That James Nayler be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, in the Palace-yard, Westminster, during the space of two hours, on Thursday next, and be whipped by the hangman through the streets, from Westminster to the Old Exchange, London; and there likewise be set on the pillory, with his head in the pillory, for the space of two hours, between the hours of eleven and one, on Saturday next, in each place wearing a paper containing an inscription of his crimes; and that at the Old Exchange his tongue be bored through with a hot iron, and that he be there also stigmatized in the forehead with the letter B.; and that he be afterwards sent to Bristol, and be conveyed into, and through the said city on horseback, with his face backward, and there also publicly whipped the next market-day after he comes thither; and that from thence he be committed to prison in Bridewell, London, and there restrained from the society of all people, and there to labour hard till he shall be released by parliament; and during that time he be debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and shall have no relief but what he earns by his daily labour.
They were long ere they could agree on the sentence; for suppose there was blasphemy committed, yet his tongue seemed not properly guilty of it, since it was not proved that blasphemous words had been spoken by him.[14] Many thought it to be indeed a very severe judgment to be executed upon one whose crime seemed to proceed more from a clouded understanding, than any wilful intention of evil.
[14] At Lancaster sessions the priest got some to swear blasphemy against G. Fox, (which was the common accusation in those days,) but he was cleared, and the priests, &c. were enraged, who thereupon sent a petition to the council of state, against G. F. and J. N. who answered the same in a book called, ‘Saul’s Errand to Damascus.’ After this, J. N. was persecuted in divers places, beaten, stoned, and cruelly used by the priests and their rude followers, and in danger of his life. Afterward, by the instigation of the priest, he and F. Howgill were committed to Appleby jail, and tried on an indictment for blasphemy, for saying Christ was in him, according to Col. i. 27. “Christ in you the hope of glory.” He was also another time charged with blasphemy, for asserting in a book, ‘Justification by the gift of God’s Righteousness,’ which he proved from Rom. v. and so stopped their mouths, and cleared himself: by which we may see what that generation, who were righteous in their own eyes, would have made blasphemy.—J. Whiting’s account.
Now although several persons of different persuasions, being moved with compassion towards Nayler, as a man carried away by foolish imaginations, had offered petitions to the parliament on his behalf, yet it was resolved not to read them, till the sentence was pronounced against him.
There lived then at London, one Robert Rich, a merchant, (a very bold man,) who writ a letter to the parliament, wherein he showed what was blasphemy; and on the 15th of December, several copies thereof were delivered to particular members; and in that which was given to the speaker, these words were written at the bottom, ‘If I may have liberty of those that sit in parliament, I do here attend at their door, and am ready, out of the Scriptures of Truth, to show, that not any thing J. Nayler hath said or done, is blasphemy,’ &c.
The parliament after judgment was concluded, resolved that the speaker should be authorized to issue his warrants to the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the sheriff of Bristol, and governor of Bridewell, to see the said judgment put in execution. By some it was questioned whether that was a sufficient warrant, unless the protector concurred in the matter; but he seemed unwilling to meddle with it. The thing being thus far agreed upon, J. Nayler was brought up to the bar; and when the speaker, sir Thomas Waddrington, was about to pronounce the aforementioned sentence, Nayler said he did not know his offence. To which the speaker returned, he should know his offence by his punishment. After sentence was pronounced, though J. Nayler bore the same with great patience, yet it seemed he would have spoken something, but was denied liberty; nevertheless was heard to say, with a composed mind, ‘I pray God, he may not lay it to your charge.’
The 18th of December, J. Nayler suffered part of the sentence; and after having stood full two hours with his head in the pillory, was stripped, and whipt at a cart’s tail, from Palace-yard to the Old Exchange, and received three hundred and ten stripes; and the executioner would have given him one more, (as he confessed to the sheriff,) there being three hundred and eleven kennels, but his foot slipping, the stroke fell upon his own hand, which hurt him much. All this Nayler bore with so much patience and quietness, that it astonished many of the beholders, though his body was in a most pitiful condition: he was also much hurt with horses treading on his feet, whereon the print of the nails were seen. Rebecca Travers, a grave person, who washed his wounds, in a certificate which was presented to the parliament, and afterwards printed, says, ‘There was not the space of a man’s nail free from stripes and blood, from his shoulders, near to his waist, his right arm sorely striped, his hands much hurt with cords, that they bled, and were swelled: the blood and wounds of his back did very little appear at first sight, by reason of abundance of dirt that covered them, till it was washed off.’ Nay, his punishment was so severe, that some judged his sentence would have been more mild, if it had been present death: and it seemed indeed that there was a party, who not being able to prevail so far in parliament as to have him sentenced to death, yet strove to the utmost of their power to make him sink under the weight of his punishment: for the 20th December was the time appointed for executing the other part of the sentence, viz. boring through his tongue, and stigmatizing in his forehead; but by reason of the most cruel whipping, he was brought to such a low ebb, that many persons of note, moved with compassion, presented petitions to the parliament on his behalf, who respited his further punishment for one week.
During this interval, several persons presented another petition, in which are these words:
‘Your moderation and clemency in respiting the punishment of J. Nayler, in consideration of his illness of body, hath refreshed the hearts of many thousands in these cities, altogether unconcerned in his practice; wherefore we most humbly beg your pardon that are constrained to appear before you in such a suit, (not daring to do otherwise,) that you would remit the remaining part of your sentence against the said J. Nayler, leaving him to the Lord, and to such gospel remedies as he hath sanctified; and we are persuaded you will find such a course of love and forbearance more effectual to reclaim; and will leave a seal of your love and tenderness upon our spirits,