singing before thee, Holy, tober last, through a village called Bedminster, holy, holy, Hosannah, &c.? about a mile from Bristol, accompanied with six more, one whereof, a young man whose head was bare, leading his horse by the bridle, and another uncovered before him, through the dirty way, in which the carts and horses, and none else, usually go and with them, two men on horseback, with each of them a woman behind him, and one woman walking on the better way or path. In this posture, did they march; and in such a case, that one George Witherly, noting their condition, asked them to come in the better road, adding that God expected no such extremity but they continued on their way, not answering in any other notes, but what were musical, singing, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, &c." Thus continued they, till, by their wandering, they came to the alms-house, within the Suburbs of Bristol, where one of the women alighted, and she, with the other of her own sex, lovingly marched on each side of Nayler's horse. This Witherly saith, he supposes, they could not be less deep in the muddy way, than to the knees; and, he saith, they sang, but sometimes with such a buzzing melodious noise, that he could not understand what it was. This the said Witherly gave in, upon his oath. Thus did they reach Ratcliffe-gate, with Timothy Wedlock of Devon bare-headed, and Martha Symonds with the bridle on one side, and Hannah Stranger, on the other side of the horse; this Martha Symonds is the wife of Thomas Symonds, of London, book-binder; and Hannah Stranger is the wife of John Stranger of London, comb-maker, who sung Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Israel. Thus did he ride to the high Cross in Bristol, and after that, to the White-Hart in Broadstreet, where there lie two eminent Quakers, by name Dennis Hollister and Henry Row; of which the magistrates hearing, they were apprehended and committed to prison.

Long it had not been, after their confine

4. As to the visible, I deny any such attribute to be due unto me; but if, as to that which the Father has begotten in me, I shall own it.

But now, reader, before I pass further I hold it not impertinent to deliver you the words of the same letter, with another, which were

these :

A Letter to James Nayler at Exeter, by Hannah Stranger.

J. N.

In the pure fear and power of God, my soul salutes thee, thou everlasting Son of Righteousness and Prince of Peace. Oh! how my soul travelleth to see this day, which Abraham did, and was glad, and so shall all that are of faithful Abraham: O! suffer me to speak what the Lord hath moved. There is one Temptation near, the like unto the first, and is like the Wisdom of God, but it is not, and therefore it must be destroyed, Oh! it defileth and hateth the innocent; I beseech thee wait, my soul travelleth to see a pure Image brought forth, and the enemy strives to destroy it, that he may keep me always sor