CHAPTER VIII
A.D. 1660 - 1667
CHARLES II. was restored to the throne of
his ancestors, May 29, 1660. In his majesty’s declaration from
Breda, before his return, it was said, “We do also declare a
liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall be
disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in
matters of religion, which do not disturb the peace of the
kingdom.” How far his conduct accorded with these professions,
the events of his reign will abundantly show. The share which
the Baptists had in them we shall proceed to narrate.
In Lord Clarendon’s History of the
Rebellion there is an address which was presented by the
Baptists to the king, while he was at Bruges, in the year
1657-8. This was stated to be “The humble address of the
subscribers in behalf of themselves and many thousands more, his
majesty’s most humble and faithful subjects.” In it they say,
“they took up arms in the late war for liberty
and reformation, but assure his majesty they were so far from
entertaining any thoughts of casting off their allegiance, or
extirpating the royal family, that they had not the least intent
to abridge the king of his just prerogatives, but only the
restraining those excesses of government which were nothing but
the excrescences of a wanton power, and were rather a burden
than an ornament to the royal diadem.”
In this address they declaim against the
Protector, calling him that grand imposter, that loathsome
hypocrite, that detestable traitor, the prodigy of nature, the
opprobrium of mankind, a landskip of iniquity, a sink of sin, a
compendium of baseness. Then, begging pardon for their former
offences, they promise to sacrifice their lives and fortunes for
his majesty’s restoration, provided his majesty would be so
gracious as to restore the remains of the long parliament; to
ratify the treaty of the Isle of Wight; to establish liberty of
conscience; to take away tithes, and provide some other
maintenance for the national clergy; and to pass an act of
oblivion for all who had been in arms against his father and
himself, except those who should adhere to that ungodly tyrant
who calls himself Lord Protector. This was signed by twelve
persons. The historian adds, that the messenger who brought
these propositions, asking the sum of two thousand pounds to
carry on the project, his majesty dismissed him with civil
expressions, telling him that he had no design to trouble any
man for his opinions.
Mr. Neal thinks there is no truth in this statement of Lord
Clarendon’s. “If (says he) there had been such an address, it is
a little strange that after the restoration it was not
remembered to their advantage.” If however, there is any
argument in this, it applies equally against those Presbyterian
ministers who
waited on his majesty at Breda, and who it
is well known were treated with as much neglect afterwards as
the Baptists. It is remarkable that the terms which they
proposed in order to assist the king were the same as were
afterwards moved by the celebrated Judge Hale, and the adopting
of which in all probability would have prevented many of the
distressing scenes which afterwards took place. Whatever may be
thought of their conduct in presenting this address to the king,
it certainly proves that they better understood what was
necessary to the securing of civil and religious liberty, than
the Presbyterians. But it is not at all probable that the whole
body of the Baptists were implicated in this affair. It is most
likely that the petitioners were some of those who were enemies
to Cromwell, and who would have preferred any government to his,
and therefore wished to bring back the king, thinking, perhaps
justly, that a monarchial government was preferable to a
military despotism.
The restoration of the king was a signal for the enemies of the
dissenters to manifest their opposition to them. Some of the
sufferings which the Baptists endured were published in this
year, by the pious Henry Jessey, in a work entitled, The Lord’s
Loud Call to England. He calls a part of this,
“A relation of the imprisonings, plunderings,
and barbarous inhumanity and cruelty, that hath lately been
practised towards several ministers of the gospel and other
peaceable people, in Wales, Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, and
other places; especially since the late remnant of the long
parliament, by their outing of many, prepared a coffin for
themselves and others.” —
After mentioning some circumstances that
happened in Wales, he says,
“The gross abuses to many good peaceable people
in Lincolnshire, here follow, as they were shewed in their
narrative or complaint thereof to the king, near the end of July
1660, testified under many of their hands.”
The narrative alluded to was by the help
of a member of parliament presented to the king by the
celebrated Mr. Thomas Grantham, and Mr. Joseph Wright, July 26,
1660, is as follows; entitled Part of a Narrative and Complaint,
&c.
“May it please you, &c.
“BEING commanded thereto by the Lord, we have met often together
to acquaint each other what God hath done, doeth daily, and will
do for our souls; and what therefore we ought to do towards him,
each other, and all men.
“From which assemblings, oh king, we have been discharged by
some in magistratical capacity in these parts, although therein
we bless God none hath ever found us with multitude or with
tumult; but being taught of God to obey him in the things by him
commanded, rather than man (though in the place of magistracy)
when commanded things contrary, we therefore durst not receive
that discharge. Whereupon some of us have been silenced from
making mention of the name of the Lord as formerly, by being
entangled in bonds pretendedly imposed upon us for this good
behaviour; to which in our innocency we readily yielded, being
bound to the good behaviour in conscience, we feared not to be
bound thereto by law.
“But such is the sad estate of this generation, that they call
good evil, and evil good, with sorrow we speak it; taking their
advantage against us in serving: the Lord. Upon the account of
the condition of these obligations; accounting us, oh king,
peace-breakers, when in the sincerity of our hearts and
innocency of our souls, we peaceably meet to worship, our God,
in his fear we affirm it.
“Since thus entangled, oh king, we have been much abused as we
pass in the streets, and as we sit in our houses; being
threatened to be hanged, if but heard praying to our Lord in our
own families, and disturbed in our so waiting upon him, by
uncivil beating at our doors and sounding of horns: yea, we have
been stoned when going to our meetings, the windows of the place
where we have met have been struck down with stones: yea, taken
as evil-doers, and imprisoned, when peaceably met together to
worship the Most High in the use of his most precious
ordinances.
“We have, oh king, spread these things before them in authority
in those parts, but can have no redress from them; but the rage
of our adversaries hath been augmented by hearing us abused by
some of them in open court who sat on the bench of justice,
under the odious terms of knavish, juggling, impudent, and
fanatic fellows, &c. And as if all this were too little, they
have to fill up their measure very lately indicted many of us at
the sessions; and intend, as we are informed, to impose on us
the penalty of twenty pounds for not coming to hear such men as
they provide us; of whose principles and practices we could give
a most sad and doleful, yet, oh king, a most true relation.
Signed by
“JOHN WATTS,
WILLIAM BURTON,
JOHN DAWSON,
THOMAS HARRISON.
PETER BETTS,
WILLIAM ROWETH,
RICHARD WILKINSON,
JAMES DYON,
ROBERT RICHARDSON,
ROGER FAWN,
WILLIAM HUNTER,
WILLIAM DAWSON,
JOSEPH BRITTAINE,
ROBERT MAULTBEY,
THOMAS RATCLIFFE,
GEORGE PAY,
MATTHIAS BROMBY,
JOHN GREE.
LUKE ROBINSON,
WILLIAM HARKER,
ROBERT FLETCHER,
WILLIAM HILL,
EDWARD WOOD,
THOMAS CROFT,
THOMAS MAXWORTH,
THOMAS CLAY,
ROBERT GRANTHAM.
CHARLES COCK,
JOHN RUTTER,
JAMES CARDEN,
RICHARD CLARK,
ROBERT PAGSON,
ROBERT SHALDER,
JOSEPH WRIGHT,
THOMAS GRANTHAM”
There was delivered to the king at the
same time a Confession of faith, which he very graciously
accepted, and returned a favourable answer. The substance of it
was as follows
“That it was not his mind that any of his good
subjects, who lived peaceably, should suffer any trouble on
account of their opinions in point of religion, and that he had
declared the same in several declarations. He promised us also,
(say they,) upon declaring our grievances, that he would have
particular care over us, that none should trouble us on account
of our consciences, in things pertaining to religion. And while
we were present before him he ordered an honourable member of
parliament to go to the lord chancellor, and secretary, and get
something done to that purpose. The member of parliament
promised that he would do as the king had ordered him.”
This confession or declaration of faith,
it is probable, was published soon after, as it said to have
been “lately presented to King Charles II., and set forth by
many of us who are falsely called Anabaptists, to inform all men
in these days of scandal and reproach of our innocent belief and
practice; for which we are not only resolved to suffer
persecution to the loss of our goods, but also life itself,
rather than to decline the same.” Subscribed by certain elders,
deacons, and brethren, met in London, on behalf of themselves
and many others in several counties, of the same faith with us,
March 1661.
“JOSEPH
WRIGHT,
WILLIAM JEFFERY,
THOMAS MONK,
JOHN HARTNOLL,
BENJAMIN MORLEY,
FRANCIS STANLEY,
GEORGE HAMMON,
WILLIAM SMART,
JOHN REEVE,
THOMAS PARROT,
JOHN WOOD,
FRANCIS SMITH,
EDWARD JONES,
HUMPHREY JONES,
MATTHEW CAFFIN,
SAMUEL LOVEDAY,
JOHN PARSONS, SEN.
THOMAS STACEY,
EDWARD STANLEY,
JONATHAN JENNINGS,
JOHN HAMMERSLY,
WILLIAM RUSSELL,
JOSEPH KEECH.
NICHOLAS NEWBERY,
SAMUEL LOVER,
GEORGE, WRIGHT,
JOHN PARSONS, JUN.
THOMAS GRANTHAM,
JOHN CLAYTON,
THOMAS SEELE,
MICHAEL WHITTICAR,
GILES BROWNE,
JOHN WELLS,
STEPHEN TORIE,
THOMAS LATHWELL,
WILLIAM CHADWELL,
WILLIAM RAPH,
HENRY BROWNE
WILLIAM PAINE,
RICHARD BOWIN,
THOMAS SMITH,”
“Owned and approved by more than twenty thousand.”
The persons who signed this confession
appear to have been General Baptists from different parts of
the. Kingdom, and it is probable they had suffered in a similar
manner to their brethren in Lincolnshire.
In Berkshire also there was great opposition, as may be gathered
from the work of Mr. Jessey’s before referred to. He says he had
received a letter from
Reading prison, dated July 16, 1660, where
divers peaceable persons were put, having oaths put upon them
which they were not satisfied to take. Of the Lord’s instructing
and comforting them and their relations they state as follows: —
“Our Lord and King whom we serve hath brought
us under his own pavilion, and his banner over us hath been and
still is love, and hath been teaching us these lessons
following. —
(1.) In the loss of all outward things, having Christ, we enjoy
all things, and are satisfied in the Lord. We shall take the
spoiling of our goods with far more comfort than the enemy will
do in the spending them; for that word in Job 20:22, 23,
is very much upon our hearts concerning him. —
(2.) We hope that we have learned in whatsoever condition we are
therewith to be content; and are persuaded in our hearts that
this is given us in answer to many prayers breathed forth to the
Lord on our behalf. —
(3.) That whereas formerly we could hardly part with any thing
for the Lord, we are now made willing, by him, to part with all
things for his sake, and to say with good old Eli, It is the
Lord, let him do what seemeth him good. That also in Job is set
before us for our example on whom the ends of the world are
come: The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away; and blessed be
the name of the Lord. —
(4.) We have, since our confinement, tasted a greater sweetness
in the promises of the Lord than formerly; and particularly
these places following we have had sweet experience of.
Deuteronomy 33:25. Philippians 4:19. 1
Peter 5:7. And we can say by experience, That faithful is he
that hath promised, for he hath also done it. It is the Lord’s
doing, and marvellous in our eyes! We are also brought by the
power of his grace to a more watchful frame over our hearts
thoughts, and actions, by these trials, than formerly.
“One thing that had almost slipt our memory, the knowledge of
which will we hope rejoice your hearts; that our relations, who
are precious to the Lord and to us, bear this our suffering with
incomparable patience, rather singing for joy than weeping for
grief. Also our societies from whence we are taken are
exceedingly cheerful, and a very lively spirit of faith and
prayer is amongst them, and their meetings rather increase than
otherwise Sure that the Lord is near, his wondrous works
declare; for the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the
turtle is heard in the land.
“And now, brethren, for as much as the mercies expected, and
prayed for by us, are to be enjoyed in the way of righteousness,
it greatly concerns us, and we cry mightily to the Lord, as did
his servant of old. Isaiah 62:1. Then shall we have that
new name, expressed in the last verse of that chapter. Now the
God of all peace fill you with peace and joy in believing! So
pray your brethren through grace,
“JOHN JONES,
RICHARD STEED,
ROBERT KEATE,
THOMAS JONES,
JOHN PECK,
JOHN COMBES.”
The spirit of dissipation and irreligion
that prevailed, may be conceived of by the following
circumstances. A letter from a scholar at Oxford to Mr. Henry
Jessey, says,
“There was a play acted here by scholers,
wherein one acted the old puritan. He who acted that part came
in with a narrow band, short hair, and a broad hat: a boisterous
fellow comes after him, and trips up his heels, calling him a
puritan rogue: at which words the old puritan shook off the dirt
of his feet against him. Two of these actors are cut off; and he
that acted the part of the old puritan broke a vein, and vomited
so much blood in the plate that they thought he would have died
in the room: he now lieth desperately sick. A woman who also
joined them in the play is also dead.”
Great alterations took place at this time
in the colleges, where many eminent men were displaced.
“Likewise (says Mr. Jessey) several ministers
in London and Westminster, and MANY HUNDREDS throughout England,
and some in Ireland, have of late been put out, or are to be put
out; and we cannot hear that better are put in their places. And
whereas it is said that in the time of their long parliament
many centuries of ministers were displaced, it is answered that
it was generally in regard of being scandalous ministers, as
that century set forth by Mr. White the chair-man shows. Though
it is true, some others were outed only for not taking that,
engagement they would have put upon them, which was indeed a
grievous evil, and was testified against by the publisher
hereof, and by many who are now termed fanatics, who testified
also publicly against the decimatings, &c.”
Mr. Jessey’s account respecting the
ministers who were cast out is confirmed by Mr. Neal.
“The convention parliament (he says) passed several acts with
relation to the late times. One was an act for the confirming
and restoring of ministers, which enacts among other things,
that every sequestered minister who has, not justified the late
‘king’s murder, or declared against infant baptism, shall be
restored to his living before the 25th of December next ensuing,
and the present incumbent shall peaceably quit it, and be
accountable for dilapidations, and all arrears of fifths not
paid.” —
By this act some hundreds of nonconformist ministers were
dispossessed of their livings before the act of uniformity was
passed.
“Here was no distinction (continues Mr. Neal)
between good and had; but if the parson had been episcopally
ordained, and in possession, he must be restored, though he had
been ejected on the strongest evidence of immorality or
scandal.”
To this should have been added, if the
sequestered minister had not declared against infant baptism;
a crime which had no doubt in many instances been committed, and
which was of such magnitude that it could not be forgiven, but
was a disqualification, while immorality and scandal were no
objection. Immoral ministers were thus brought into the church
of England, and pious ministers were turned out of it.
There was also an act for the “attainder of several persons
guilty of the horrid murder of his late sacred majesty King
Charles I., and for the perpetual observation of the thirtieth
of January.”
Of the ten persons who were executed on this charge, one was
Major General Harrison, who has been already mentioned as at the
head of that religious party in the state who were called Fifth
Monarchy-men, and were for the kingly authority of Jesus Christ,
and strongly opposed to religious establishments. As this person
was of considerable consequence among the Baptists during this
convulsive period, it may not be improper to introduce his
history in this place.
He was born in obscurity, being the sort of a butcher near
Nantwich in Cheshire. He was a lawyer’s clerk; “but” says Lord
Clarendon “Cromwell finding him of a spirit and disposition fit
for his service, and much given to prayer and preaching, made
him his confidant, as there were but few men with whom Cromwell
more communicated, or upon whom he more depended.”
His lordship gives a long, account of his behaviour to the King
when he received him as the commander of a troop of horse from
Hurst Castle. The king, it appears, had received a violent
suspicion of him from its being said that he intended to murder
him; but he acknowledged on seeing him that his opinion of his
character was totally changed.
It should seem that Harrison was very desirous of bringing the
king to trial, and was very active on his trial and at his
execution. He it was also who commanded the grenadiers when
Oliver Cromwell dissolved the long parliament, and politely
handed the speaker out of the chair when he manifested some
reluctance to quit it. Cromwell found it convenient to cast the
odium of this transaction upon Lambert and Harrison. Of the last
he said,
“Major General Harrison is an honest man, and
aims at good things; yet from the impatience of his spirit, he
will not wait the Lord’s leisure, but hurries me on to that
which he and all honest men Al live to repent.”
For a time Harrison was his particular
friend because of his great influence with the religious
republicans; but when Cromwell found that his republican
principles did not suit his ambitious designs, and, as Mr.
Baxter says,
“found himself well settled in his
protectorship, he began to under-mine the sectarians, of whom
Mr. Harrison was the chief; and though Cromwell had often spoke
for the anabaptists, he designed now to settle himself in the
people’s favour by suppressing them. Hereupon Mr. Harrison was
by him made contemptible, who but yesterday thought himself not
muck below him.”
He was removed from his command in the
army and h s place in the senate, and committed a prisoner to
Carisbrook Castle in the Isle of Wight.
We do not find that he had any command during the short period
of Richard Cromwell’s government; bat after the king was
restored he was brought to trial as a regicide. On his trial he
manifested great intrepidity and presence of mind and great
resignation to the will of God. Ludlow gives the following
account of his trial. —
“When Major General Harrison was required to
answer, he not only pleaded not guilty, but justified the
sentence passed upon the king, and the authority of those who
had commissioned him to act as one of his judges. He plainly
told them, when witnesses were produced against him, that he
came not thither with an intention to deny any thing he had
done, but rather to bring it to light, owning his name to the
warrant for executing the king to be written by himself,
charging divers of those who sat on the bench as his judges to
have been formerly as active for the cause which he had been
engaged as himself or any other person; affirming that he had
not acted by any other motive than the principles of conscience
and justice. In proof of this, he said, it was well known that
he had chosen to be separated from his family, and to suffer a
long imprisonment, rather than comply with those who had abused
the power they had assumed to the oppression of the people. He
insisted, that having done nothing in relation to the matter in
question otherwise than by the authority of parliament, he was
not justly accountable, either to this or any other inferior
court; which being a point of law, he desired to have counsel
assigned him upon that head. But the court overruled; and by
interrupting him frequently, and not permitting him to go on in
his defence, they clearly manifested a resolution of gratifying
the resentment of the court upon any terms. So that a hasty
verdict was brought in against him; and the question being asked
whether he had ally thing to say why judgment should not pass,
he only said, that since the court had refused to hear what was
fit for him to speak in his own defence, he had no more to say.
On this, Bridgman pronounced the sentence. That the inhumanity
of these men may the better appear, I must not omit that the
executioner in an ugly dress with a halter in his hand, was
placed near the Major General, and continued there during the
whole of his trial; which action I doubt whether it was ever
equalled by the most barbarous nations. But having learned to
contemn such baseness, after the sentence was pronounced against
him, he said aloud as he was withdrawing from the court, that he
had no reason to be ashamed of the cause in which he had been
engaged.”
“On Saturday, Oct. 13, 1660,” says the account,
“he was drawn on a hurdle from Newgate to the place called
Charing Cross. Within certain rails lately there made, a gibbet
was erected, and he has hanged with his face looking towards the
banqueting house at Whitehall, the place where our late
soveriegn of eternal memory was sacrificed. Being half dead, he
was cut down by the common executioner: his bowels were burned,
his head severed from his body, and his body divided into
quarters, which were returned back to Newgate on the same hurdle
that carried it. His head is since set upon a pole on the top of
the south-east end of Westminster hall looking towards London:
the quarters of his body are in like manner exposed upon some of
the city gates.”
His behaviour at his execution was bold
and resolute. He declared at the gibbet,
“that he as fully persuaded that what he had
done was the cause and work of God, which he was confident God
would own and raise up again, how much soever it suffered at
that time. He went through all the indignities and severities of
his sufferings with a calmness, or rather cheerfulness, that
astonished the spectators. He was turned off, and cut down
alive; for after his body was opened, he raised himself up, and
struck the executioner on the head!”
Bishop Burnett says, “The trials and
executions of the first that suffered were attended by vast
crowds of people. All men seemed pleased at the sight; but the
firmness and shew of piety in the sufferers, who went out of the
world with a sort of triumph in the cause for which they
suffered, turned the minds of the populace, insomuch that the
king was advised to proceed no further.
It would be difficult at this period to give a perfect
representation of Mr. Harrison’s character. In the Memoirs of
Col. Hutchinson lately published, Mrs. Hutchinson speaks of
Major General Harrison as having “a great interest both in the
army and in the churches.” She however represents him as
destitute of the sincerity and simplicity of the christian
character. Having mentioned the opposition made to a motion of
the Colonel’s in the house, she adds,
“Of these, Major General Harrison was one; and
he, when he saw he could not prevail, but that in favour
particularly to Colonel Hutchinson it was carried out by his
friends; after the rising of the house, meeting the Colonel, he
embraced him, and desired him not to think he did it in any
personal opposition to him, but in his judgment, who thought it
fit the spoil should be taken out of the enemies hands, and no
composition be admitted from idolators. Whatever might be of
particular advantage to him he envied not, but rejoiced in; only
he so dearly loved him that he desired he would not set his
heart on augmenting of outward estate, but upon the things of
the approaching kingdom of God, concerning which he made a most
pious and seemingly friendly harangue of at least an hour long,
with all the demonstrations of zeal to God and love to the
Colonel that can be imagined. But the Colonel having reason to
fear that he knew not his own spirit herein, made him only a
short reply, that he thanked him for his counsel and should
endeavour to follow it as became the duty of a Christian, and
should be glad to be as effectually instructed by his example as
his admonition. For at that time the major general, who was but
a mean man’s son, of a mean education and no estate before the
war, had gathered an estate of two thousand a year, besides
engrossing great offices and encroaching upon his under
officers, and maintained his coach and family at a height as if
they had been born to principality.
“About the same time a great ambassador was to have public
audience in the house. He came from the king of Spain, and was
the first who addressed them owning them a republic. The day
before his audience Colonel Hutchinson was seated in the house
near some young men handsomely clad; among whom was Mr. Charles
Rich, since Earl of Warwick, and the Colonel himself had on that
day a habit which was pretty rich but grave, and no other than
what he usually wore. Harrison addressing himself particularly
to him, admonished them all that now the nations sent to them,
they should labour to shine before them in wisdom, piety,
righteousness and justice, and not in gold and silver and
worldly bravery, which did not become saints; and the next day
when the ambassador came they should not set themselves out in
gorgeous habits, which were unsuitable to holy professors. The
Colonel, although he was not convinced of any misbecoming
bravery in the suit he wore that day, which was but a sad
coloured cloth trimmed with gold and silver points and buttons,
yet because he would not appear offensive in the eyes of
religious persons, the next day he went in a plain black suit,
and so did all the other gentlemen. But Harrison came that day
in a scarlet coat and cloak, both laden with gold and silver
lace, and the coat so covered with clinquant that scarcely could
any one discern the ground; and in this glittering habit set
himself just under the speaker’s chair, which made the other
gentle-men think that his godly speeches the day before were but
made that he alone might appear in the eyes of strangers. But
this was part of his weakness: the Lord at last lifted him up
above these poor earthly elevations, which then and some time
after prevailed against him.”
Mr. Baxter says,
“Harrison as for Anabaptism and Antinomianism.
He would not dispute with me at all but would in good discourse
very fluently pour out himself in the extolling of free grace,
which was savoury to those who had right principles, though he
had some misunderstandings of free grace himself. He was a man
of excellent natural parts for affection and oratory, but not
well seen in the principles of his religion. He was of a
sanguine complexion, naturally of such vivacity, hilarity, and
alacrity, as another man hath when he hath drunken a cup too
much; but naturally also so far from humble thoughts of himself
that it was his ruin.”
In the memoirs of Ludlow their is a good
account of Mr. Harrison, Ludlow evidently considered him a
person of great piety and eminent courage. He entered early into
the parliament’s cause; and was much devoted to the interests of
a republican government. This led him to oppose Cromwell, for
which he was sent a prisoner to Carisbrook Castle in the Isle of
Wight; from whence he was some time afterwards brought by Major
Strange to his own house at Highgate. A conference which
Lieutenant General Ludlow had with him there is so interesting
that we transcribe it as tending to develope the principles of
those who were of the fifth-monarchy sentiments.
“When I was acquainted with his arrival (says
Ludlow) I went to make him a visit; and having told him that I
was very desirous to be informed by him of the reasons that
moved him to join with Cromwell in the interruption of the civil
authority; he answered that he had done it because he was
persuaded they had not a heart to do any — more good for the
Lord and his people. Then said I, are you not now convinced of
your error in entertaining such thoughts, especially since it
has been seen what use has been made of the usurped power? To
which he replied, Upon their heads be the guilt who have made a
wrong use of it: for my own part, my heart was upright and
sincere in the thing. I answered, that I conceived it not to be
sufficient in matters of so great importance to mankind, to have
only good intentions and designs, unless there be also probable
means of attaining those ends by the methods we are entering
upon; and though it should be granted that the parliament was
not inclined to make so, fall a reformation of things amiss as
might be desired, yet I could not doubt but they would have done
as much good for us as the nation was fitted to receive; and
therefore that extraordinary means ought not to have been used
till it had been clearly evident that the ordinary had failed,
especially since it could not but be manifest to every man who
observed the state of our affairs, that upon the suppression of
our civil authority the power would immediately devolve upon
that person who had the greatest interest in the army. His
second reason for joining with Cromwell was, because he
pretended to own and favour a set of men who acted upon higher
principles than those of civil liberty. I replied that I thought
him mistaken in that also, since it had not appeared that he
ever approved of any persons or things farther than he might
make them subservient to his own ambitious designs; reminding
him that the generality of the people who had engaged with us
having acted upon no higher principles than those of civil
liberty, and that they may be governed by their own consent, it
could not be just to treat them in another manner upon any
pretences whatsoever. The major general then cited a passage of
the prophet Daniel, where it is said that the saints shall take
the kingdom and possess it. To which he added another to the
same effect, that the kingdom shall not be left to another
people. I answered, that the same prophet says in another place,
that the kingdom shall be given to the people of the saints of
the Most High; and that I conceived, if they should presume to
take it before it was given, they would at the best be guilty of
doing evil that good might come from it. For to deprive those of
their right in the government who had contended for it equally
with ourselves, were to do as we would not that others should do
unto us. That such proceedings are not only unjust, but also
impracticable, at least for the present; because we cannot
perceive that the saints are clothed with such a spirit as the
are required to be to whom the kingdom is promised; and
therefore we may easily be deceived in judging who are fit for
government, for many have taken upon them the form of saintship
that they may be admitted to it, who yet have not acted suitably
to their pretensions in the sight of God or men. In proof of
which we need go no farther than to those very persons, who had
drawn him to assist them in their design of exalting themselves,
under the specious pretence of exalting the kingdom of Christ.
“He confessed himself not able td answer the arguments I had
used, yet said he was not convinced that the texts of scripture
quoted by him were not to be interpreted in the sense he had
taken them, and therefore desired a farther conference with me
at another time, when each of us might be accompanied with some
friends to assist us in the clearing of this matter. I consented
to his proposal, and so we parted; but from that time forward we
had not an opportunity to discourse farther upon this subject.”
Ludlow says that when Mr. Harrison was
seized, though he had notice of their Intentions, he refused to
withdraw himself from his house, accounting such an action to he
a desertion of the cause which he had engaged.
“But I shall not (continues he) take upon a to
censure the conduct of the major general, not knowing what
extraordinary impulse he might be under, or what effect his
piety, courage, and virtue, had upon his mind in that
conjuncture. Sure I am, he was every way so qualified for the
part he had in the following sufferings that even his enemies
were astonished and confounded.”
While Mr. Harrison was in confinement
there was published by some person not very friendly towards him
a single sheet, entitled, A Declaration of Major General
Harrison, prisoner in the tower of London; with his rules and
precepts to all publick churches , and private congregations:
and an answer thereto: also, the Resolution of the
Fifth-Monarchy Men, Anabaptists, Quakers, and others. What is
called his declaration is as follows.
“Since the committing of Major General Harrison
to the tower of London, divers of his friends’ and relations
have had a conference with him, touching the grounds and motives
of his actions. To which he declared, that he was thoroughly
convinced of the justness of the cause he first engaged in that
he esteemed reading of the word of God an ordinance of God, both
in private and in publick, but did not account reading to be
preaching; that he esteemed that preaching best wherein there
was most of God and least of man, when vain flourishes of wit
and words were declined, and the demonstration of God’s spirit
and power studied; yet could he distinguish between purest
plainness, and negligent rudeness: that he account perspicuity
the best grace of a preacher, and that method best which was
most helpful to understanding, affection, and memory; that he
esteemed the Lord’s-day a divine ordinance and rest on it
necessary so far as conduced to holiness: that he was very
conscientious in observing that day as the mart day of the soul:
that he was very careful to remember it, to get house and heart
in order for it, and when it came was studious to improve it:
that he redeemed the morning from superfluous sleep, and watched
the whole day over his thoughts and words not only to restrain
them from wickedness but worldliness, and that all the parts of
the day were alike holy to him, and his care was continued in
it, in ‘variety of holy duties: whit he heard in publick he
repeated in private, to whet it upon himself and family: which
rules and precepts, he desired to be made practicable throughout
all publick and private congregations, for the enlightening the
dark corners of the earth, &c.”
In the pretended answer to this, though
the design was certainly to degrade those who had been opposed
to regal authority, it is gratifying to find that there is not
any thing said against the conduct of Mr. Harrison as being at
variauce with his professions.
But he had unhappily imbibed, without knowing it, the erroneous
popish sentiment, that dominion is founded in grace . Forgetting
the declaration of the Saviour, “My kingdom is not of this
world,” he had formed the ridiculous design of setting up by the
sword that kingdom which should never be moved. His zeal and
courage made him a convenient person to introduce those to power
whose ambition led them to assume the chief authority. Had he
listened to the advice given to Peter, “Put up thy sword into
its sheath,” he would not have known the meaning of the
concluding sentence in the way he did: All they that take the
sword shall perish by the sword.
Though Major General Harrison was a Baptist at the time of his
trial and execution; yet he was not at the period of the King’s
death. Anthony Wood says he was not baptized till the year 1657.
And from Thurloe’s State Papers it is certain that he did not
join the Baptists till after be had been displaced from his
command by Cromwell in 1653. So that there is no evidence of any
Baptist being among the King’s Judges. This is confirmed by a
letter written about the year 1670, by Captain Richard Deane to
Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, from which, as it contains
considerable information concerning the Baptists in the time of
Charles I. and their conduct in the state, we shall make the
following extract: —
“My Lord,
“THE ground of my humbly tendering these
ensuing pages to your lordship, is your declared condescension
to peruse any small treatise that should be presented to you
concerning the proper subject and administration of baptism.
That they may in your lordship’s charity, so far as their
conversation suits with their doctrine, be admitted among the
number of sincere christians, I intend to bring to your
remembrance some of their leaders, and the occasions which
prepared the way for the increase of their numbers.
“About thirty-eight years since, in the heat of our late
troubles, episcopacy being laid aside, and presbytery only as it
were by way of experiment for a season attempted, but never its
a national way prosecuted with effect, every man was at liberty
to pursue the persuasions of his own mind, as to entering into
church-fellowship in distinct congregations, and therein to join
with such as he conceived came nearest to the primitive pattern
in worship and discipline. About that time and a little after
these were many Ministers, some who had been before ordained,
and others who had been admitted to parochial and other public
charges. Among whom of my acquaintance were Mr. Tombes, sometime
preacher at the temple; Mk. Christopher Blackwood in Kent, Mr.
Benjamin Cox at Bedford, Mr. Edward Harrison, Mr. Daniel Dyke,
and some others in or near Hertfordshire; Mr. Hansard Knollys,
and many others who did openly profess, and several of them
write and publish their opinions concerning the proper subject
and manner of baptism. Some of them voluntarily left their
parochial charges and benefices, as not approving the baptizing
of infants, and collected distinct congregations of such’ as
agreed with them in this doctrine of baptism; which by a
succession of ordained ministers in the places of such as are
dead, remain to this day.
“In the year 1649, the Baptists greatly increased in the
country, and their opinions did likewise spread, themselves into
some of the regiments of horse and foot in the army; and, that
in 1650 and afterwards, some professing this opinion were called
from their private employments, and preferred to, commands at
sea. Among others, Captain Mildmay; to command the admiral flag
ship, under the late Duke of Albemarle, when he was one of the
generals at sea. Captain Pack, to command the flag ship under
Sir George Ascue, rear admiral; Sir John Barman, to command the
admiral flag ship under his royal highness the Duke Of York.
“But notwithstanding some of this sect had that countenance
given them as I have mentioned, by such as had the principal
management of affairs; yet this sect in general, as they have
published in their apologies, were the least of any sort of
people concerned in any vicissitudes of government that happened
among us. My station within the aforementioned ten years gave me
opportunity to know most persons and actions of note, in
reference as well to civil as martial affairs, and particularly
those of this sect. And although in and after the year 1649,
their numbers did increase, insomuch that the principal officers
in divers regiments of horse and foot became Anabaptists,
particularly in Oliver Cromwell’s own regiment of horse when he
was captain general of all the parliament’s forces, and in the
Duke of Albemarle’s own regiment of foot when he was general of
all the English forces in Scotland; yet by the best information
I could have, there were not at any time before the year 1649,
twenty. Anabaptists in any, sort of command in the whole army;
and until after the year 1648, there were no more than two, viz.
Mr. Lawrence, and Mr. John Fiennes, one of the Lord Say’s sons,
who made profession of this opinion, chosen into the commons
house of parIiament, and both these did in that year and in the
lifetime of King Charles I., as I have been credibly informed,
voluntarily departed from that parliament, as not approving
their proceedings against the person of the king, and sat no
more in it, but lived privately until about six years
afterwards. A new form of government being then formed and in
appearance settled, Mr. Lawrence was again called into public
employment.
“I confess to your lordship, I never heard of any Anabaptist in
the King’s army during the contest between his majesty and the
parliament: and perhaps, because there were some in the
parliament’s army and none in the king’s army, same persons have
from thence taken occasion to affirm that the opinion of
Anabaptism in the church is opposite to monarchy in the state.
It is true, as before is mentioned, that this opinion was no
general bar to the continuance of such as did embrace it in
public employments, though I have cause to believe that one
special reason of disbanding one entire regiment in the Earl of
Essex’s army was because the Colonel entertained and gave
countenance to Separatists and some Anabaptists. And that which
occasioned Oliver Cromwell, after he usurped the government of
lord protector, to discharge at once all, the principal officers
of his own regiments upon other pretences was for that they were
all Anabaptists.”
This letter is highly creditable to the
Baptists, as it goes to prove that they disapproved of the
execution of the king, and were adverse to the usurpation of
Cromwell.
Another person of eminence among the Baptists was Colonel
Hutchinson. He was one of the, king’s judges, and governor of
Nottingham during the time of the civil wars. In the field and
in the senate he distinguished himself as a person of great
courage, judgment, piety and liberality. The occasion of his
embracing the sentiments of the Baptists was very extraordinary,
and is related with all that smplicity and good sense which
characterize the whole of that inestimable work.
“At Nottingham they had gotten a very able
minister into the great church, but a bitter presbyterian. Him
and his brethren, my Lady Fairfax caressed with so much kindness
that they grew impudent to preach up their faction openly in the
pulpit, and to revile the others, and at length they would not
suffer any of the army chaplains to preach in the town. They
then coming to the governor and complaining of their unkind
usuage, he invited them to come and preach in his house, which
when it was known they did there was a great concourse of people
came thither to them; and the presbyterians when they heard it
were madded with rage, not only against them but against the
governor, who accidentally gave them another occasion about the
same time. When formerly the Presbyterian ministers forced him
for quietness sake to go and break up a private meeting in the
cannoniers’ chamber, there were found some notes concerning
paedobaptism, which being brought into the governor’s lodgings,
his wife having then more leisure to read than he, having
perused and compared them with the scriptures, found not what to
say against the truths they asserted concerning the
misapplication of that ordinance to infants: but being then
young and modest, she thought it a kind of virtue to submit to
the judgment and practice of most churches rather than defend a
singular opinion of her own, she not being then enlightened in
that great mistake of the national churches. But in this year
she happening to be with child, communicated her doubts to her
husband and desired him to endeavour her satisfaction; and while
he did, he himself became as unsatisfied, or rather satisfied
against it. First therefore, he diligently searched the
scriptures alone, and could find in them no ground at all for
this practice. Then he bought and read all the treatises on both
sides, which at that time came thick from the presses, and still
was cleared in the error of the paedobaptists. After this, his
wife being brought to bed, that he might if possible give the
religious party no offence, he invited all the ministers to
dinner, and propounded his doubt and the ground thereof to them.
None of them could defend their practice with any satisfactory
reason, but the tradition of the church from the primitive
times, and their main buckler of federal holiness, which Tombes
and Denne had excellently overthrown. He and his wife then
professing themselves unsatisfied in the practice, desired their
opinions what they ought to do. Most answered, to conform to the
general practice of other christians, how dark soever it were to
themselves; but Mr. Foxcraft, one of the assembly, said that
except they were convinced of the warrant of that practice from
the word, they sinned in doing it; where-upon that infant was
not baptized. And now the governor and his wife, notwithstanding
that they forsook not their assemblies nor retracted their
benevolences and civilities from them; yet they were reviled by
them, called fanatics and Anabaptists, and often glanced at in
their public sermons. Not only the ministers, but all their
zealous sectaries conceived implacable malice against them on
that account, which was carried on with a spirit of envy and
persecution to the last; though he on his side might well have
said to them, as his Master to the old pharisees, “Many good
works have I done among you; for which of these do ye hate me?”
Yet the generality even of that people had a secret conviction
upon them that he had been faithful to them and deserved their
love; and in spite of their own bitter zeal, they could not but
have a reverent esteem for him whom they often railed at for not
thinking and speaking according to their opinions.”
The editor of this admirable work, who is
a clergyman of the established church, has remarked in a note,
“Surely this shows an unbecoming propensity to speculate in
religion; the story is however told with candour.” It is rather
wonderful that such an observation should have been made by a
gentleman who appears in general to think correctly and to write
with liberality. When speaking of their patriotism he says, he
is “more proud of it than if he could count among his ancestors
the most illustrious of traitors!” But they were by what he
calls their unwarrantable propensity to speculate in religion,
led to embrace the principles of the Baptists.
Soon after the Restoration the celebrated John Bunyan felt the
weight of persecution. He had now been a preacher of the gospel
about five years, and was exceedingly popular, though he still
followed his business as a travelling tinker. The circumstances
attending this event are related by himself in an “account of
his imprisonment, &c.” It appears that as he was preaching at a
village called Samsell by Harlington, in Bedfordshire, Nov. 1
1660, he was interrupted by a constable, and obliged to desist.
This was at the instance of Mr. Francis Wingate, a justice of
the peace, who had issued a warrant for his apprehension. This
was done it seems principally for the purpose of intimidation,
as Mr. Bunyan says, that “had he been minded to play the coward,
he could have escaped and kept out of their hands.” But
concluding that his manifesting fear would have a bad effect on
the minds of other ministers and Christians, he resolved to bear
the brunt, “seeing God of his mercy would choose me (says he) to
go upon the forlorn hope in this country; that ‘is, to be the
first who should be opposed for the gospel.” It is likely from
this that he was one of the first ministers, whose courage and
‘faithfulness were put to the test; nor could the trial have
fallen on a person more eminently qualified to resist the
oppressions of arbitrary power in matters of conscience.
The next morning he was taken before the justice, who asked the
constable what the people did who were assembled together, and
what they had with them. Mr. Bunyan understood him as intending
to enquire whether they had any arms and ammunition. When the
constable told him there were only n few persons who met to
worship God, the justice was evidently embarrassed; but told Mr.
Bunyan that what be did was against the law, and that he was
resolved to bleak the neck of such meetings; and that if he
could not find sureties, he would certainly send him to prison.
Mr. Bunyan soon procured sureties, who were told that “they were
bound to keep him from preaching; and that if he did preach,
their bonds would be forfeited.” To which, says Mr. Runyan, I
answered, “that then I should break them; for I should not leave
speaking the word of God.” His mittimus was accordingly made
out, and he was committed to the custody of the constable to be
conveyed to Bedford jail.
In the way thither they were met by two of his brethren; who
desired the constable to stay while they endeavoured through the
influence of a professed friend to prevail on the magistrate for
his release. After much conversation he agreed that if be would
come to him again, and “say some certain words to him, he should
be released.” When Mr. Bunyan was told this, he replied, that
“if the words were such as he could utter with a good
conscience, he should; otherwise he should not.” It was now
proposed to him that if he would promise not to call the people
together any more, he should have his liberty; which was
explained; to mean, that he should not preach to a body of
people collected for the purpose of hearing him. To this he
would not agree; and when the justice found he was at a point,
and would not be persuaded, he again ordered him to be sent to
prison.
After he had been in jail five or six days, his friends again
attempted to get him out by obtaining bondsmen; for his mittimus
expressed that he should lie there till he could obtain
sureties. They accordingly applied to a Mr. Crompton, a justice
at Elstow, the village where Mr. Bunyan resided. But he refused
to interfere, fearing he said that there was more against him
than was expressed in the mittimus; so that he returned again to
prison.
About Seven weeks after, he was brought to trial at the quarter
sessions held at Bedford in January 1661. A bill of indictment
was preferred against him to the following effect:
“That John Bunyan of the town of Bedford,
labourer, being a person of such and such conditions, hath since
such a time devilishly and perniciously abstained from coming to
church to hear divine service, and is a common upholder of
several unlawful meetings and conventicles, to the great
disturbance and destruction of the good subjects of this
kingdom, contrary to the laws of our sovereign lord the king,
&c.”
After a great deal of conversation with
the justices, in which he displayed great fortitude and presence
of mind, Justice Keeling addressing him said, “Then you confess
the indictment, do you not?” Till now, Mr. Bunyan appears to
have considered this conversation as merely an examination, and
did not know that he was put, on his trial, knowing nothing of
the indictment. He therefore replied,
“This I confess, we have had many meetings
together, both to pray to God and exhort one another, and we had
the sweet comforting presence of the Lord amongst us for our
encouragement, blessed be his name! Therefore I confess myself
guilty, and no otherwise.”
On this pretended confession of his crime,
without producing any witnesses to substantiate the charges
against him, Justice Keeling proceeded to pass judgment upon
him, which, was to the following effect.
“You must be had back again to prison, and there lie for three
months following and at three months end, if you do not submit
and go to church to hear divine service, and leave your
preaching, you must be banished the realm: and if after such a
day as shall be appointed you to be gone, you shall be found in
this realm, you must stretch by the neck for it, I tell you
plainly.”
He then ordered the jailor to take him
away. To this Mr. Bunyan replied, “As to that matter, I am at a
point; for if I were out of prison to-day, I would preach the
gospel again to-morrow, by the help of God.”
Perhaps the reader may wish to know upon what law of the land
this commitment was founded. Let it be recollected then, that on
the restoration of the king all the acts which had been passed
during the period of the civil wars were declared null and void;
consequently it was inferred that all the acts inexistence
before this time were sill in force. In the reign of Elizabeth
an act was passed to suppress the increase of the puritans,
which enacted that
“if any person above the age of sixteen years
who shall obstinately refuse to repair to some church, chapel,
or usual place of common-prayer, to hear divine service, and
shall forbear the same for the space of a month after without
any lawful cause, or shall by preaching, writing, or express
words or speeches advisedly and purposely practise and go about
to persuade any person to deny, withstand, or impugn her
majesty’s power and authority in causes ecclesiastical, united
and annexed to the civil power of this realm; or to that end and
purpose shall advisedly and maliciously move any person to
forbear or abstain from coming to church to hear divine service,
or to receive the communion, or to be present at any unlawful
assemblies, conventicles; and meetings, under colour or pretence
of any such exercise of religion; he shall be committed to
prison until he shall conform and go to church, and make
submission as hereafter is expressed.”
This obsolete law, which it is probable
most persons were ignorant of, seeing it had not been acted upon
since the reign of Elizabeth, was now made the pretext for
renewing the persecution against dissenters at a time when no
notice had been taken of their meetings by the legislative body,
and while the king’s declaration at Breda was still warm,
namely,
“We do declare a liberty to tender consciences,
and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for
differences in opinion in matters of religion which do not
disturb the peace of the kingdom.”
About three months afterwards, Mr. Cobb,
the town clerk of Bedford, was sent by the justices to admonish
Runyan, and demand his submission to the church of England. In
this conference Bunyan told him that be did not conceive that
the law by which he was committed to prison reached his case, as
it was made to prevent the assembling of those who designing to
do evil at their meetings made religion their pretence to cover
their wickedness: or as the act expresses, “under colour or
pretence of any exercise of religion, &c.” There can be no doubt
however but the law was made to prevent the meetings of the
puritans in private houses, which was not admitted by the high
church party to be any exercise of religion in reality, but
merely in pretence.
In reply, Mr. Cobb mentioned Venner’s insurrection which we
shall presently relate, and which had just now happened.
“Every one will say as you do (said Cobb) under
what glorious pretences they went; and yet indeed they intended
no less than the ruin of the common wealth.”
To this Mr. Bunyan answered,
“That practice of theirs I abhor; yet it does
not follow that because they did so, therefore all others will
do so. I look upon it as my duty to behave myself under the
king’s government both as it becomes a man and a christian; and
if occasion were offered me, I would willingly manifest my
loyalty to my prince both by word and deed.”
When Mr. Cobb pressed his compliance by
the authority of the king, Bunyan replied that in all civil
matters he certainly should submit to the powers that were; but
in matters of conscience, says he,
“The law hath provided two ways of obeying; the
one to do that which I in my conscience do believe I am bound to
‘do actively; and where I cannot obey actively,’ there I am
willing to lie down and suffer what they shall do to me.”
This put an end to the conversation.
A few weeks afterwards, April 23, Charles II. was crowned, and a
great many prisoners were released, indeed all who had been
committed on account of religion since his return, a general
pardon being granted. But the enemies of Bunyan contrived to
prevent his sharing in this favour by saying, that as he was a
convicted person, he must sue out his pardon. This he refused to
do, as it would have been a tacit acknowledgment of guilt, which
he could not conscientiously admit. As however the king’s
proclamation allowed twelve months for any to petition for a
pardon, they could not then carry the sentence of banishment
into execution.
He was kept in prison notwithstanding; and when the assizes were
held in August, he presented a petition to the judges three
times by the hands of his wife, that they would impartially take
his case into consideration. The poor woman was treated kindly,
and indeed affectionately, by Judge Hale, but with great
severity by Judge Twisden who was on the circuit with him. This
unjust judge said, “What, do you think we can do as we list?
Your husband is a breaker of the peace, and is convicted by the
law.” This she resolutely denied, by saying, “It was but a word
of discourse which they took for a conviction;” and added,
“I was a while since at London to see if I
could get my husband’s liberty, and then I spoke with my Lord
Barkwood, one of the house of lords, to whom I delivered a
petition, and who presented it to the house of lords for my
husband’s releasement. They told me they could not do it, but
had committed it to the judges at the next assizes. This he told
me; and now I am come to you to see if any thing can be done in
this business, and you give neither releasement or relief.”
After some farther conversation, Judge
Hale answered very mildly,
“I tell thee, woman, seeing it is so that they
have taken what thy husband spoke for a conviction, thou must
either apply thyself to the king, or sue out his pardon, or get
a writ of error.”
By this it should seem that Lord Hale
thought they had not legally convicted him, as he repeated his
intimation by saying, “a writ of error will be cheapest.” His
endeavours to serve Bunyan were however unavailing, for he was
still left in prison.
Probably these circumstances induced the jailor to allow him the
liberty of going abroad to preach as usual, and it is not
unlikely but the magistrates were afraid of a prosecution for
false imprisonment. However this was, it is certain he visited
all his old, friends in the country, and “exhorted them to be
steadfast in the, faith of Christ, and to take heed that they
touched not the common-prayer book, etc., but to mind the word
of God which giveth directions to christians in every point.” He
also visited his christian friends in London; but his enemies
hearing of it, threatened to indict the jailor, and had nearly
succeeded in getting him out of his place. After this Bunyan was
so straitened that for seven years he could not look out of the
door of his prison. All attempts to procure his release totally
failed, and he was detained a prisoner till the year 1672, when
he was discharged by means of Dr. Barlow, who received an order
from the lord chancellor. This treatment of Mr. Bunyan was but a
sample of the usage which was experienced by dissenters in every
part of the land.
The circumstance alluded, to which furnished the government with
a pretext for rigorous measures against the dissenters was
Veneer’s insurrection. This is related by Rapin as follows.
“The year 1661 was ushered in by an
extraordinary event which gave the court a pretence for breaking
through the declaration of indulgence which had been published.
This was an insurrection of some fifth-monarchy men who believed
themselves bound in conscience to use their utmost endeavours to
advance the kingdom of Christ upon earth. On the sixth of
January, while the king was attending the queen mother and the
princess his sister on their return to France, about fifty of
these men, under the conduct of one Thomas Vernier, assembled in
the evening in St. Paul’s church yard, and killed a man who upon
demand had answered, For God and the King. This giving an alarm
to the city, some trained, bands were sent against them, whom
these men quickly routed and then marched through several
streets, and at last retired to Cane Wood between Highgate and
Hampstead; from whence a party of horse and foot sent against’
them by General Monk dislodged them, and took some prisoners.
But this did not prevent the rest from returning to the city,
where they fought furiously, till they were obliged to take
sanctuary in a house. They then defended themselves like men
fearless of death, or rather as secure from all danger under the
protection of Jesus Christ. Here it was that Venner, being
wounded, and twenty of his men killed, with as many of the
assailants, was taken with the rest of his fellows. A few days
after, they were all tried, condemned, and executed, without any
confession of guilt, and persisting in their extravagancies to
the last. Two young men only shewed some signs of repentance.”
The king took occasion from this
insurrection to publish a proclamation forbidding all meetings
and conventicles under pretence of religion, and commanding the
oath of allegiance and supremacy to be tendered to all persons
disaffected to the government; and in case of refusal, they were
to be prosecuted. The consequence was that numbers of Baptists
and other dissenters were imprisoned, and their meetings every
where disturbed.
The Baptists soon after presented an address to the king,
disavowing all knowledge of this mad affair, and expressing
their disapprobation of it. ‘This is preserved in a work
published by Mr Thomas Grantham, entitled, Christianismus
Primitivus, and is as follows: —
“The humble apology of some commonly called
Anabaptists in behalf of themselves and others of the same
judgment with them; with their protestation against the late
wicked and most horrid, treasonable, insurrection and rebellion
acted in the city of London; together with an apology formerly
presented to the king’s most excellent majesty.
“We should be stupid and senseless, if we did not deeply resent
those black obloquies and reproaches cast upon those of our
profession and practice in the point of baptism, by occasion of
the late most horrid treason and rebellion in this city, of
London. — We most sadly see and feel that among many it is
become enough to render any man criminal to be called an
Anabaptist, or at least a ground sufficient to question his
loyalty and fidelity to the king’s majesty. We may not therefore
be so negligent of our duty to God in respect of our profession,
or unto ourselves and families, as silently to suffer our names
and profession to be buried under such causeless infamy. Neither
may we be so much wanting in our duty to our king as by such
sullen silence to offer his majesty just occasion of being
jealous and suspicious of our loyalty and obedience; or to leave
him without all possible rational security of our humble
subjection and fidelity to him.
“We acknowledge that the histories of Germany relate most
dreadful things of the impious opinions and practices of some
reputed Anabaptists, destructive to all government and human
society. Although it is to be observed what Cassander, a learned
and moderate papist relates, in his epistle to the Duke of
Gulick and Cleve, to this purpose; that there were certain
people in Germany bearing the name of Anabaptists who resisted
and opposed the opinions and practices of those at Munster, and
taught the contrary doctrine; whereby in his opinion they
appeared to be incited by a godly mind, and rendered themselves
rather worthy of pity than of persecution and perdition. And
that in Holland those who have succeeded them do in doctrine and
practice adhere to the same peaceable principles, is publicly
known. But the misguided zeal of some otherwise minded in the
point of baptism, hath frequently though unduly imputed the like
impious opinions, designs, and intentions, unto all that are
called by that name; although their souls abhor the very memory
of such impious doctrines, and their bloody consequences. That
such evil opinions and practices are no natural or necessary
consequence of the doctrine of baptism, nor of any possible
connexion with it, is easily to be discerned: yet by the like
mistake we now suffer under jealousies, through the wicked
treason, rebellion, and murder, of a few heady and distempered
persons; pretending to introduce a civil and temporal reign and
government of Jesus Christ by their swords, and to subvert all
civil government and authority. Yet we cannot imagine a reason
why their bloody tenets and tragical actions should reflect on
those of our persuasion, the persons not being of our belief or
practice about baptism. But to the best of our information they
were all, except one, asserters of infant baptism, and never had
a communion with us in our assemblies, nor hath there been any
correspondence or converse between us: but contrariwise, in
their meetings they have inveighed bitterly against us as
worshippers of the beast, because of our constantly declaring
against their conceited wild interpretations of dark prophecies,
and enthusiastical impulses, and professing and practising our
duty of subjection to the civil magistracy.
“And it is as notoriously known that the very same persona, or
at least the leaders and the most of them, formerly advanced
their pretended standard of Jesus Christ as much against us as
against any others. And it is as publicly known that even in
this their rebellion, such of us as were called thereunto, which
were many, were ready to hazard our lives to suppress them. And
if such a constant continued opposition unto the impious tenets
and practices of these persons, both in our doctrine and lives,
will not be esteemed a pregnant and cogent evidence of our
unspotted innocence from their treason and rebellion, and
satisfy every man that our souls never entered into their
secrets, we can only appeal to the all-seeing God, the Judge of
all the earth, to vindicate us in his righteous judgment, who,
we are assured will judge and do right. In whose presence we
protest that we neither had the least for-knowledge of the said
late treasonable insurrection, nor did any of us in any kind or
degree whatsoever, directly or indirectly, contrive, promote,
assist, abet, or approve the same; but do esteem it our duty to
God, to his majesty, and to our neighbour, not only to be
obedient, but also to use our utmost industry to prevent all
such treasons, murders, and rebellions, and to use in all our
assemblies constant prayers and supplications for his majesty.
“Wherefore we humbly beseech his majesty, and desire all our
fellow subjects that our actions, doctrines, and lives, may be
the only glasses through which they will look into our hearts,
and pass judgment upon us; and that the tenets or opinions of
others, either in this or foreign kingdoms, may not be imputed
to us, when our doctrines and lives do declare our abhorrence of
them. We believing that Jesus Christ himself, his apostles and
Christian religion, do consist with and obey the imperial
government that then was in the world; and that we ought to obey
his majesty not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
“We desire therefore that it may be considered without
prejudice, Whether our persuasion in the matter of baptism hath
any connexion with these doctrines against government? Or
whether these can be the probable consequences or inferences
front our doctrine concerning baptism? And we pray that it may
be seriously considered whether it be rational, just, or
christian, to impute all the errors and wickednesses of any sect
of christians in one age or country to the persons of another
age and country, called by the name of the former? Especially
when these errors or impieties gave not the name to the sect, as
in our case, nor can be reasonably supposed to be the
consequences of that opinion from whence the sect had its
denomination.
“It would not be held just to aver every protestant to believe
consubstantiation, or absolute predestination and reprobation,
because Luther was zealous in the one, and Calvin in the other.
Why therefore should the errors and impieties of others he
imputed to us, whilst we earnestly contend against them? And as
to our doctrine of baptism, we hope every christian that hath
searched the scriptures knoweth that there wants not so much
evidence at least for our opinion and practice, as christian
charity may well allow, although in some men’s judgments We
should be esteemed mistaken. It will easily be granted by the
learned that there is no impiety in our doctrine of baptism, nor
opposition to civil government, or his majesty’s authority;
neither can the injury of our neighbour be the natural
consequence of it.
“Therefore we humbly hope that the omnipotent power of heaven
and earth will so dispose his majesty and his people’s hearts,
that we may worship God in peace and freedom according to the
faith we have received, living a peaceable and quiet life in all
godliness and honesty.
P. S. “That it, may yet more fully appear, that our principles
suggested in this apology about subjection to magistracy and
government against the contrary opinions and practices are not
new, much less proceeding from ‘us Upon the unsuccessfulness of
this tragical enterprise, we have thought fit herewith to
publish an apology of our ancient’ and constant principles,
presented with our humble petition to the king’s most excellent
majesty, some months since, in the year 1660.
“WILLIAM KIFFIN,
JOHN BATTY,
THOMAS COOPER,
JOHN PEARSON,
HENRY HILLS,
EDWARD HARRISON
SAMUEL TULL,
JOHN COX,
JAMES KNIGHT,
CHR. BLACKWOOD,
HENRY DEN,
THOMAS LAMB,
PHILIP TRAVORS,
THOMAS PENSON,
FRANCIS SMITH,
JOHN GOSNOLD,
THOMAS BROMHALL,
SAMUEL STANSON,
JOHN BROWNING,
THOMAS LATHWEL,
EDWARD ROBERTS,
JOHN MAN,
Z. WORTH,
JOHN SPILSBURY,
JER. ZANCHY,
JOS. SIMPSON,
JOHN RIX,
OHN CLAYTON,
DANIEL ROYSE,
MARK CAM.
These signatures are those of the
Particular Baptist ministers, and some of the principal members
of their congregations. The other apology, presented a few
months before on the return of the king, contains principles
exactly similar, and in that they had referred to their
confession of faith of the seven churches in London, printed in
the several years of 1651, 1646, 1644. Also to a “declaration
concerning a public dispute,” printed in 1645; likewise a
“declaration by the several congregational societies, in and
about the city of London, in a way of vindication of themselves,
touching liberty, magistracy, &c.,” printed in 1647. Also a
“declaration of divers elders and brethren of congregational
societies in and about the city of London, Nov. 10, 1651.” And
the “declaration of several of the people called Anabaptists in
and about the city of London, Dec. 12, 1659, the answer to the
first crimination.” — Crosby informs us that he found written at
the end of these ‘minted apologies, the following declaration.
“Mr. Jessey preaching soon after, declared to
his congregation that Venner should say, he believed there was
not one Baptist among them; and that if they succeeded, the
Baptists should know that infant baptism was an ordinance of
Jesus Christ. Mr. Gravener was present at Veneer’s meeting house
in Coleman street, and heard him say this; from whose mouth,
(says the writer,) I had this account.”
The Baptists and other dissenters not only
protested publicly against Venner’s insurrection, but made an
appeal to the several confessions of faith they had published,
in which they had avowed their sentiments respecting magistracy
and the duties they owed to civil governors. But
not-withstanding these was no ground of suspicion which could
attach to them, yet vast numbers of them both in the city and in
the country were, imprisoned, and their places of worship every
where interrupted.
About this time was published an address to the king, the
parliament, and the people, entitled, Sion’s groans for her
distressed; or sober endeavours to prevent innocent blood, &c.
This bears date March 8, 1661, and is signed by Thomas Monck,
William Jeffery, William Reynolds, Joseph Wright, Francis
Stanley, Francis Smith, and George Hammon.
Two of these persons, George Hammon and William Jeffery, the
former a minister at Canterbury, and the other at Seven Oaks in
Kent, with many others, were prisoners in Maidstone jail. While
here they published a work entitled, The humble petition, and
representation of the sufferings of several peaceable and
innocent subjects, called by the name of Anabaptists,
inhabitants of the county of Kent, and prisoners in the jail of
Maidstone for the testimony of a good conscience. This was
as follows: —
“To his Majesty Charles H. King of England,
Scotland, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging.
“May it please your Majesty,
“FORASMUCH as by authority derived from yourself, several of us
your subjects, inhabitants in the county of Kent, are now
imprisoned; it therefore much concerns thee, oh king, to hear
what account we give of our distressed condition. Thou hast
already seen our confession of faith, wherein our peaceable
resolutions were declared. We have not violated any, part
thereof, that should cause that liberty promised from Breda to
be withdrawn. And now for our principles that most particularly
relate to magistrates and government, we have with all clearness
laid them before thee; humbly beseeching they may be read
patiently, and what we say weighed in the balance of the
sanctuary, and then judge how worthy we are of bonds and
imprisonment. And this we the more earnestly desire, because not
only our own lives are in danger, but also an irresistible
destruction cometh on our wives and little ones by that violence
which is now exercised on us Disdain not our plainness in
speaking, seeing the great God accepts of the like. And now, oh
king, that all thy proceedings, both towards us and all men, may
he such as may be pleasing to the eternal God, in whose hands
thy and our breath is, who ere long will judge both quick and
dead according to their works, is the prayer of thy faithful
subjects and servants.
After stating their sentiments respecting the king’s authority,
they conclude with an earnest supplication that they may have
liberty to worship God; and it is signed in the name of the
Baptists now prisoners in the jail of Maid-stone, by
WILLIAM JEFFERY,
JOHN REEVE,
GEORGE HAMMON,
JAMES BLACKMORE.
A very similar address was presented to
the king by several Baptists who were imprisoned at Dover. The
magistrates here were very severe; and after harassing them a
great deal, sent ten of them to prison, where they were kept for
a considerable time. Amongst these it is supposed was Mr. Samuel
Taverner, who had been Governor of Dover Castle but was now a
Baptist minister.
In this Year there was a small piece published by Mr. John
Griffith, a general Baptist minister, in London, entitled a
complaint of the oppressed against oppressors; or the unjust and
arbitrary proceedings of some soldiers and justices against some
sober godly persons in and near London , in which he
complains of the persecution of many godly persons to whose
characters their adversaries could not impute the least spot of
infamy; of their being seized, and taken out of their beds at
midnight, by soldiers with drawn swords, without any warrant
from a justice of the peace; of others being taken in their
religions assemblies, the doors of which were open that all
might hear what they said, and see what they did; and of others
being assaulted by soldiers whilst they were passing along the
streets about their lawful employments, and carried without a
warrant before justices who acted in a manner unworthy
of the office which they sustained.
When the laws themselves were cruel, and tie violence of
magistrates went beyond them, the sufferings of Christians must
have been great, No redress was to be obtained but by an appeal
to the king, of which we have many instances. Amongst others Mr.
John Sturgion a Baptist, in the year 1662 published a tract
which he entitled a plea for toleration of opinions and
persuasions in matters of religion, differing from the church of
England ; humbly presented to the king’s most excellent majesty.
The introduction is as follows. —
“May it please your Majesty,
“I have had strong impulses ripen my mind for some days, to
present this paper to your majesty; and I humbly hope it will
not be made to suffer much under an evil resentment upon its
presentation to your hand, because it bears a testimony of the
author’s good affection to your royal self. For my witness is on
high, that I did not write this paper because I love you not,
because I honour you not, because I own you not in your royal
capacity of magistracy and civil power. God knoweth that you
have not any subject more Christianly real or cordial unto you.
I humbly beg that your majesty would be pleased so far to deny
yourself as to read it with patience, and judge of it as you
shall see cause.”
After some reasonings with his majesty
respecting the prohibition of all meetings whatsoever, he thus
proceeds —
“And may it farther please your majesty to
consider your afflicted and innocent subjects, how they have
been, haled from their peaceable habitations, and thrust into
prisons, almost in all counties in England. Many are still
detained to the undoing of themselves and families; and most of
them are poor men whose livelihood, under God, depends upon the
labour of their own hands. So that they lie under more than an
ordinary calamity, there being so many thrust into little rooms
together that they are an annoyance to each other, especially in
the city of London, where the lord mayor crowds them very close
together; that it hath been observed, the keepers have
complained they have had too many guests; and whilst they
stiffer there, some of their wives and tender babes want bread
at home.”
After giving several reasons why the
magistrates should use no restraint or force in matters of
religion, he says,
“Now if your majesty will but consider what it
is that the baptized people and divers others have made such
earnest suit to your majesty for: it is not for titles of honour,
nor for places of profit, either in a civil or ecclesiastical
capacity; but only this is their request and humble desire, That
we may serve the Lord without molestation in that faith and
order which we have learned in the holy scriptures; giving
honour to our king to whom honour belongs, fear to whom fear,
tribute to whom tribute belongs; in every thing as far as we
have abilities, to render to God the things that are God’s, and
to the magistrate the things that are his.”
Instead of any relief being afforded, the
persecution at this time very much increased in consequence of
some report of a plot which was said to endanger the government.
The meetings of the dissenters were broken up throughout the
city, and such as were found assembling
were put into prison. Among these were Dr. John Griffith, author
of the work before mentioned, entitled The complaint of the
oppressed &c.,” who was apprehended and committed to Newgate,
where he lay seventeen months for no other crime than that of
preaching to a congregation of protestant dissenters.
This storm was not confined to the city, but extended to
different parts of the country; and in many places very great
opposition was made to the Baptists, who appear to have been the
sect every where spoken against. These sufferings produced a
pamphlet, entitled, Behold a cry; or a true relation of the
inhuman and violent outrages of divers soldiers , constables,
and others, practised upon marry of the Lord’s people, commonly
though falsely called Anabaptists, at their several meetings in
and about London. It is thus introduced:
“The sundry and divers abuses that have been
offered time after time to the free-born people of England,
contrary to Magna Charta and the Petition of right, and all the
known laws of the land, with the declaration and proclamation of
the king that now is, we cannot suppose the nation wholly
ignorant of it. But it is known how inhumanly they have been
used, and with what violence soldiers and others have proceeded
in several places where they have in the fear of the Lord been
assembled! their usual manner being to come with soldiers, which
commonly were rude youths or mercenary men, with their swords
drawn, to the affrighting of women and children, breaking and
spoiling their goods, doing violence to heir persons by pulling,
haling, and beating them!
“Now that all, both magistrates and people, may be rightly
informed, the mouth of falsehood and scandal stopped, and such
abuses redressed, we shall in particular give a brief hint of
some of them as follows.
“In June 1661, there came divers rude soldiers, wicked swearing
and debauched persons to the meeting house in Brick-lane near
Whitechapel, and laid hands on several men to the number of more
than twenty, who in a peaceable manner demanded of them their
warrant for so doing. But they would not shew any authority;
which one William Caswell seeing, he said to this purpose; that
if they had a warrant, he would obey it; but if they had none,
they should carry him, for he would not go. With that they beat
him with their hangers about the head, and pulled him along by
force; sometimes taking him up between three or four of them,
and then letting him fall with violence into the dirt; pushing
with great force his stomach and breast against the rails,
insomuch that with blows awl falls he is deprived of health to
this day. When several of the actors of this tragedy were
arrested, and a suit commenced against them according to law,
they were suddenly surprised and prevented by John Robinson [the
keeper of the tower] who granted a warrant to sieze the body of
Thomas Hull, and the aforesaid William Caswell. The said Thomas
Hull being taken in the street by virtue of the aforesaid
warrant, and caviled before John Robinson, he in a fury asked
him how he durst arrest his soldiers; and would not take bail,
but sent him to Newgate. One person who merely accompanied him,
and desired to bail him, was also committed to prison; where
they both lay about ten or twelve days before they could be
bailed, and were held bound from sessions to sessions for a long
time after, before they could be discharged.”
This will give us some idea of the little
regard that was paid even to the proclamation of the King, which
was issued Jan. 10, 1660, and which declared, “that if any
should be so hardy as to seize the persons of any without
warrant, they should be left open to the law to be proceeded
against, and to receive according to their demerit.” The case
was now altered. At the time this proclamation was made, the
king needed the support of religious people; but having got
established in the kingdom, he soon discovered his infidelity
and enmity to religion, and his love of arbitrary power in the
state. Had there been any regard to the constitutional laws of
the kingdom, such a wretch as John Robinson would not have been
permitted to assume such unlimitted power, and exercise such
horrid cruelties. Many other circumstances of a similar nature
are mentioned which fully justify these remarks, and exhibit the
character of this Robinson as a person well calculated to act
under such a monarch as Charles II.
At the close of this year an event happened in which Robinson
was a principal agent, and which proved the severity which the
king was disposed to manifest towards dissenters.
Mr. John James, the minister of a congregation of Sabbattarian
Baptists, meeting in Bulstake Alley, Whitechapel, was
interrupted while preaching. About three o’clock in the
afternoon one Justice Chard, with Mr. Wood a Head-borough came
into the meeting place, and Wood in the king’s name commanded
him to be silent and come clown, having spoken treason against
the king. Mr. James taking little notice of this address
proceeded in his discourse, when Wood proceeding towards the
pulpit again addressed him in the same manner, ordering him to
come down, saying, if he did not he would pull him down. To
which Mr. James replied, that he should not leave the pulpit
unless force were employed. This was accordingly done, and Mr.
James was taken before a Justice of the peace charged on the
evidence of one Tipler, a journeyman pipe-maker, with having
uttered treasonable words against the king. From the character
of Tipler the Justice refused to commit Mr. James till he
brought a neighbour with him to corroborate his testimony, when
he was under the necessity of ordering him into custody.
The persons who were present at the meeting were all secured,
and taken before John Robinson and three other Justices sitting
at the half moon tavern by seven at a time. To each of them they
tendered the oath of allegiance, and those who refused were sent
to Newgate, both men and women, being guarded thither by peace
officers.
These Justices afterwards entered the meeting-house where many
of the congregation still were, and sitting down at the table
with their clerk, Major Stanley sent for Mr. John James. While
they were waiting for him, the Lieutenant of the tower read a
paper which he pulled from his pocket, saying, he would read to
them what doctrine was preached these that day; which was a
charge drawn up from the accusations of Tipler. Addressing the
persons present, John Robinson asked them, how they could hear
such doctrines as those? To which they unanimously replied,
“That they never beard such words, as they shall answer it
before the Lord, and they durst not lie.”
When Mr. James was brought before them, John Robinson examined
him, and amongst other questions he asked the following, viz.
“Whether he had not been before him before this? And whether he
had not been civilly used?” To which Mr. James replied, “yea,
and he thanked him for his civility.” Then the Lieutenant asked
him, “If he was not counselled to take heed in future?” He
answered, “yea, and he bad taken it as far as he could with a
good conscience.” Upon which Robinson told him he should stretch
for it; and if he were not hanged, he would be hanged for him.
Mr. James answered, He was not careful in that matter, and that
they could do no more, than they should be suffered by the Lord
to do. The Lieutenant told him he was not careful; for he had a
mind to be hanged as some of his holy brethren that went before
him. To which Mr. James said, he desired he would not speak so
lightly. On Robinson saying something about the fifth kingdom,
he asked Mr. James if that was his principle? Who said that he
owned the fifth kingdom which was to come. Whereupon they
laughed one upon another and said, “Now we have it from his own
mouth.” They also charged him with having learned to sound a
trumpet in order to join with Venner’s party. In reply to which
he said that a friend of his who lodged in his house wishing to
go to sea, and being required to learn to sound the trumpet, he
had requested leave of him to learn in his house, but that he
had never learned himself, neither had he been concerned in the
late rising as he judged it to be a rash act,
On this his mittimus was made out, and he was committed to the
charge of the soldiers to take him to Newgate. His mittimus was
as follows: —
“To the keeper of the goal of Newgate, or his
deputy; Middlesex.
“These are in the king’s majesty’s name to require you to
receive into your custody, the body of John James, whom we send
you herewith; being taken this present day at a conventicle or
private meeting, in the parish of White-chapel; and there
speaking in the presence of the people treasonable words against
his majesty’s royal person. You shall therefore keep him close
prisoner until further order; and this shall be your warrant.
Given under our hands, this 19th day of October 1661.
JOHN ROBINSON, Lieut. of the
Tower,
EDWARD CHARD,
THOMAS BIDE,
THOMAS SWALLOW.
On the 14th of November Mr, James was
brought before the Chief Justice Forster, Justice Mallet,
Justice Twisden, and Justice Windham at the king’s bench,
Westminster hall. He was informed that he stood indicted for
compassing and imagining the death of the king. For endeavouring
to levy war against the king. For endeavouring a change of the
government. For saying that the king was a bloody tyrant, a
bloody sucker, and blood thirsty man, and his nobles the same.
That the king and his nobles had shed the blood of the saints at
Charing Cross, and the blood of the covenanters in Scotland, To
this he pleaded not guilty, neither in form nor matter; and when
asked how he would be tried, he replied by the law of God; at
which the lawyers made a great hiss.
He was then remanded to Newgate, and during the time betwixt
this and his trial, he received on the 18th of November a letter
from a person of note to advertise him there was such a jury of
life and death impannelled to proceed upon him, as had not been
for many years before, being all picked men, and most of them
knights and gentlemen, and that if he did not except against
them, or most of the chief of diem, he was a dead man.” When Mr.
James was brought before them on November 19, the Judge
exclaimed, Oh, oh, are you come? This is a specimen of the
manner in which his trial was conducted. Those who are desirous
may read it in the second volume of the State Trials. Suffice it
to say, that Mr. James in the most solemn manner denied all the
charges exhibited against him, especially his having extolled
the late Protector, se far from that, said he, “I opposed him
and suffered from him.” He concluded his defence by saying,
though he should say but little for himself he would drop one
word for the Lord, viz. “That the Lord. Jesus Christ was King of
nations as well as King of saints; and that the government of
kingdoms did of right belong to him.” To confirm this sentiment
he quoted Revelation 11:15. “The kingdoms of this world are
become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall
reign for ever and ever.” Addressing the Jury, he quoted Isaiah
29:21. “That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare
for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for
a thing of nought.”
He was then remanded back to prison, and was brought up again on
the 20th to receive sentence. The next day, Wednesday, his wife
by the advice of some friends endeavoured to present a petition
to the king; telling him of her husband’s innocency, and the
character of the witnesses. Bernard Osburn, one of them, having
been proved by four respectable persons to have said, “that he
had sworn against Mr. James he knew not what.” In the evening as
the king came out of the park, and entered the palace, Mrs.
James presented him with a paper endorsed on the backside, The
humble request of Elizabeth James. To whom the king replied,
holding up his finger, Oh! Mr. James he is a sweet gentleman!
and on her following him to get some further answer the doer as
shut against her.
The next morning she came to the same place, and on the king’s
entering the park, she intreated his majesty would answer her
request. Who then replied, “He is a rogue, and shall be hanged!”
One of the lords who was with him asked of whom he spire, to
whom the king said, “Of John, James that rogue; he shall be
hanged: yea he shall be hanged!” On this day he was brought to
the bar to receive sentence, and was asked what he had to say
why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. He replied
in the words of Jeremiah 26:14, 15.
“As for me, behold I am in your hand: do with
me as it seemed, good, and meet unto you. But know ye for
certain that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring
innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the
inhabitants thereof.”
He also added, Psalm 16:15, “Precious in
the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints:” and also
Zechariah 2:8, “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of mine
eye.” Sentence being passed Mr. James had only time to add,
“Blessed be God, whom man hath condemned, God hath justified.”
On the 26th of November, he was executed at Tyburn, according to
his tremendous sentence to be hanged, drawn, quartered, &c.
These terrors do not appear to have alarmed him, a consciousness
of uprightness and integrity preserved him. When some of his
friends who had desired leave to accompany him came into the
prison, he exclaimed, “Here come my bride men!” embracing them
with the greatest joy. But said be, “Must not the sacrifice be
bound?” One answered, “Yea, it must be bound with cords.” He
rejoicing said, “So he had heard.”
When the keeper entered, he told him he was a welcome messenger,
and bearing the noise of the multitude he said to a friend,
“There will be by-and-by as many hallelujahs as shoutings of the
people without.”
At the place of execution he obtained leave from the Sheriff to
speak to the multitude. He began by denying a report that had
been industriously circulated, that he was a Jesuit; declaring
he was an Englishman, and had never been out of the land. That
his parents were poor but pious people, and that his aged mother
was still living. As to my principles, said he, “I do own the
title of a baptized believer. I own the ordinances and
appointments of Jesus Christ. I own all the principles in
Hebrews 6:2.” And concluded by charging his friends who were
present, “Not to forsake the assembling themselves together” for
worship, according to their principles, whatever might be the
consequence. Adding the charge of David to Solomon, 1 Chronicles
28:8.
"Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the
congregation of the Lord, and in the audience of our God, keep
and seek for all the commandments of the Lord your God; that ye
may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for
your children after you for ever.”
He then addressed the young and old in a
very solemn, impressive, and scriptural manner, concluding with,
“To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”
Hebrews 4:7.
When the executioner proceeded to do his office, he said, “The
Lord receive your soul.” To which Mr. James replied, “I thank
you.” Another said, “This is a happy day.” He answered, “I bless
the Lord it is so.” One of his friends said, “The Lord make your
passage easy.” He said,” I trust he will so.” He was then asked
if he had any thing to say to the Sheriff? He replied, “No, but
only thank him for his civility.” He then said aloud, lifting up
his hands, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit,” and so
finished his course. His quarters were taken back to Newgate, on
the sledge which carried him to the gallows, and were afterwards
placed on the city gates, and his head was set upon a pole
opposite the meeting-house.
Crosby remarks on this affair, “If there was any undue
combination against this poor man; if it was for some reason of
state, rather than for any real guilt on his part; if his
judgment and conscience rather than any just crime were the
cause of his suffering, his blood must be innocent blood.
“Some remarkable things are taken notice of in
the narrative, published after his death, as befalling those,
who had been instruments in his sufferings, or had expressed a
delight in them. But (adds Crosby) I chuse to pass them over in
silence.”
This narrative published in the next year
we have not been able to procure.
In the Heresiography of Ephraim Pagitt, published in 1662, there
is a short account of this affair. This scurrilous writer,
though he supposes him guilty of the charges made against him,
yet acknowledges “he brought several of his own sect to justify
his defence,” and says that “he thanked the sheriff for his
civility and patience.”
Another design to oppress the dissenters
was avowed in the year 1662, when a bill was introduced to
enforce uniformity in religion, and to eject all ministers from
the established church who could not declare unfeigned assent
and consent to the articles of the church of England, and of
every thing contained in the book of common prayer, and also
that would not declare upon oath that it was not lawful on any
pretence whatever to take arms against the king, &c. The
consequence of this act, was, that upwards of two thousand
eminently godly, learned, and useful ministers were obliged to
leave their livings, and were exposed to many hardships and
difficulties. This act passed, but Bishop Burnet observes, with
no very great majority, and received the royal assent May 19,
and was to take place from the 14th of August following.
Amongst these pious confessors and intrepid sufferers, were some
of the Baptist denomination. In Palmer’s Non-conformist’s
Memorial we meet with the names of several Baptists, and it is
not improbable but some others were of this denomination, as it
is well known that Calamy has not always mentioned their
sentiments on this subject.
HENRY JESSEY,
M. A. ejected from St. Georges, Southwark. WILLIAM DELL, M. A.
from the living of Yeldon, In Bedfordshire.
FRANCIS BAMPFIELD, M. A. from the living of Sherborne, in
Dorsetshire. THOMAS JENNINGS, from Brimsfeld, in
Gloucestershire.
PAUL FREWEN, from Kempley, in the same county. JOSHUA HEAD,
place of ejectment uncertain.
JOHN TOMBES, B.D. from Leominster, in Herefordshire. DANIEL
DYKE, M. A. from Hadham, in Hertfordshire. RICHARD ADAMS, from
Humberstone, in Leicestershire.
JEREMIAH MARSDEN, from Ardesly Chapel, near Wakefield, in
Yorkshire. THOMAS HARDCASTLE, from Bramham, in Yorkshire.
ROBERT BROWNE, from Whitelady Aston, in Worcestershire. GABRIEL
CAMELFORD, from Stavely Chapel, in Westmoreland. JOHN SKINNER,
from Weston, in Herefordshire.
— BAKER, from Folkestone, in Kent.
JOHN GOSNOLD, of the Charter-house and Pembroke Hall, Cambridge.
THOMAS QUARREL, from some place in Shropshire.
THOMAS EWINS, from St. Evens Church, Bristol. LAWRENCE WISE,
from Chatham Dock, Kent. JOHN DONNE, from Pertenhall in
Bedfordshire.
PAUL HOBSON, from the chaplainship of the College,
Buckinghamshire. JOHN GIBBS, from Newport Pagnell.
JOHN SMITH, from Wanlip, Leicestershire. THOMAS ELLIS, from
Lopham, Norfolk.
THOMAS PAXFORD, from Clapton, Gloucestershire.
ICHABOD CHAUNCEY, M. D. chaplain to Sir Edward Harley’s
Regiment.
It is rather wonderful that any Baptists
were found in the churches at this time, when it is considered
that the first act which was passed after the restoration of the
king contained an exception of all who had declared against
infant baptism from being restored to their livings. It is
probable also that amongst those who had been expelled to make
room for the old encumbents, some were of this denomination. The
Act of Uniformity completed the business, and after this we do
not find that any person who rejected the baptism of infants
continued in the establishment. The history of the persons
mentioned will be given in to different counties where they
laboured, in the biographical part of our work.
In this year, and we suppose immediately on the passing this act
the king gave proof of his ardent attachment to the church of
England, or at least of his willingness to fall in with the
prelatical party, in devising means to crush all the different
sects of the Nonconformists. This was by causing to be published
“by his Majesty’s authority and under the great seal of
England, for the due observation of them,” A new edition of the
Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical; treated upon by the
Bishop of London , President of the Convocation for the province
of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the
said province. And agreed upon with the King’s Majesties license
in their Synod begun at London, Anno. Dom. 1606. And in the year
of the reign of our sovereign Lord James, by the grace of God,
King of England, France , and Ireland the first , and of
Scotland the thirty-seventh. London, Printed by A. Warren, jar
Joshua Kirton, and are to be sold at the sign of the King’s
Arms, in St. Pads Church-Yard, 1662.
We have been the more particular in giving the full title of
this quarto pamphlet; because none of our historians, as far as
we have been able to consult them, have taken any notice of it.
The first edition of it is printed in Latin in Bishop Sparrow’s
collections; but there is no notice taken of the new edition in
1662, though that work was printed in 1671, and published to
vindicate the church of England, and to promote uniformity and
peace in the same.
From a few of these articles the reader will judge what must
have been the sufferings of the Nonconformist’s in every place
where they were enforced. Some of these articles follow.
Art. II. Impugners of the King’s supremacy censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the
King’s majesty hath not the same authority in causes
ecclesiastical, that the godly kings had amongst the Jews and
Christian Emperors in the primitive church, or impeach in any
part his regal supremacy in the said causes restored to the
crown, and by the laws of this realm therein established, let
him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but only by
the Arch-bishop, after his repentance and public revocation of
those his wicked errors.”
Art. III. The church of England
a true and Apostolical Church.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the
church of England by law established under the King’s Majesty,
is not a true and apostolical church, teaching and maintaining
the doctrine of the apostles, let him be excommunicated, ipso
facto, and not restored but only by, &c “
Art. IV. Impugners of the public
worship of God established in the church of England censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the
form of God’s worship in the church of England established by
the law, and contained in the book of common prayer, and
administration of sacraments, is a corrupt, superstitious, or
unlawful worship of God, or containeth any thing in it that is
repugnant to the scriptures, let him be excommunicated, ipso
facto, &c.”
Art. V. Impugners of the
Articles of Religion established in the church of England
censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that any of
the nine and thirty Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and
Bishops of both provinces, and the whole, Clergy in the
convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God, 1562,
for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the
establishment of consent touching true religion, are in any part
superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good
conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated, ipso
facto, &c.”
Art. VI. Impugners of the Rites
and Ceremonies established in the church of England censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the
rites and ceremonies of the church of England, by law
established, are wicked, antichristian, or superstitious, or
such as being commanded by lawful authority, men who are
zealously and godly affected, may not with any good conscience
approve them, use them, or as occasion requireth subscribe unto
them, let him be excommunicated, ipso facto, &c.”
Art. VII. Impugners of the
government of the church of England by Archbishops, Bishops, &c.
censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the
government of the church of England under his Majesty, by
Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and the rest that bear
office in the same, is antichristian, or repugnant to the word
of God, let him be excommunicated, ipso facto, &c.”
Art. X., Maintainers of
Schismaticks in the church of England censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that such
ministers, as refuse to subscribe to the form and manner of
God’s worship in the church of England prescribed in the
communion book and their adherents, may truly take unto them the
name of another church not established by law, and dare presume
to publish that this their pretended church, hath so long time
groaned under the burden of certain grievances imposed upon it,
and upon the members thereof before mentioned, by the church of
England, and the orders and constitutions therein by law
established, let them be excommunicated and not restored, &c.”
Art. XI. Maintainers of
conventicles censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm or maintain,
that there are within this realm, other meetings, assemblies, or
congregations of the king’s born subjects, than such as are by
the laws of this land held and allowed, which may rightly
challenge to themselves the name of true and lawful churches,
let him be excommunicated, &c.”
Art. XII. Maintainers of
Constitutions made in conventicles censured.
“Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that it is
lawful for any sort of ministers and lay persons, or either of
them to join together, and make Rules, Orders, or Constitutions,
in causes ecclesiastical, without the king’s authority, and
shall submit themselves to be ruled and governed by them, let
them be excommunicated, ipso facto, and not be restored until
they repent, and publicly revoke those their wicked and
Anabaptistical errors.”
These Canons are in number one hundred and
forty one, and are thus concluded.
“WEE of our PRINCELY INCLINATION and Royall care, for the
maintenance of the present Estate and Government of the Church
of England by the laws of this our Realme, now setled and
established, having dilligently, with great contentment and
comfort, read and considered of all these their said Canons,
Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions agreed upon, as is before
expressed; and finding the same such as We are persuaded will be
very profitable not only to Our Clergy, but to the whole Church
of this our Kingdom, and to all the true members’ of it, (if
they be well observed.) Have therefore for Us, our Heirs and
lawfull Successors, of our especial Grace, certaine knowledge,
and meer motion given, and by these presents do give our Royall
assent, according to the forme of the said Statute or Act of
Parliament aforesaid, to all and every of the said Canons,
Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and to all, and every
thing in them contained, as they are before written.
“And furthermore, We do not onely by our said Prerogative Royall,
and Supream authority in causes ecclesiastical, ratify, confirm,
and establish, by these our Letters Pattents, the said Canons,
Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and all, and every thing in
them contained, as is aforesaid, but do likewise propound,
publish, and straightly enjoin, and command by our said
Authority, and by these our Letters Pattents, the same to be
dilligently observed, executed, and equally kept by all our
loving Subjects of this our Kingdom both within the province of
Canterbury, and York, in all points wherein they do, or may
concern every or any of them according to this Our will, and
pleasure hereby signified and expressed: and that likewise for
the better observation of them, every Minister by what name or
title soever he be called, shall in the Parish Church or Chapell,
where he hath charge, read all the said Canons, Orders, and
Constitutions once every year upon some Sundayes; or Holy Dayes
in the afternoon before divine Service, dividing the same in
such sort, as that the one half may be read one day, and the
other another day, the book of the said Canons to be provided at
the charge of the Parish betwixt this and the feast of the
Nativity of our Lord God next ensuing: Straightly charging and
commanding all Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and all other that
exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within this realm,
every man in his place to see, and procure (so much as in them
lieth) all and every of the same Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and
Constitutions to be in all points duely observed, not sparing to
execute the Penaltyes in them severally mentioned, upon any that
shall willingly or wilfully breake, or neglects to observe the
same, as they tender the honour of God, the peace of the Church,
Tranquility of the Kingdome, and their duties, and services to
us, their KING, and Sovereign.
In Witnesse, &c.”
When it is recollected that the Canons which relate to the
discipline and doctrines and Hierarchy of the church of England,
had been by the government about twenty years before declared
null and void with the greatest unanimity not a negative vote
being found in both houses, and which occasioned such joy that
there were bonfires, and ringing of bells all over the city; and
also that the principles now censured had been universally
propagated and acted upon during the whole of that time; some
conception may be formed of the spirit by which this measure was
promoted, and of the terrible consequences which would follow
from it, either in making persons vile hypocrites through fear,
or impoverished dependants through the fortitude which would
lead them now to say, “Whether it be right in the sight of God
to obey you rather than God, judge ye.”
They that are acquainted with the terrible consequences of an
excommunication in the spiritual courts, must be sensible of the
hardships put upon the Nonconformists by these Canons.
Suspensions and deprivations ‘from their livings, were not now
thought sufficient for the sin of Nonconformity; but the
dissenters both clergy and laity, must be turned out of the
congregation of the faithful; they must be made incapable of sueing
for their lawful debts; they must be imprisoned for life
by a Capeas, unless they make satisfaction to the church; and when
they die they must not have christian burial. Lamentable was the
condition of the dissenters at this time, and dreadful were the
sufferings hundreds of them endured; by the operations of these
Canons which his Majesty had enjoined on all his subjects; after
he had read them, and diligently considered them , with great
contentment and comfort. Some of these effects as experienced by
the Baptists we shall proceed to narrate.
At Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire the persecution of dissenters
was so violent in 1664, that two large houses were turned into
prisons to make room for them, as the county gaol would not hold
the numbers that were committed.
Their goods were confiscated, and their persecutors intended if
possible to get the penalty of banishment or death inflicted
upon them according to the 35th of Elizabeth.
Of these there were twelve persons, ten men and two women, all
Baptists, who had been taken at their meeting in or near
Aylesbury; and having been legally convicted of the same three
months before, they were now brought before a bench of justices
at their quarter sessions. They were then required either to
conform to the church of England, and take the oaths of
allegiance and supremacy, or to abjure the realm as this law
directed; and were assured that if they refused to do either of
these, sentence of death should be passed upon them.
However, that there may be some show of clemency, they gave them
till the afternoon to consider of it. Mr. Farrow one of the
justices of that county who lived at Aylesbury, was the
principal agent in this prosecution; and the better to carry on
his malicious designs he was this day made their chairman.
Several of the Justices left the bench being ashamed of these
rigorous proceedings or afraid of the consequences of such
severity. But Farrow and three or four more continued, and were
resolved to push on the matter.
When the prisoners were again brought forth, they all declared,
that they could neither conform to the church of England, nor
abjure their native country nor relations, and therefore must
throw themselves on the mercy of the court.
Upon this they were by virtue of the aforecited law, declared
guilty of felony. Sentence of death was accordingly passed upon
them, and they were remanded back to gaol till their execution.
The men were Stephen Dagnal, minister; Ellit, a teacher; William
Whitechurch, a glover, and a deacon of the congregation; Thomas
Hill, a linen draper; William Welch, a tallow chandler; Thomas
Monk, a farmer; Brundon, a shoe maker; and three More, whose
nines, Crosby says, be could not obtain. The women were, Mary
Jackman, a widow who had six children; and Ann Turner, spinster.
The sentence was no sooner passed than the
officers were sent to their houses to seize on whatever of their
effects could be found, which order was executed with great
severity. The rest of the dissenters who lived in the town were
much alarmed at these proceedings, expecting it would next come
to their turn to be treated in the same manner. Brundon, one of
the condemned persons, was prevailed upon by the tears and
earnest entreaties of his wife, to make a recantation and take
the oaths; but be presently found such horror and distress in
his mind for what he had done as exceeded all his fears of
death, or distress for his family. He therefore voluntarily
returned to the prison again, and declared with the greatest
signs of grief and trouble his repentance for what he had done;
and there continued with his companions, resolving to die with
them in defence of that cause he had so shamefully renounced.
Thomas Monk, son of one of the condemned persons, upon the
passing of the sentence immediately rode to London, where he
applied to Mr. William Kiffin, who had considerable influence at
court, particularly with Chancellor Hyde. When he had related
the whole matter to him, they went with great expedition to
Hyde, and entreated him to lay the case before the king, which
he readily did. The king seemed much surprised that any of his
subjects should be put to death for their religion only, and
enquired whether there was any law in force that would justify
such proceedings. Being satisfied on this point, he promised his
pardon, and gave orders to the lord chancellor accordingly. But
considering that the form of passing a pardon would take some
time, and that those who had so hastily passed sentence of death
might be as hasty in executing it, they renewed’ their suit to
his majesty that an immediate reprieve might be granted, which
his majesty as graciously complied with; and it was given to
Thomas Monk; who, made all possible haste with it to Aylesbury.
When he related his success at court, and produced his majesty’s
reprieve, it was not more joyful to his friends than surprising
to their persecutors, and put a stop in some measure to their
violence. The condemned persons however were kept close
prisoners till the next assizes, when the judge brought down his
majesty’s pardon, and they were all set at liberty.
The influence which Mr. Kiffin had at court in all probability
arose from his great property: it is certain his principles as a
‘Baptist did not recommend him. It is said that the king once
condescended, when in want of money, to ask him a favour; this
was, that he would lend him forty thousand pounds. Mr. Kiffin
apologized for not having it in his power to lend his majesty so
great a sum, but told the messenger that if it would be of any
service, he would present him with ten thousand pounds, which
sum was accepted; and Mr. Kiffin used afterwards to say that he
had saved thirty thousand pounds by his liberality.
The attempt to crush the dissenters was
pursued with rigour, and every means adopted to prevent the
increase of their principles. For this purpose dragoons were
sent into the different counties to suppress whatever meetings
of dissenters they could find. In Buckinghamshire, the excellent
Benjamin Reach felt the weight of their rude fury. Discovering a
meeting where he was preaching, they came with great rage and
violence upon the assembly, and swore they would kill the
preacher. Accordingly he was seized, and four of the troopers
declared their determination to trample him to, death with their
horses. Having bound him, they laid him on the ground for this
purpose, and had actually prepared themselves to accomplish this
horrid design. But the officer discovering their intention, rode
up to them just as they were going to spur their: horses to ride
over him, and interposing his authority prevented them. He was
then taken up and tied behind one of the troopers across his
horse and carried to gaol, where he lay some time and suffered
great hardships. Being a bold and zealous preacher, he was
frequently seized and committed to prison, where he was
sometimes bound, but often released upon bail.
In the year 1664 he wrote a little book which many of his
friends wished him to publish for the use of their children.
This request he complied with, and entitled it, The Child’s
Instructor, or a New and Easy Primmer. He did not put his name
to it, and procured a friend to write a recommendatory preface;
from which it should seem that be apprehended it would expose
him to some difficulties, as there were several things in it
contrary to the doctrines and ceremonies of the church of
England.
This book was no sooner printed, and some few of them sent down
to him, than one Mr. Strafford, a justice of the peace for that
county, was informed of it. He immediately took a constable with
him, and went to the house of Mr. Keach, where they seized all
the books they could find, and bound him to appear at the
assizes to answer for his crime, in a recognizance of a hundred
pounds himself, and two sureties of fifty pounds each.
The assizes commenced at Aylesbury, October the 8th, 1664, and
Lord Chief Justice Hyde, just now mentioned, afterwards Lord
Clarendon, presided as judge. The account of this trial will
give a pretty correct View of his lordship’s character, and of
the shameful prostitution of justice resorted to in order to
deprive the subjects of their liberty; and to punish the
nonconformists in those days of persecution.
Mr. Keach was called to the bar the first day in the afternoon.
After some reflections upon his person and profession, the judge
holding one of the primmers in his hand, said to him, Didn't you
write this book Mr. Keach replied, that he did write the
greatest part of it The judge then said with great indignation,
What have you to do to take other men’s trades out of their
hands?
I believe you can preach, as well as write
books. Thus it is, to let you and such as you are to have the
scriptures to wrest to your own destruction. In your book you
have made a new creed. I have seen three creeds before, but
never saw a fourth till you made one!
To this Mr. Keach answered, I have not made a treed, but a
confession of my faith. What is a creed then? said the judge.
Mr. Keach replied, your Lordship said that you had never seen
but three creeds; but thousands of Christians have made a
confession of their faith.
The judge speaking many things concerning baptism and the
ministers of the gospel, Mr. Keach began to answer, but was
prevented by the judge, who said, you shall not preach here, nor
give the reasons of your claimable doctrine to seduce and infect
the king’s subjects: these are not things for such as you to
meddle with, nor to write books of divinity. I will try you for
it before I sleep.
— He accordingly gave directions to the clerk to draw up the
indictment; but though he spent much of his time in assisting
the clerk, who was very diligent in preparing the bill, they
could not get ready for trial till the next day.
While the indictment was drawing up, the witnesses were sworn,
and bid to stand by the clerk till it was finished, and then go
with it to the grand jury. During this interval the judge
endeavoured to incense the jury against the prisoner,
representing him as a base and dangerous fellow. I shall send
you presently, said he, a bill against one that has taken upon
him to write a new primmer for the instruction of your children;
and if this be suffered, children by learning it will become
such as he is, and therefore I hope you will do your duty.
The court being set the next day, the grand jury found a true
bill. Mr. Keach being brought to the bar, the clerk said,
Benjamin Keach, hear your charge. Thou art here indicted by the
name of Benjamin Keach, of Winslow, in the county of Bucks, for
that thou being a seditious, schismatic person, evily and
maliciously disposed and disaffected to his majesty’s government
and the government of the church of England, didst maliciously
and wickedly on the fifth of May in the sixteenth year of the
reign of our sovereign lord the king, write, print, and publish,
or cause to be written, printed, and published, one seditious
and venomous book entitled, The Child’s Instructor , or a New
and Easy Primmer, wherein are contained by way of question and
answer these damnable positions, contrary to the book of common
prayer and the liturgy of the church of England; that is to say,
in one place you have thus written: —
Q. Who are the right subjects of baptism?
A. Believers, or godly men and women, who make profession of
their faith and repentance.
In another place you have maliciously and
wickedly written these words: —
Q. How shall it go with the saints?
A. Very well: it is the day they have longed for. Then shall
they hear the sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you; and so shall they reign with
Christ on the earth a thousand years, even on Mount Sion in the
New Jerusalem; for there will Christ’s throne be, on which they
must sit down with him.
Then follows this question with the answer in plain english
words. —
Q. When shall the rest of the wicked and the fallen angels,
which be the devils, be judged?
A. When the thousand years shall be expired: then shall all the
rest of the dead be raised, and then shall be the last and
general judgment: then shall all the rest of the dead and the
devils be judged by Christ and his glorified saints; and they
being arraigned and judged, the wicked shall be condemned, and
cast with the angels into the lake of fire, there to he burned
for ever and ever.
In another place you have wickedly and maliciously written these
plain english words:—
Q. Why may not infants be received into the church now as they
were under the law?
A. Because the fleshly seed is cast out. Though God under that
dispensation did receive infants in a lineal way by generation;
yet he that hath the key of David, that openeth and no man
shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth, hath shut up that way
into the church, and opened the door of regeneration, receiving
in none now but true believers.
Q. What is the case of infants?
A. Infants that die are members of the kingdom of glory, though
they be not members of the visible church.
Q. Do they then that bring in infants in a lineal way by
generation err from the way of truth?
A. Yea, they do for they make not God’s holy word their rule,
but do presume
to open a door that Christ hath shut, and none ought to open.
Also in another place thou hast wickedly, and maliciously
composed a short confession of the Christian faith, in which
thou hast affirmed this concerning the second person in the
blessed Trinity, in these plain english words: — I also believe
that he rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven
above, and there now sitteth at the right hand of God the
Father; and from thence he shall come again at the appointed time to reign
personally on, the earth, and to be judge of the quick and the
dead.
In another place thou hast wickedly and maliciously affirmed
these things concerning true gospel ministers, in these plain
english words following: — Christ hath not chosen the, wise and
prudent men after the flesh, not great doctors and rabbies; not
many mighty and noble, saith St. Paul, are called; but rather
the poor and despised, even tradesmen and such like, as were
Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Paul, and others. Christ’s true
ministers have not their learning and teaching from men, or from
universities, or from human schools; for human learning, arts
and sciences, are not essential in order to the making of a true
minister, but only the gift of God which cannot be bought with
silver and gold. And also as they have freely received the gift
of God, so they do freely administer: they do not preach for
hire, for gain or filthy lucre. They are not like false teachers
who look for gain from their quarter; who eat the fat and clothe
themselves with the wool, and kill them that are fed. Those that
put not into their mouths they prepare war against. Also they
are not lords over God’s heritage: they rule them not by force
nor cruelty, neither have they power to force and compel men to
believe and obey their doctrine, but only persuade and entreat.
This is the way of the gospel as Christ taught them. — Many
other things bast thou seditiously, wickedly, and maliciously
written in the said book, to the great displeasure of Almighty
God, the scandal of the liturgy’ of the church of England, the
disaffection of the king’s people to his majesty’s government,
the dangers of the peace of this kingdom, to the evil example of
others, and contrary to the statute in that case made and
provided.
The indictment being read, the clerk said, how say you, Benjamin
Keach? Are you guilty or not guilty? To this Mr. Keach replied,
the indictment is very long I cannot remember half of it, nor
have I been accustomed to plead to indictments. I desire to have
a copy of it, and liberty to confer with council about it, in
order to put in my exceptions; and then I shall plead to it.
The judge addressing Mr. Keach, said, It is your intention to
delay your trial till the next assizes. No, my lord, said Mr.
Keach: I have no design by this to delay my trial. The judge
answered, I will not deny you what is your right, but you must
first plead to the indictment, and afterwards you shall have a
copy of it. Mr. Keach replied, I desire I may have a copy of it
before I plead, in order to put in my exceptions against it.
Judge. You shall not have it before you plead, guilty or not
guilty.
Keach. It is what has been granted to others.
Judge. You shall not have a copy of it
first; and if you refuse to plead guilty or not guilty, I shall
take it pro confesso, and give judgment against you accordingly.
When Keach saw that he was thus overruled by the judge, and that
he was denied his rights as an Englishman, he pleaded not
guilty.
Judge. Now you shall have a copy of your indictment, and I will
give you an hour’s time to consider of it.
Keach. If I may have no longer time allowed me, I do not desire
it.
Judge. I have something else to do than to wait upon you. You
are not a person fit to go abroad till the next assizes, and you
would think it hard if I should commit you to gaol till then.
But because you shall not say but that you were offered fair, if
you will find sufficient sureties for your appearance at the
next assizes, and for your good behaviour till then you shall
not be tried till then.
Mr. Keach knowing that his appearing at any dissenting meeting
would be deemed a breach of his good behaviour, durst not accept
of this proposal; and therefore said, I am willing to be tried
now.
Judge. Go on then, in God’s name.
The jury were then called by their names, and sworn to well and
truly try the traverse between the king and the prisoner at the
bar.
The clerk read the indictment, and told them that he had pleaded
not guilty; that their charge was to inquire whether he was
guilty or not; and so the witnesses were called, whose names
were Neal and Whitehall.
Neal swore that Justice Strafford sending for him, he waited on
his worship, and was commanded to fetch his staff of authority
and come again. That then they went to one Moody’s stall and
asked for some primmers which he had; but he answered that he
had none. From thence they went to Benjamin Keach’s house, where
first they saw his wife, he himself being in an inner room. They
asked her whether there were not some primmers in the house. She
said there were, and about thirty were brought and delivered to
them.
Justice Strafford also deposed, that going to the house of the
prisoner, he found and seized the said primmers, and that the
prisoner at the bar confessed before him that he wrote and
composed the said book; that then a copy of the prisoner’s
examination before the said deponent, signed with his own hand,
was, produced and read: wherein was contained that the prisoner
being asked whether he was the author or writer of the said
book, answered, yes he was;and further declared that he delivered
part of the copy to one Oviat, a printer, since dead, and that
the rest of the copy he sent up by another hand, but that he
knew not who printed it; that about forty of them were sent down
to him, of which he had disposed of about twelve, and that the
price was five pence each.
The judge then called for a common prayer book, and ordered one
of the primmers to be given to the jury; commanding the clerk to
read those sentences in the indictment that were taken out of
the said book, that the jury might turn to them to see that the
said positions were contained therein.
The first position, which affirms that “believers only are the
right subjects of baptism,” being read; this, said the judge, is
contrary to the book of common prayer, for that appoints infants
to be baptized, as well as men and women. He then read several
places wherein the baptizing of such is enjoined and vindicated.
The next position is that which affirms that “the saints shall
reign with Christ a thousand years.” This, said the judge, is
contrary to the creed in the book of common prayer, and is an
old heresy which was cast out of the church a thousand years
ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance
about five hundred years since, till now this rascal hath
revived it.
On reading that position in the indictment which denies “that
infants are to be received into the church now as they were
under the law,” the judge said, this also is contrary to the
book of common prayer; which appoints infants to be received
into the church, and directs the priest to say when he hath
sprinkled the child, we receive this child into the congregation
of Christ’s flock.
The next position being read, wherein it is affirmed that
“infants who die are members of the kingdom of glory, though not
of the visible church,” the judge said, this he speaks of
infants in general; so that the child of a Turk is made equal to
the child of a Christian. But our church hath determined
otherwise; viz. that if an infant die after baptism, and before
it hath actually sinned, it is saved, because original sin is
washed away in baptism.
After this, the position in the indictment which was taken out
of the confession of faith was read. This, said the judge, is
contrary to our creed; for whereas this saith of Christ that
“he ascended into heaven above, and there now sitteth at the
right hand of God the Father, and from thence he shall come
again at the appointed time of the Father to reign personally on
the earth, and to be the judge both of quick and dead;”
our creed saith only, from thence shall he come to judge both
the quick and the dead. And as to that concerning gospel
ministers, this also is contrary to the book of common prayer. Whereas the
position in the indictment saith, that Christ hath not chosen
great rabbies and doctors, but rather the poor and despised, and
tradesmen; the book of common prayer does admit of such, namely,
doctors and rabbies. He then read some passages concerning the
qualifications of ministers, and their manner of consecration in
proof of it. He afterwards said, Because Christ when he was on
earth made choice of tradesmen to be his disciples, this fellow
would have ministers to be such now; tailors, pedlars, and
tinkers ; such fellows as he is. But it is otherwise now, as
appears from the manner in which the church has appointed them
to be chosen, ordained, and consecrated.
The judge having ended, the prisoner thought now he might have
liberty to speak for himself, and accordingly began.
Mr. Keach. As to the doctrines —
Judge. You shall not speak any thing here, except to the matter
of fact; that is to say, whether you wrote this book or not.
Keach. I desire liberty to speak to the particulars of my
indictment, and answer those things that have —
Judge. You shall not be suffered to give the reasons of your
doctrine here, to seduce the king’s subjects.
Keach. Is my religion so bad that I may not be allowed to speak?
Judge. I know your religion: you are a fifth-monarchy man, and
you can preach, as well as write book and you would preach here
if I would let you; but I shall take such order as you shall do
no more mischief.
This threatening made Mr. Keach and some of his friends, who
were unacquainted with the law of the case, fear that he
intended to have him hanged.
Keach, I did not write all the book, for there is an epistle
written to it by another hand; neither can it be proved that I
wrote all that is put in the indictment.
Judge. It is all one, whether you wrote it yourself, or dictated
to another that wrote it; but it appears by your examination
under your own hand that you wrote it all.
Keach. Because I wrote the greater part of it, I was content to
let it go with the word all in my examination before Justice
Stratford; but I cannot in conscience say that I wrote it all,
nor is it proved that I published it.
Judge. Yes, for Moody had six books of you.
Keach. I did neither sell them, nor
deliver them to him.
Judge. He had them at your house, and it is not likely that he
should take them without your consent.
Keach. I do not say that he had them without my consent.
Judge. It is all one, then.
Some few more words passed; but Mr. Keach not being permitted to
answer all the particulars charged upon him, was content not to
require more proof of his being the author of the book.
The judge then summed up the evidence, and gave his charge to
the jury; wherein he endeavoured to incense them against the
prisoner, as he had done before in his charge to the grand jury.
The jury having received their charge, withdrew, and staid for
some hours. At length one of the bailiffs who attended them came
and told the judge that the jury could not agree.
But, said the judge, they must agree. The bailiff replied, that
they desired to know whether one of them might not speak to his
worship about something whereof they were in doubt. Yes
privately, said the judge; and ordered that one should come to
him on the bench. When the officer had fetched one of them, the
juryman was set upon the clerk’s table, and the judge and he
whispered a great while; and it was observed that the judge
having his hands upon his shoulders would frequently shake him
as he spake to him.
Upon the person returning, the whole jury quickly came in; and
being according to custom called over by their names, the clerk
proceeded.
Clerk. How say you? Is Benjamin Keach guilty of the matter
contained in the indictment against him, or not guilty?
Foreman. Guilty in part.
Clerk. Of what part?
Foreman. In the indictment he is charged with these words: When
the thousand years shall be expired, then shall all the rest of
the devils be raised: but in the book it is, “then shall the
rest of the dead be raised.”
Clerk. Is he guilty of the indictment, that sentence excepted?
One of the jurymen said, I cannot in conscience find him guilty,
because the words in the indictment and the book do not agree.
Judge. That is only through a mistake of
the clerk, and in that one sentence only. You may find him
guilty of all, that sentence excepted: but why did you come in
before you were agreed?
Foreman. We thought we had been agreed.
Judge. You must go out again and agree. And as for you that say
you cannot in conscience find him guilty, if you say so again
without giving reason for it, I shall take an order with you.
Then the jury withdrew, and in a little time returned again and
brought in this verdict; that he was guilty of the indictment,
that sentence wherein devils is inserted instead of dead only
excepted.
Mr. Keach was called to the bar, and the judge proceeded and
passed sentence as follows.
Judge. Benjamin Keach, you are here convicted for writing,
printing, and publishing a seditious and schismatical book, for
which the court’s judgment is this, and the court doth award.
That you shall go to gaol for a fortnight without bail or
mainprize; and the next Saturday to stand upon the pillory at
Aylesbury in the open market, from eleven o’clock till one, with
a paper upon your head with this inscription: For writing,
printing , and publishing a schismatical book , entitled, The
Child’s Instructor or a New and Easy Primmer. And the next
Thursday, to stand, in the same manner and for the same time, in
the market at Winslow; and then your book shall be openly burnt
before your face by the common hangman, in disgrace of you and
your doctrine. And you shall forfeit to the king’s majesty the
sum of twenty pounds, and shall remain in gaol until you find
sureties for your good behaviour, and for your appearance at the
next assizes; then to renounce your doctrines, and make such
public submission as shall be enjoined you. Take him away,
keeper!
Keach. I hope I shall never renounce those truths which I have
written in that book.
Clerk. My lord, he says that he shall never repent. The judge
making no answer to this, the goaler took him away.
It is unnecessary to make any remarks on the arbitrary manner in
which this trial was conducted, and on the means by which the
verdict was extorted. The common-prayer book was now the
standard of truth, and was placed upon a level with the statute
law of the kingdom. Surely none could have expected that a
Protestant judge would have sentenced any person to such a
punishment for such conduct. But “the wicked walk on every side
when the vilest of men are exalted,” and therefore it was not
difficult to procure a jury suited to such a purpose.
The attempts made to obtain a pardon, or a
relaxation of this severe sentence, were ineffectual; and the
sheriff took care that every thing should be punctually
performed. He was accordingly kept close prisoner till the
Saturday, and agreeably to his sentence was brought to the
pillory at Aylesbury. Several of his religious friends and
acquaintances accompanied him thither; and when they expressed
their sorrow for his hard case, and the injustice of his
sufferings, he said with a cheerful countenance, The cross is
the way to the crown. His head and hands were no sooner fixed in
the pillory, but he began to address himself to the spectators
to this effect. — Good people, I am not ashamed to stand here
this day, with this paper on my head. My Lord Jesus was not
ashamed to suffer on the cross for me; and it is for his cause
that I am made a gazing-stock. Take notice, it is not for any
wickedness that I stand here; but for writing and publishing his
truths, which the Spirit of the Lord hath revealed in the holy
scriptures.
A clergyman who stood by could not forbear interrupting him, and
said, It is for writing and publishing errors; and you may now
see what your errors have brought you to.
Mr. Keach replied, Sir, can you prove them errors? But before
the clergyman could return an answer, he was attacked by some of
the people, who told him of his being “pulled drunk out of a
ditch.” Another upbraided him with having been found “drunk
under a haycock.” Upon this the people, turning their attention
from the sufferer in the pillory, laughed at the drunken priest,
insomuch that he hastened away with the utmost disgrace and
shame.
After the noise of this was over, the prisoner began to speak
again, saying, It is no new thing for the servants of the Lord
to suffer and be made a gazing-stock; and you that are
acquainted with the scriptures know that the way to the crown is
by the cross. The apostle saith, “that through much tribulation
we must enter into the kingdom of heaven;” and Christ saith, “He
that is ashamed of me and of my words, in an adulterous and
sinful generation, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed,
before the Father, and before the holy angels.” But he was
frequently interrupted by the goaler, who told him that he must
not speak; and that if he would not be silent, he must force him
to it. After he had stood some time silent, getting one of his
hands at liberty, he pulled his bible out of his pocket, and
held it up to the people; saying, take notice, that the things
which I have written and published, and for which I stand here
this day a spectacle to angels and to men, are all contained in
this book, as I could prove out of the same, if I had
opportunity.
The goaler again interrupted him, and with great anger enquired
who gave him the book. Some said that his wife gave it him. The
good woman stood near him all the time of his being in the
pillory, and frequently spoke in vindication of the principles for which he suffered. But
Mr. Keach said that he took it out of his pocket. The goaler
then took it from him, and fastened up his hand again. It was
impossible however to keep him from speaking, for he began again
and spoke as follows.
“It seems that I cannot be suffered to speak to the cause for
which I stand here; neither could I be suffered to speak the
other day; but it will plead its own innocency, when the
strongest of its opposers shall be ashamed. I do not speak this
out of prejudice to any person, but do sincerely desire that the
Lord would convert them and convince them of their errors, that
their souls may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Good
people, the concernment of souls is very great, so that Christ
died for them; and truly a concernment for souls was that which
moved me to write and publish those things for which I now
suffer, and for which I could suffer far greater things than
these. It concern you therefore to be very careful, otherwise it
will be very sad with you at the revelation of the Lord Jesus
from heaven, for we must all appear before his tribunal. Here he
was again interrupted, and forced to be silent a considerable
time; but at length he ventured to speak again. “I hope (said
he) the Lord’s people will not be discouraged at my suffering.
Oh, did you but experience the great love of God, and the
excellencies that are in him, it would make you willing to go
through any sufferings for his sake. And I do account this the
greatest honour that ever the Lord was pleased to confer upon
me.”
After this he was not able to speak much more, for the sheriff
came in great rage, and said, if he would not be silent he
should be gagged; and the officers were ordered to keep the
people at a greater distance front him, though they declared
they could not do it. After a long silence he ventured to speak
again. “This said he is one yoke of Christ’s, which I experience
is easy to me, and a burden which he doth make light.” Finding
he could not be allowed to speak, he kept silence until the two
hours were expired, except uttering this sentence: “Blessed are
they that are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.” When the full time according to his
sentence was ended, the under keeper lifted up the board of the
pillory; and as soon as his head and hands were at liberty, he
blessed God with a loud voice for his great goodness towards
him!
On the Saturday following he stood in the same manner and for
the same time at Winslow, the town where he lived, and had his
hook burnt before him according to the sentence.
Crosby says he was not able to obtain any particulars of this
good man’s behaviour at Winslow, and for the account here given
he was indebted to a person who was present, and who wrote the
relation on the spot. This person remarked several things which
proved the malice of his persecutors; as that he stood in the
pillory two hours to the minute, which was a more strict
execution
of the sentence than he ever witnessed
either in town or country. That others always bad their hands at
liberty; but Mr. Keach’s were carefully kept in the holes almost
all the time, which must have made his sufferings the more
painful. Thus, said he, judgment is turned away backward, and
justice standeth afar off, for truth is fallen in the streets,
and equity cannot enter. He that departeth from evil maketh
himself a prey; and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that
there was no judgment.
In this year 1664, an at was passed for suppressing “seditious
conventicles.” The preamble sets forth that the sectaries under
pretence of tender consciences, at their meetings had contrived
insurrections; and the act declares the 35th of Elizabeth to be
in full force, which condemns all persons refusing peremptorily
to come to church, after conviction, to banishment, and in case
of return, to death without benefit of clergy. It enacts
further, that if any person above the age of sixteen, after July
1st 1664, shall be present at any meeting under colour or
pretence of any exercise of religion in other manner than is
allowed by the liturgy or practice of the church of England,
where shall be five or more persons than the household, shall
for the first offence, upon record made upon oath under the hand
and seal of a justice of peace, suffer three months
imprisonment, or pay a sum not exceeding five pounds; for the
second offence, six months imprisonment, or ten pounds; and for
the third offence, banishment to some of the American
plantations for seven years.
This was a terrible scourge to the laity, put into the hands of
a single magistrate without the verdict of a jury, the oath of
the informer being deemed sufficient. Before this act took
place, the people were courageous, and exhorted their ministers
to preach till they went to prison; but when it came home to
themselves, and they had been once in goal, they began to be
cautious, and consulted among themselves how to avoid the edge
of the law in the best manner they could. For this purpose their
assemblies were frequently held at midnight, and in the most
private places; yet not-withstanding all their caution, they
were frequently disturbed: but it is remarkable that under all
their hardships they never made the least resistance, but went
quietly along with the soldiers or officers when they could not
fly from them. The distress of so many families induced some to
confine themselves within their own houses; some removed to the
plantations; and others had recourse to occasional conformity,
to avoid the penalty for not coming to church. The Independents,
Baptists, and Quakers, declined the practice; for they said, if
persecution was the mark of a false church, it must be
absolutely wrong to join with one that was so notoriously
guilty.
While these oppressive measures were pursued, and the nation in
general was immersed in vice and irreligion, London was visited
by the plague, which at that time is said to have been the most
dreadful within the memory of man. It was preceded by an unusual drought: the
meadows were parched and dried up like the highways, insomuch
that there was no food for the cattle, which occasioned a
murrain among them. The plague was so dreadful in the city and
suburbs that eight or ten thousand died in a week. The richer
inhabitants fled to the remoter counties; but the calamities of
those who were left behind, and of the poorer sort are not to be
described. Trade was at a full stand; all commerce between town
and country was entirely cut off, and nobody would receive their
wares. The country housekeepers and farmers durst not receive
their city friends or relations till they had performed
quarantine in the fields or out houses. If a stranger passed
through the neighbourhood, they fled from him as from an enemy.
In London the shops and houses were quite shut up, and many of
them marked with a red cross and an inscription over the door,
“Lord have mercy upon us!” Grass grew in the streets; and every
night the bell-man went his rounds with a cart, crying, Bring
out your dead! The number of those who died of the pestilence in
London only, amounted to about one hundred thousand: how many
died of it in other parts of the kingdom, where it also raged
for nearly a year, cannot be ascertained.
The greatest part of the established clergy fled, and deserted
their parishes at a time when their assistance was most wanted;
but some of the ejected ministers ventured to preach in the
vacant pulpits, imagining that so extraordinary a case would
justify their disregard of the penal laws. The ministers who
ventured on this undertaking were Mr. Thomas Vincent, Mr.
Chester, Mr. Turner, Mr.
Grimes, Mr. Franklin, and others. The face of death, and the
arrows that flew among the people in darkness and at noon-day,
awakened both preachers and hearers. Many who were at public
worship one day were thrown into their graves the next. The cry
of great numbers was, what shall we do to he saved! Such an
awful time England never before saw.
But it will amaze all posterity, says Neal, that in a time both
of war and of the plague, and when the nonconformist ministers
were hazarding their lives in the service of the poor distressed
congregations of London, the prime minister, Lord Clarendon, and
his creatures, instead of mourning for the sins of the nation
and meditating a reformation of manners, should pour out all
their vengeance upon the nonconformists in order to make their
condition insufferable!
On October the 31st 1665, an act to restrain the Non-conformists
from inhabiting corporations received the royal assent. This was
called the Oxford or Five-mile Act, because it prohibited any
minister from coming within five miles of any city or
corporation, under very severe penalties, unless they would take
the following oath.
“I, A. B. do solemnly declare, that it is
not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms
against the king; and that I do abhor the traitorous position of
taking arms by his authority against his person, or against
those that are commissioned by him, in pursuance of such
commission. And I do swear that I will not at any time to come
endeavour the alteration of the government, either in church or
state. So help me, God.”
The great body of nonconformist ministers refused this oath,
choosing rather to leave their habitations, their relations and
friends, and all visible support, than destroy the peace of
their consciences. Those ministers who had some little estate or
substance of their own, retired to some remote or obscure
villages, or such little market towns as were not corporations,
and more than five miles from the places where they had
preached: but in many counties it was difficult to find such
places of retirement, for either there were no houses
untenanted, or they were annexed to farms which the minister
would not occupy; or the people were afraid to admit them into
their houses, lest they should be suspected as favourers of
nonconformity.
The sufferings of the dissenters were incredibly great at this
period; yet very few of the ministers conformed, and the body of
the dissenters remained stedfast to their principles; and the
church, says Mr. Baxter, gained neither reputation nor numbers.
“But as if the judgment of heaven (says Neal) upon this nation
were not heavy enough, nor the legislature sufficiently severe,
the bishops must now throw their weight into the scale. For in
the very midst of the plague, July the 7th 1665, Archbishop
Sheldon sent orders to the several bishops of his province to
make a return of the names of all ejected nonconformist
ministers, with their places of abode and manner of life; and
the returns of the several bishops are still kept in the Lambeth
library. The design of this scrutiny was to gird the laws closer
upon the dissenters, and to know by what means they got their
bread; and if this tender-hearted archbishop could have had his
will, they must have starved, or gone into foreign countries for
a livelihood.”
In addition to the terrible calamities of the war and plague, it
pleased God this year to suffer the city of London to be laid in
ashes by a dreadful conflagration, which began September the 26,
1666, in Pudding-lane, behind the place where the monument now
stands. Within three or four days, thirteen thousand and two
hundred dwelling houses were consumed, besides eighty-nine
churches; among which was the cathedral of St. Paul’s, many
public structures, schools, libraries, and stately edifices.
Multitudes of people lost their estates, their goods and
merchandize, and some few their lives. The King, the Duke of
York, and many of the nobility were spectators of the
desolation, till at length it ceased almost as wonderfully as it
began.
The next year was memorable for the fall
of the persecuting. Lord Clarendon, lord high chancellor of
Great Britain, who had rendered himself obnoxious by his
magisterial airs towards are king. He was impeached at the bar
of the house of lords, in the name of all the commons of
England, of high treason, for sundry arbitrary and tyrannical
proceedings contrary to law, by which be had acquired a greater
estate than could be honestly procured at such a time. The earl,
not daring to abide the storm, withdrew to France — leaving a
paper behind him in which he denied almost every article of the
charge; but the parliament voted it scandalous, and ordered it
to be burnt by the common hangman; and he was banished the
king’s dominions for life. Thus the measure he meted to others
was meted to him again. Little did he think, when he passed
sentence on Benjamin Keach that in less than four years a
sentence equally painful, and indeed far more so owing to its
being just, would be passed on himself, and executed with as
great rigour, and with as unrelenting severity. |
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Preface
The Divine Right of Infant
Baptism Examined and Disproved
Chapter I
A.D. 45 - 1180
Chapter II
A.D. 1180 - 1547
Chapter III
A.D. 1540 - 1602
Chapter IV
A.D. 1602 - 1625
Chapter V
A.D. 1625 - 1640
Chapter VI
A.D. 1640 - 1653
Chapter VII
A.D. 1653 - 1660
Chapter VIII
A.D. 1660 - 1667
Chapter IX
A.D. 1667 - 1685
Chapter X
A.D. 1685 - 1700
Notes
Also:
An Historical Sketch of the English Baptists
William Cathcart
|