The History of the Rise, Increase, and Progress of the Christian People Called Quakers. William Sewel
professed from a child, and endeavoured to serve: and when he went home he made preparation to go; but not being obedient, the wrath of God was upon him, so that he was made a wonder, and it was thought he would have died. Afterwards being made willing, and going out with a friend, not thinking then of a journey, he was commanded to go into the West, not knowing what he was to do there; but when he came, he had given him what to declare; and so he continued, not knowing one day what he was to do the next; and the promise of God, that he would be with him, he found made good to him every day.—Collect. of J. N.’s writings.
[11] These women’s practice we may suppose to be somewhat like that which gave occasion to the apostle Paul to say, “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” 1 Cor. xix. 34. This prohibition of speaking, must be voluntary discourse, by way of reasoning or disputing, and not when they had an immediate impulse, or concern to prophesy; for the apostle in the same epistle, has defined prophesy to be speaking unto “Men to edification, exhortation, and comfort.” chap. xiv. 3. And has also chap. xi. made express mention of women’s praying and prophesying, together with the men.
Hannah Stranger, whom I very well know, and have reason to believe a woman of high imaginations, at this time wrote to him several very extravagant letters; calling him the everlasting Son of Righteousness, Prince of Peace, the only begotten Son of God, the fairest of ten thousands, &c. In the letters of Jane Woodcock, John Stranger, and others, were expressions of the like extravagancy; and the said Hannah Stranger, Martha Simmons, and Dorcas Erbury, arrived to that height of folly, that in the prison at Exeter, they kneeled before Nayler, and kissed his feet: but as to what hath been divulged concerning his committing of fornication, I never could find, though very inquisitive in the case, that he was in the least guilty thereof.[12]. But for all that, he was already too much transported, and grew yet more exorbitant; for being released from that prison, and riding to Bristol in the beginning of November, he was accompanied by the aforesaid and other persons; and passing through the suburbs of Bristol, one Thomas Woodcock went bareheaded before him; one of the women led his horse; Dorcas, Martha, and Hannah, spread their scarfs and handkerchiefs before him, and the company sung, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts, Hosannah in the highest: holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of Israel.” Thus these mad people sung, whilst they were walking through the mire and dirt, till they came into Bristol; where they were examined by the magistrates, and committed to prison; and not long after he was carried to London, to be examined by the parliament. How it went there may be seen in the printed trial, which the parliament was pleased to publish.[13] I believe that J. Nayler was clouded in his understanding in all this transaction: but how grievous soever his fall was, yet it pleased God, in his infinite mercy to raise him up again, and to bring him to such sincere repentance, that, (as we may see in the sequel,) he abhorred not only this whole business, but also manifested his hearty sorrow, in pathetical expressions, which were published, as will be shown in its proper place.
[12] As to that accusation, as if I had committed adultery with some of those women who came with us from Exeter prison, and also those who were with me at Bristol, the night before I suffered there, of both which accusations I am clear, before God, who kept me at that day both in thought and deed, as to all women, as a little child, God is my record. Collect, of J. Nayler’s writings, p. 54. See more particularly in his answer to Blome’s Fanatic History, in the said Collect, at p. 652.
[13] But the extravagancy of the sentence, which that parliament passed upon him with other circumstances, give great reason to suspect the account was partially taken, and published to justify their cruelty, which is also set forth in part by way of annotation on the said trial. And, (as J. W. says,) some of his answers were innocent enough, some not clear, and some aggravated by his adversaries; some of them he denied, some he owned; they reported the worst, and more than was true in some things, adding and diminishing as they were minded; much was wanting of what he had spoken to the committee; wresting and perverting his words what they could, and endeavouring to draw words out of him to ensnare him, and take away his life: and to show their confusion when he was before them, they would have had him to kneel, and put off his hat to them, though a part of the charge against him was, that some kneeled to him.
What hath been said of the odd doings in Exeter prison, and of his riding into Bristol, was not denied by him, nor by the rest of the company, when they were examined by a committee of parliament, who made their report on the 5th of December, to which the house agreed next day. On the 16th this business, which had, (not without much contradiction; for many members of the parliament did not approve the severity used against him,) been treated both forenoons and afternoons, was proposed the twelfth time: which made an ingenious author say afterwards, that it was wondered at by many, what the cause might be, that this foolish business should hold so many wise men so long at work. On the 17th, after a long debate, they came to this resolution,
That James Nayler be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, in the Palace-yard, Westminster, during the space of two hours, on Thursday next, and be whipped by the hangman through the streets, from Westminster to the Old Exchange, London; and there likewise be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, for the space of two hours, between the hours of eleven and one, on Saturday next, in each place wearing a paper containing an inscription of his crimes; and that at the Old Exchange his tongue be bored through with a hot iron, and that he be there also stigmatized in the forehead with the letter B.; and that he be afterwards sent to Bristol, and be conveyed into, and through the said city on horseback, with his face backward, and there also publicly whipped the next market-day after he comes thither; and that from thence he be committed to prison in Bridewell, London, and there restrained from the society of all people, and there to labour hard till he shall be released by parliament; and during that time he be debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and shall have no relief but what he earns by his daily labour.
They were long ere they could agree on the sentence; for suppose there was blasphemy committed, yet his tongue seemed not properly guilty of it, since it was not proved that blasphemous words had been spoken by him.[14] Many thought it to be indeed a very severe judgment to be executed upon one whose crime seemed to proceed more from a clouded understanding, than any wilful intention of evil.
[14] At Lancaster sessions the priest got some to swear blasphemy against G. Fox, (which was the common accusation in those days,) but he was cleared, and the priests, &c. were enraged, who thereupon sent a petition to the council of state, against G. F. and J. N. who answered the same in a book called, ‘Saul’s Errand to Damascus.’ After this, J. N. was persecuted in divers places, beaten, stoned, and cruelly used by the priests and their rude followers, and in danger of his life. Afterward, by the instigation of the priest, he and F. Howgill were committed to Appleby jail, and tried on an indictment for blasphemy, for saying Christ was in him, according to Col. i. 27. “Christ in you the hope of glory.” He was also another time charged with blasphemy, for asserting in a book, ‘Justification by the gift of God’s Righteousness,’ which he proved from Rom. v. and so stopped their mouths, and cleared himself: by which we may see what that generation, who were righteous in their own eyes, would have made blasphemy.—J. Whiting’s account.
Now although several persons of different persuasions, being moved with compassion towards Nayler, as a man carried away by foolish imaginations, had offered petitions to the parliament on his behalf, yet it was resolved not to read them, till the sentence was pronounced against him.
There lived then at London, one Robert Rich, a merchant, (a very bold man,) who writ a letter to the parliament, wherein he showed what was blasphemy; and on the 15th of December, several copies thereof were delivered to particular members; and in that which was given to the speaker, these words were written at the bottom, ‘If