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.