In neither case could they meet for worship according to Jewish rites. The establishment of a synagogue or the organization of a community was impossible, and even private prayers could only be indulged in under the cover of the strictest secrecy.

At length a brighter prospect seemed to open out; the Great Rebellion had broken out and proved successful, and the Protestant Dissenters who had formerly inveighed against the persecution of the church and advocated universal toleration were invested with the powers of government. And yet in the moment of their triumph they forgot or repudiated the precepts and maxims which had been so dear to them in the hour of persecution. True it is that the law against heresy was practically repealed by the abolition of the Court of High Commission and the power of temporal punishment formerly exercised by the ecclesiastical courts, but the Parliament claimed the right to itself take cognizance of offences against religion, and in the assertion of this claim, which was not abandoned until the Restoration, inflicted penalties even more severe than those formerly imposed by the Court of High Commission'. It was only with exceptional cases that it could itself deal, and accordingly in May, 1648, it made an Ordinance for punishing Blasphemies and Heresies. The ordinance enumerates eight distinct heresies or errors (including, for example, maintaining that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God and that the New Testament is not the word of God), and provides that persons found guilty of any of them, unless they recant and abjure their errors, shall suffer the pains of death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy; if they recant they are to be imprisoned until they find sureties against a repetition of the offence, but if they repeat the offence after having recanted they are to suffer death as in case of felony without benefit of

1 See the case of Paul Best, who had asserted that Christ was merely and properly a man (Goodwin, II, pp. 252 seq.), and James Nayler (5 State Trials, 801).

clergy. The ordinance also enumerates other errors, which are to be visited with less severe penalties 1. The laws against recusants were not interfered with, but the church services at which attendance was compulsory were to be conducted in accordance with the new Service-book, called the Directory, which had recently been framed by the Westminster Divines; and two ordinances were passed, one in March, 1645, providing that "the Book of Common Prayer shall not be henceforth used, but the Directory for Publique Worship," and the other on the 23rd of August of the same year ordering "the Directorie to be put in execution with penalties for using the book of Common Prayer 2." The penalties were five pounds for the first offence, ten pounds for the second offence, and for the third offence "one whole year's imprisonment without bail or mainprize.” These ordinances gave great satisfaction to the Presbyterians who possessed a majority in the Long Parliament, and who, having destroyed the power of the church were eager to establish their own form of worship and invest themselves with all the powers of the church they had supplanted, including the right to persecute all who held religious opinions different from their own. But this the Independents, who besides having a strong minority in the House, had the preponderating voice in the council of the army, which in those troublous times really governed the land, were bound to dispute. After a prolonged struggle the Independents gained the upper hand, and on December 6, 1648, succeeded with the help of the army in excluding their Presbyterian opponents from all share in the deliberations of the Parliament and the government of the nation. Again the party which had stood for toleration was successful, and the Jews who had long cast anxious eyes upon the growing commerce of England and desired to share it, were not slow to take advantage of so favourable an opportunity. The Council of Mechanics at 1 Scobell, part 1, p. 149.

2 Scobell, part 2, pp. 75 and 97.

Whitehall had at the end of December voted a toleration of all religions whatsoever, "not excepting Turkes nor Papists nor Jews 1." A petition on their behalf was prepared by the Jews of Amsterdam; it was in the name of Johanna Cartwright a widow, and Ebenezer her son, freeborn of England, and resident in the city of Amsterdam, and prayed that the Statute of Banishment made against the Jews might be repealed and that they under the Christian banner of charity and brotherly love, might "be again received and permitted to trade and dwell in this Land as now they do in the Netherlands." The petition was presented to the General Council of the Officers of the Army, under the command of Lord Fairfax, at Whitehall on January 5, 1648, and favourably received with a promise to take it into speedy consideration "when the present more public affairs" were dispatched 2. The present more public affairs were the trial and execution of the king and the settlement of the government, and proved to be of such momentous concern that the petition of the Jews was completely overlooked; at least nothing was done upon it nor was the law altered or relaxed in their favour. And yet a belief was spread abroad that the petition had been granted. A circular was published by the disappointed and defeated Presbyterians entitled "the last damnable Designe of Cromwell and Ireton and their Junto or Caball," in which it is stated that "their real designe is to plunder and disarme the City of London and all the country round about. . . and so sell it (the plunder) in bulk to the Jews,

1 Pragmaticus, Dec. 19-26. The Council of War had also on Christmas Day voted " a Toleration of all religions." History of the Independency,

part 2, p. 50.

The petition was printed and there is a copy of it in the British Museum, King's Pamphlets, E 557, Art. 17, and is reprinted in Hag., Cons. Cases, vol. I, Ap. No. 1. For the whole transaction see the Clarke Papers, vol. II, p. 172; History of the Independency, part 2, pp. 60 and 83; and "A Perfect Diurnal of some passages in Parliament and the daily proceedings of the Army under His Excellency the Lord Fairfax, from Munday the 1 of Janu. till Munday the 8 of Janu. 1648."

I

whom they have lately admitted to set up their banks and magazines of Trade amongst us contrary to an Act of Parliament for their banishment 1." Nor was this belief confined to the political opponents of the dominant faction here, for in the collection of original letters found among the Duke of Ormonde's papers is to be found the following:

"Rouen, March 17, 1649.

"This morning I happened to have some discourse with a Jew that spake English, and asking him how he liked the Parliament and Army of England, now they had revoked the Laws that were made against the Jews; he told me, that nevertheless he thought that there were no such villains in the world as they are, and believed that none of his Religion would ever adventure themselves among such bloody traitors as had murdered their own King2.'

But yet no one at the present time would seriously argue that the readmission of the Jews into England dates from January, 1649, nor should we give more weight to similar expressions which seem to indicate a successful issue to the negotiations conducted by Menasseh Ben Israel some six or seven years later, which in the end proved equally abortive. The ascendency of the Independents lasted till the death of Cromwell in 1658, but during the whole of it, the law was in no way altered to the advantage of the Jews. True, a milder ordinance was passed for the punishment of atheistical, blasphemous and execrable opinions; as for instance maintaining that there is neither heaven nor hell, neither salvation nor damnation, the penalty being six months imprisonment for the first offence and banishment for the second, and if any one returned after being banished he was to suffer as in case of felony without benefit of clergy 3. This ordinance, cruel as it is, is milder than the one passed by the Presbyterians in May, 1684, 1 History of the Independency [4to, 1649], at p. 61.

"Ormonde's Letters, vol. I, p. 233.

See the ordinance of Aug., 1650, cap. 22, given in Scobell, II, p. 124.

for the extreme penalty could only be inflicted in the case of a second offence, but the earlier ordinance was not repealed, and as the offences enumerated by the two enactments were different, both were technically in force at the same time. The advocates of toleration throughout the period of their power showed no disposition to abandon the weapons of persecution:

Et qui nolunt occidere quenquam

Posse volunt.

It may be said on their behalf that the earlier and more cruel ordinance was never put into execution by them, but on the other hand there is no record of its having been enforced by the Presbyterians either, and the later ordinance was undoubtedly acted upon; the proceedings against George Fox, the Quaker, being a well-known instance1.

Though the Independents did not repeal the law relating to blasphemy, they found it necessary to materially amend the laws against recusants. In spite of having obtained the supreme power, they formed, if numbers only were counted, a small if not insignificant minority of the general population. They had as strong objections to the new Directory as to the old Book of Common Prayer, nor could they hope to establish any form of worship which should be both consonant to their own religious ideas and acquiesced in by the other rival sects. Accordingly, shortly after the victory of Dunbar the Parliament passed an Act for the repeal of several clauses in Statutes imposing penalties for not coming to church. It recites that "divers religious and peaceable people, well-affected to the prosperity of the Commonwealth, have not only been molested and imprisoned, but also brought into danger of abjuring their country, or in case of return to suffer death as felons, to the great disquiet and utter ruin of such good and godly people, and to the detriment of the Commonwealth," and repeals all clauses of the Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. cap. 2),

1 Goodwin, vol. IV, p. 309.