the North of England, "with whom," he says, "I had union in Spirit before I saw their faces." It was in this journey that he visited George Fox in Carlisle jail. George's account of him is: “J. Parnel, a little lad, about sixteen years of age, came to see me, and was convinced. The Lord quickly made him a powerful Minister of the Word of Life, and many were turned to Christ by him." By this it appears that the people to whom he had joined himself near Retford, were not of the people called Quakers, but probably Seekers, many of whom became united to Friends.

In the year 1655, he was concerned to visit a serious people about fifteen miles south from Retford, and when there, his mind was drawn to proceed to Cambridge, where he published two papers, one against corrupt ministers, and the other against corrupt magistrates, for which he was committed to prison. He was confined here during two sessions, and afterwards sent out of the town with a pass as a rogue and vagabond; but a justice of the peace who was sensible of his innocence, followed him and took the pass back to Cambridge. Not long after James returned there, and engaged in a dispute with the Baptists of that place, which appears to have been productive of little benefit. In departing

1

rude

from this public dispute, he received very treatment from the scholars of the University, from whom he escaped with much difficulty.

He continued in Cambridgeshire about half a year, and then went into Essex. In both counties he met with much opposition, but many were convinced by his ministry. Among the rest was Stephen Crisp of Colchester, who was afterwards a very useful member and able minister in the Society. In this town James spent about ten days at this time, preaching in one day first at his own lodgings, next, after the service in one of the public places of worship, and afterwards in a large meeting appointed for him. After all this he disputed publicly with two priests in the French School. Many thousands of people were this day partakers of his gospel labours, "in all which," according to Stephen Crisp, "the wisdom, power, and patience of Christ appeared very gloriously; to the convincing,” adds Stephen, "myself and many more, who were witnesses of that day's work." Stephen Crisp's account of his services in Colchester is so descriptive and impressive, that I cannot well forbear continuing his narrative: "He spent that week in preaching, praying, exhorting, and admonishing, turning the minds of all sorts of professors to the light of Jesus, which did search

their hearts and show their thoughts, that they might believe therein, and so might become children of the light. Many did believe, and found it so. Others were hardened and rebelled against the appearance of truth, and became enemies, with whom he disputed daily in great soundness, and in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit; by which also many were reached and convinced of the truth, and the mouths of gainsayers stopped. This made many gnash their teeth on him, and some undertook to club out the priest's and professor's arguments, by beating this dear lamb with fists and staves, who took all patiently, particularly one who struck him with a great staff as he came out of one of the steeple houses and said: There, take that for Jesus Christ's sake;' to which he returned this answer: ' Friend, I do receive it for Jesus Christ's sake.' Many other intolerable affronts were offered him, in all which his spirit was not seen to be raised in heat or anger, but was a pattern of patience and meekness."

From Colchester he went to Coggeshall, where he had been before. A fast was appointed by the Independents, who were now the ruling party in Church and State. The object of it was to pray against the spreading of error; by which it ap

pears they meant the doctrines of the Quakers. But they were not content with praying; a sermon must also be preached, in which that people were bitterly inveighed against, and much misrepresented. This roused the zeal of James Parnel, who was present; and when the priest had finished, he commenced a reply to the reflections which had been cast upon his friends, with observing: "This is the order of the true church, that all may speak one by one; and if any thing be revealed to him that stands by, let the first hold his peace." As he proceeded in his discourse he was interrupted, and some dispute ensued, after which he left the place; but he was followed by a justice of the peace, who arrested him in the name of the Protector, and committed him to Colchester castle. Here he was closely confined, and the jailers forbidden to permit his friends to visit him.

In the course of a few weeks he was removed to Chelmsford, to take his trial at the assizes there. He and five criminals were chained together, and in this degrading manner was this innocent youth led through the country above twenty miles. When he arrived at Chelmsford, the prisoners were not immediately separated, but continued chained together night and day for some time.

When the assizes came on, he was brought into court handcuffed; but the people expressing their dissatisfaction with this act of cruelty, he was remanded to prison, and at his second ap pearance his manacles were taken off. When he was on his trial, the indictment was read, the substance of which was, that in a riotous manner he entered the parish church of Great Coggeshall; that he stood up there, and told the minister he blasphemed and spoke falsely; and that he could not give a good account where he was last settled, or of his life and conversation, appearing to be an idle person. To this he pleaded not guilty. A priest and two justices appeared in evidence against him, who it seems were not very correct in their evidence, and when James endeavoured to speak to the jury in his own de fence, the judge would not permit him, and in other respects acted very improperly, suffering his accusers to stand on the bench, whispering to him, and incensing his mind against the pri

soner.

The judge also endeavoured to influence the jury in a very partial manner. However, when the jury gave in their verdict, they found him guilty of only publishing a paper which he had written in answer to his mittimus, and signed with his name; but of that part of the indictment, which only was