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,
And we shall pray,’ &c.
This petition being presented at the bar of the house by about one hundred persons, on the behalf of the whole, was accordingly read and debated by them; but not being likely to produce the desired effect, the petitioners thought themselves in duty and conscience bound to address the protector, for remitting the remaining part of the sentence; who, thereupon, sent a letter to the parliament, which occasioned some debate in the house. But the day for executing the remaining part of the sentence drawing near, the petitioners made a second address to the protector. It was, indeed, very remarkable, that so many inhabitants that were not of the society of those called Quakers, showed themselves so much concerned in this business; but to me it seems to have proceeded merely from compassion towards the person of J. Nayler; whom they regarded as one that was rather fallen into error, through inconsiderateness, than to have been guilty of wilful blasphemy: for then he would not have deserved so much pity.
But, notwithstanding all these humble petitions, the public preachers, it seems, prevailed so much with Cromwell, that he could not resolve to put a stop to the intended execution; for five of these ministers, whom I find named thus, Caryl, Manton, Nye, Griffith, and Reynolds, came on the 24th of December, by order from the parliament, (as it was said,) to Nayler, to speak with him concerning the things for which he was detained; and would not permit either friend or other to be present in the room. A certain impartial or neutral person desired it earnestly, but it was denied him; but coming into the prison, after the conference, he asked Nayler what had been the issue of it, who told him, that he told those ministers, that he saw they had an intent to make him suffer, (though innocent,) as an evil-doer; and therefore had denied any to be present that might be indifferent judges betwixt them and him; and that therefore he should not say any thing, unless what passed was written down, and a copy thereof given him to keep, or left with the jailer, signed by them. This was by them consented to, and so they propounded several questions unto him, and took his answers in writing. He further told, that they asked him if he was sorry for those blasphemies that he was guilty of, and whether he did recant and renounce the same; to which his answer was, ‘What blasphemies, name them?’ but they not being able to instance in any particular, he continued, ‘Would you have me recant and renounce, you know not what?’ Then they asked him whether he did believe there was a Jesus Christ? to which he answered, he did believe there was, and that Jesus had taken up his dwelling in his heart and spirit, and for the testimony of Him he now suffered. Then one of the preachers said, ‘But I believe in a Jesus that never was in any man’s heart:’ to which Nayler returned, he knew no such Christ, for the Christ he witnessed filled heaven and earth, and dwelt in the hearts of the believers. Next they demanded of him why he suffered those women to worship and adore him? to which he replied, ‘Bowing to the creature I deny; but if they beheld the power of Christ, wherever it is, and bow to it, he had nothing by which he might resist that, or gainsay it;’[15] and withal said to the ministers, ‘Have you thus long professed the Scriptures, and do you now stumble at what they hold forth?’ Whereupon they desiring one instance of Scripture wherein such a practice was held forth, he answered, ‘What think you of the Shunamite’s falling down at the feet of Elisha and bowing before him? As also divers others in Scripture spoken of, as of Abigail to David, and that of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel:’ upon which they pausing awhile, said at length, ‘That was but a civil act or acknowledgement:’ to which he returned, ‘So you might interpret the act of those women also, if your eye were not evil, seeing the outward action is one and the same:’ and he perceiving that they were seeking to wrest words from him to their own purpose, said, ‘How soon have you forgot the works of the bishops, who are now found in the same, seeking to ensnare the innocent.’ Whereupon they rose up, and with bitterness of spirit, burnt what they had written before, and so left him with some bemoaning expressions; and when they were departing, he desired of them that the parliament would send him such questions in writing as they desired satisfaction to, and give him leave to return his answers in writing also.
[15] The most that I find in his examination, either in Bristol or London, before the committee of parliament, as published from their report, was, that he owned Christ in him, but never that he was Christ; and that he took the honour given, not as to himself, but to Christ in him; which yet is more than any man ought to receive; for when the beloved disciple, John, fell at the angel’s feet to worship him, he, (though an angel,) said unto him, “See thou do it not, I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus, worship God.” Rev. xix. 10. And if an angel ought not, surely no mortal man ought to receive or accept it, on any pretence whatsoever; though falling down, or kneeling to one another, is too frequently used by some other people, and if it is not to their person, it must be to their function, quality, or character in the church: but that he received it to himself, as a creature, he utterly denied, Trial, p. 15.