A Copy of a Letter written by the Prophet Lodowicke Muggleton to Mr. James Whitehead of Braintree in Essex, bearing date from London, October 18th, 1680. Beginning as following.

Dear friend James Whitehead,

I received your letter dated October 12th, wherein I perceive that the country justices have agreed and drawn up an order for the compelling of all persons to come to their parish church, according to the act made in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

I cannot conceive how the justices of peace in any county have authority and power to put that act in execution in these days, except an act of parliament to authorise them, which no parliament ever did since his Majesty was restored; for that act was at that time made only against the papists, for all protestant episcopal and puritans did go to church generally; there was no Dissenters then as there is now, there was then when this act was made but two denominations, that is to say, papist and protestant; so that act the intent of it was only against the papist, and not against the protestant in the least, and none refused to worship in the protestant churches but the papists; but it is said that this act is in force to dissenters now in regard it stands unrepealed.

In answer to that, As that act is not repealed by parliament, neither hath it been confirmed and put in execution by any act of parliament since the king was restored, so that no justices ought to put it in execution; for this is to be minded, that this act hath been laid aside in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and three or four governments and parliaments have laid that act aside, as in king James's time, and king Charles the first, and the government of that, called the commonwealth, and since king Charles the second was restored, all these governments laid aside that act of Queen

Elizabeth, and made laws of their own for the quiet of the nation, not meddling with that act of Queen Elizabeth, that was made against the papists only. But to satisfy you further, the execution of that act hath been endeavoured by several justices in England and practiced by them, for when I was prisoner in Derby goal there was twelve men of the baptist people in prison, for not paying twelve-pence a Sunday for not going to church, and the justices of that county did commit them to prison for nothing else; because the king had set forth a proclamation suitable to that act, that every person that did not come to church every Sunday, should pay twelve-pence; but it was alledged before judge Tyrrell that the Baptists some of them should say, that the king's proclamation was no law; the judge said nothing to that, neither to justify the king's proclaimation nor deny it, but acquitted them without paying any thing for not going to church, only the fees of the prison. After this trial that practice was laid aside by the justices in those parts ever since; several of our friends did pay twelve-pence a week for a while, it did not last long. After this the justices in Cambridgeshire were very hot upon this act of Queen Elizabeth, and made several of our friends and other dissenters to pay twelve-pence a week for not coming to church; our friends did pay it for a while, but the justices not being contented with twelve-pence a week, they proceeded further to another act of Queen Elizabeth, made against the papists, "that if any person were cited into the quarter sessions for not going to church three weeks together, he should pay but 3s. but if he were cited in for not going to church a whole month, then it was 20s. this did our friend Dickenson suffer, and other dissenters, but this did not last long but fell to the ground.

I suppose that the justices of the peace for your county do think and hope that the parliament when it sits, will make an act to establish their order they have

drawn up. This is but a bad time for justices to combine together to force the consciences of three parts of the nation; but it is hoped the parliament hath matters of more consequence and weight for the good of the nation, than to humour the malice of a few justices.And wait patiently a while, and you will see this fall as other things of this nature have done.

Thus I have given you a little light concerning the law, and how justices have acted contrary to law, and many have suffered by unjust men that have made their own wills a law, being backed by authority; and how could the innocent help themselves, but bore down their necks and take the yoke that wicked men have laid upon them. And as for my advice in this thing is this, that if this order to compel all persons that can not bow down to their worship, if it come to be general and take place in the nation, that those of our faith that are able to give twelve-pence a Sunday; rather than let

[The remainder of this letter by some accident torn out.]

A Copy of a Letter written by the Prophet Lodowicke Muggleton to Mr. John Whalley, bearing date, May the 11th, 1681.

Mr. John Whalley,

I received your letter, dated February 12th, 1680, in answer to mine; and I give you thanks that you gave me your answer which causeth me to write this once more unto you, concerning this business.

First, you say that I was misinformed in that you stopped Nurse Holland's legacy for her abusing you; but you say the truth of the matter was, you stopped her legacy, because you found that you lost from your

father's death to that time of what was committed to

her charge more than eight pounds; this, you say, caused you to forbear the payment of her legacy.

Answer. Why did you not then sue her for this at the law? but you sued her at the law for her abusive words to you. And Mrs. Middleton, and she and you together, did ruin the poor woman at the law, and made her spend all her wages she had of the captain and Mrs. Middleton, and you got nothing by it; you two punished her enough for her abusive words, which I blamed her very much for; and though the cause was Mrs. Middleton's yet you did appear in it, so that by the effort there was no great mistake that the legacy was stopped for her abusing you, in that you did not sue her at the law for what you charge her with, but now the case is altered, the legacy is mine, as sure as if it had been given in the will; neither do you know what I and my friends have done, and must do in relieving her in that miserable, poor, and sick condition this long time; so that she could do no less than make that legacy over

to me.

Secondly, you say that your father left his estate so much in debt, in mortgages, bonds, bills and book debts, that it was very little worth more than the legacies have charged it withall, especially if I consider how miserably out of repair he left the house

As for that, I understand, that the greatest part of that money Mr. Cally was engaged for upon them houses, his own house he lived in did pay; for I am informed, you had two hundred pounds fine and ten pounds a year for that house ever since, and that now you have eighty pounds a year coming in for their rents, besides ten pounds a year ground rent to the College, besides your father's goods, plate and jewels, and whatsoever is your son's is in your possession. Which fine and rent this three years and a half, I suppose may defray all mortgages, bills, debts, and legacies, which I conceive cannot be much less than £100, which I suppose you are to pay out of the estate; but what is

this to me, if it were twice as much more I have nothing to do with it, the law hath given you the rule of it, and power to dispose of it, as a man in trust for your own child.

Thirdly, you say, that till the mortgages, bonds, bills and honest debts be paid you cannot lawfully pay her legacy; and if the law do allow it, you say, her legacy shall be the last that shall be paid when the estate is cleared, and you get money over or out of it, which is as much as to say, you will never pay that legacy at all; for who shall know of you when the estate is clear, and when you have money over and above out of the estate, sure no counsel told you that to be law or justice.

Fourthly, you say, if you have paid off debts or legacies, it was to preserve the estate and your father's reputation.

you

What have done of that nature it was to preserve your own interest, and your own child's inheritance; you being executor in trust, else the child and you both might have been disinherited; for there was estate enough left to discharge all things in your father's will to my knowledge; therefore you need not plead your father's reputation, for this I must tell you, I have been an executor myself to houses that have been mortgaged, and legacies given, and debts to pay, and money owing to me besides, yet I have been faithful in my executorship, to pay the mortgages and honest debts that were due, and all the legacies according to the will of the deceased, before I paid my own debt or had received it out of the rents; for this I must tell you, that legacies are to be paid whether we received it out of the rent or no: besides it is a very unjust thing and guilt upon the conscience of man not to fulfil the will of the dead; I have known a woful effect upon one that I knew for not fulfilling the will of the dead.

Fifthly, I make no question but you have paid your own legacy of £50 to yourself, and that you have paid your father's kinswomen's legacy of £30, and that you

E