Eklablog Tous les blogs
Editer l'article Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
MENU

Publicité

Best Paul


Long Parlement

Best Paul

  

Best Paul was charged, at the bar of the House of Commons, during the Long Parliament, with having applied the most profane epithets to the doctrine of the Trinity, in certain manuscripts, which were found in his possession ; calling it a mystery of iniquity, a three-headed monster, a figment, a tradition of Rome, monstrum biforme and triforme, and using, in reference to it, other expressions of a similar nature. For this he was committed to the GateHouse ; and would in all probability have suffered death, if he had not explained away the offensive words. But on making some verbal concessions to the persons appointed to confer with him on the subject, his trial was adjourned, and it is supposed that he was at length discharged. The fullest printed account of the proceedings against him, which has reached our times, is to be found in "locke's "Memorials of the English Affairs during the Reign of Charles I." They extended over a period of several months, and were the cause of much anxiety and embarrassment to the House of Commons, and the Assembly of Divines. The following is the first allusion to his case by locke.  

Jan. 28, 1641. "The day of the Monthly Fast ; in the Evening the House met, and heard from the Committee of Plundered Ministers, of the blasphemies of one Paul Best, who denied the Trinity of the Godhead, and the Deity of Christ, and the Holy Ghost ; the House ordered him to be kept close Prisoner, and an Ordinance to be brought in to punish him with death." (Mem., &c. p. 198.) It is probable that this Ordinance was never passed; for the Assembly of Divines, in their sanguinary attempt against Biddle, found it necessary to "solicite the Parliament, and procure aDraconick Ordinance, (May 2, 1648,) for inflicting the punishment of death upon those, that held opinions contrary to the Presbyterian points, about the Trinity and other doctrines, whom they named blasphemers and hereticks." We have no proof that this order of the House was carried into effect ; but whether it was or not, there are few instances of legislative enormity, which exceed this design of the Long Parliament to destroy a prisoner by an ex-post-facto law well as the false Prophet?' The answer was, 'Christ in the Gospel had moderated things ;  Adultery was death under the Old Law, and yet Christ let the woman go away taken in Adultery; and so it was in this case.' One of these Citizens told me also, he spake of these things to another Independent Minister, who made answer to the same purpose,'That the Magistrate might not punish such;' adding, 'The Magistrate had nothing to do in matters of Religion, but in Civil things onely."' (Gangraena, P. i. Letters, &c. p. 46.) This conversation appears to have taken place about six weeks before the case of Paul Best was brought before the House, in the Report of the Committee of Plundered Ministers ; and the following, related also by the author of "Gangraena," probably happened within less than a fortnight after some members of the House were appointed to confer with him, and convince him of his errors. 

The following are other entries made by locke, in reference to the case of Paul Best.

Feb. 16. "The Committee of Plundered Ministers ordered to draw up an Ordinance for punishing Paul Best for his Blasphemies." (P. 198.)

March 28. "Debate of the Blasphemies of Paul Best. Divines ordered to confer with him, to convince him of his Sin, and that a charge be preferred against him." (P. 204.)

April 3, 1646. "Paul Best brought to the Bar, heard his Charge, and by his Answer confest the Trinity, and that he hoped to be saved thereby ; but denyed the three Persons as a Jesuitical Tenent. A day was set to determine this business, and in the mean time some of the Members of the House appointed to confer with Best, to convince him of his Errors." (P. 205.)

It is probable, that the public sympathy was excited in his favour, and that he found friends among the more liberal section of the Independents, who interested themselves on his behalf, and rescued him from the gripe of those, who were thirsting for his blood. "Two well affected Citizens," says Thomas Edwards, "related to me Dec. 18, That speaking with an Independent Minister in this City of Paul Bests damnable Doctrines against the Trinity, and of his Blasphemies for which he was imprisoned: He answered, ' This Imprisonment would do no good at all.' It was replied,'What if this Best, or any Arrian would gather a Church, and vent his Opinions, shall the Magistrate suffer them? What must be done in this case ? The Minister answered, 'Cause him to sweat with Arguments; but there was no Authoritative power under the Gospel to remedy it.' These Citizens objected that in the 13 of Deuteronomy, 'Whether such a man should not be punished as

"A person of qualitie and a godly man told me (April 15) meeting me accidentally in Westminster Hall, that (saith he) just now, neere the House of Commons doore, I had discourse with a great Sectarie (viz. one of Wrights Disciples, and presently the man came into the Hall with another great Sectarie, and he shewed me him); and the discourse was as followes,' That he would be loth the Parliament should bring Paul Bests bloud upon them for his denying the Trinitie.' Whereupon this Gentleman answered him, that he could prove cleerly out of the Scriptures a Trinitie of Persons. Unto whom this Sectarie replied, 'How will you prove the Scriptures to be the word of God?' and this Sectarie reasoned against them, saying, 'there were twenty severall Scriptures, as many as Translations, and Translations are not true ; for so the Priests will tell us, that this is not rightly translated: and for the Originals there are divers Copies ; besides, I cannot understand them, neither is it my fault that I do not: In sum, the man reasoned there was no Religion at all in the Kingdome, but all Religion he knew of was, To do justly, and be mercifull. Unto which the Gentleman replyed, 'The Heathen they were just and merciful, and therein did as much as you.' This Sectarie re-joyned, 'For ought he knew, the Heathens were saved as well as any now."' (Pt. ii. p. 123.) 

Edwards published the Second Part of his " Gangraena" in the year 1646 ; and from the following passage it would seem, that Paul Best was then in prison, awaiting his sentence from the House of Commons. "In the case of Paul Best, whilst it is before the House of Commons, and under debate, comes out a Pamphlet censuring their proceedings against him, as fearing what the sentence may be ; in asserting the possibilitie of an Heretikes repentance so long as hee lives, and such as do any wayes cause him to die in heresie, as much as in them lyes, do effectually damn him eternally: and consequently, that Paul Best, (whatever his errour be at present,) as well as Paul the Apostle, once a Blasphemer, may one day become a Convert, if he be not untimely starved to death beforehand." (P. 129.)

"The Sectaries generally," says Edwards in another place, (p. 11,) "cannot endure any man who speaks against, or complains to Authority of any who broach Errours (though never so great) as for example, a godly understanding Christian told me within these three dayes, that because he complained of a man who denies both the Son and the Holy Ghost to be God, therefore the Independents and all the Sectaries among whom he lives deadly hate and revile him ; and since the time that the weekly newes Books have mentioned a Vote to be passed in the House of Commons for drawing up an Ordinance against Paul Best, that Antitrinitarian and Blasphemer, some of the Sectaries have spoken boldly and bitterly against it, saying they would be loth to be any of them that should give a voice, or have a hand in the proceedings against him, with other words to that effect." 

The only additional entry which locke makes, after this time, respecting the case of Paul Best, is dated July 24th, 1647 ; and from this it appears, that a parliamentary order was at length issued, to burn, not the man himself, but one of his pamphlets, and to punish the printers. (P. 263.) Here contemporaneous records, as far as they have yet come to light, fail us. At first an Ordinance is to be brought in forthwith, to punish the delinquent with death: on second thoughts, however, an Ordinance is to be drawn up by a Committee for punishing him, but the nature of the punishment is left to the discretion of the Committee: after this, some Divines are directed to confer with him, for the purpose of convincing him of his sin, and a charge of some kind is to be preferred against him, as the result of this conference: then he is summoned to the bar of the House of Commons to hear the charge, and returns an evasive answer, having probably been given to understand, that the House would be satisfied with an apology: lastly, the House fixes a day for bringing the matter to a conclusion, but that day never comes. In the mean time, however, a deputation of Members, (not, as before, of Divines,) is ordered to confer with him, and convince him of his errors ; and after an interval of more than fifteen months, during which he has probably been languishing in prison, there appears a parliamentary "Order to burn a Pamphlet of Paul Best's, and the Printers to be punished." But what became of the author is unknown to this hour. Possibly the Rev. Joseph Hunter, who is in possession of some curious documents relating to this interesting case of Protestant perse cution, may some day give them to the public ; and thus clear up the mystery which still hangs over the fate of Paul Best.

 

(Vidend. Edwards's Gangrajna, Pt. i. pp. 32, 33 ; Letters, &c. p. 46; Pt. ii. pp. 123. 129. NeaTs Hist, of the Puritans, Vol. III. p. 315. HorniiHist . Eccles. pp. 634. 644. locke's Memorials, Ed. 1682, l . c. Mon. Repos. Vol . VIII. (1813) p. 109.)

 

 
 Didier Le Roux
 
Retourpage d'accueil
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Le Roux Didier- Unitariens - © Since 2006 -  All rights reserved " No reproduction, even partial, other than those planned in the article L 122-5 of the code of the intellectual property, can be made by this site without the express authorization of the author ".

 
Publicité
Retour à l'accueil
Partager cet article
Repost0
Pour être informé des derniers articles, inscrivez vous :
Commenter cet article