A
Biography of Thomas Smith
Vicar of Caldecote, Cambs
1650—1661
By Owen Kember
With Appendices on early Quakers in Cambridge
Introduction
Given the ubiquity of the name
throughout England, it is no surprise to find that there have been several
Smiths associated with the church of St Michael and All Angels, Caldecote, a
small parish some 6 miles west of Cambridge. The church, which is reputed to be
on the site of a pagan Saxon shrine and to have been visited (and perhaps
settled) by the conquering Danes c. 875 on their way up the Bourn Brook [see
endnote 1] probably dates from the early thirteenth century. It was held by
Barnwell priory until the Dissolution (1538) and in 1543 the living was given
to Christ's College Cambridge. Hereafter a succession of vicars was appointed
by Christ's College until in November 1650 a certain Thomas Smith was appointed
vicar. Smith's exploits, speeches and writings had a far-reaching significance
not only for Caldecote itself but also for Cambridge and indeed the whole
country.
Early life
The details of Smith's early life
are given by Thomas Peile (in his biographies of fellows of Christ's College)
and also by Venn (in his biographies of Cambridge graduates). From these we
learn that Thomas Smith was born in London in 1624, son of Thomas, and that he
attended St Pauls School for ten years under Mr Gill. On 26 March 1640, aged
16, he was admitted as sizar to Christ's College, Cambridge, with William Moore
(of Caius) standing surety. He held an exhibition from St Pauls School for
1639-43 and 1646-52, and achieved his B.A. in 1643/4. Three years later (in
1647) he gained his M.A.
From
his will (see below) it would seem that his family came from Newborough in
Staffordshire and that he had a sister named Esther (who was still alive in
1660).
Ordained and becomes vicar of
Caldecote
Smith tells us himself that he was
ordained by Bishop John Hall (at some date between 1647 and 1648) and in
November 1650 he became vicar of Caldecote. An entry in the Caldecote Register
(in his own handwriting) on 26 October 1658 confirms this:
Thomas Smith STB Christ's Coll.
Praelector Rhetoricus inductus fuit mense Nov. 1650. Haec scripsi caelebs anno
aetatis meae 34, Anno Christi 1658 Oct. 26, hoc est ipso die quo per singulos
annos Consecratio Templi hui(u)sce celebrari solita.
Tollat
Misericors Deus Schisma heresim Atheismum, Sacrilegium, Da pacem, Domine, in
diebus nostris. Usque quo, bone Deus? Ubi quid datur Oti Illudo chartis.
T.S.
Thomas Smith STB, praelector in
rhetoric at Christ's College (Cambridge) was instituted (as vicar of Caldecote)
in the month of November 1650. I, a bachelor, have written these things in the
thirty-fourth year of my life, in the year of Christ 1658, 26th October, i.e.
on that very day on which the consecration of this holy place has been
accustomed to be celebrated each year.
May
the merciful God raise the schism, heresy, atheism and sacrilege. Grant peace,
O Lord, in our days. Up to what end, O Good Lord? Where a period of leisure is
granted, I (shall) write in the parchments.
T.S.
In fact Thomas Smith followed a
certain George Biker (who was not in orders) to the living at Caldecote (after
the period of the Civil War and Cromwell's action). Biker himself came to the
living after Thomas Sanders (who had been vicar since 1638/9) was ejected from
Caldecote in 1644.
It
would appear that Smith resided at the rectory at Caldecote - the same rectory
which had been seriously damaged by fire in 1604 and probably rebuilt by
Matthew Ward rector of Caldecote from 1608 until his death on 15 March 1638.
This rectory, with its remnants of an earlier monastic life, is still to be
found just to the north of the church, although since 1959 it has been in
private hands.
Early publications
In 1651 Smith's name appears on the
preface of a translation (A Treatise Concerning the Right Use of the
Fathers) of a French work (Traicte de l'employ des Seincts Peres) by
Jean Daille. The preface is dated 1 August 1651 and has the words: "it was
the reading of this rationall book which first convinced me that my study in
the French language was not ill employed, which hath also enabled mee to
commend this to the world, as faithfully translated by a judicious hand".
It would therefore seem that Smith himself did not produce the actual
translation on this occasion. In 1653, however, he does seem to have himself
translated a second work of Daille's, entitled An Apologie for the Reformed
Churches. The preface has the heading "The Judgement of An University-Man,
concerning Mr. Knot's last book against Mr. Chillingworth" and refers to
Knot's Infidelity Unmask'd (Ghent, 1652). In the preface Smith says that the
work "was translated several years since, at the urgency of some learned
friends, whose judgement concerning the acuteness of it, I had more reason to
trust than my own". Smith confides that he had decided to publish it now
because he believed that there had been a dangerous increase in popery in
England and "of whole Parishes fain off to Popery, since the Ministers
have been cast out; and yet many men ask, "WHAT NEED OF A CLERGY?".
Was this a reference, perhaps, to his own parish of Caldecote, where the
minister, Thomas Sanders, had been ejected in 1644 and replaced by George Biker
(not in orders)?
A chance of a post with Lady Shirley
declined
In 1657 Henry Hammond, one of the
survivors of the Tew circle which attempted to define and defend a moderate
rational Anglicanism offered Thomas Smith the position of chaplain and tutor in
the household of Lady Shirley. Smith, however, was in poor health and needed a
rest, so declined the opportunity to leave Cambridge. Henry Hammond was also
one of Brian Walton's principal assistants for the Polyglott Bible (on which as
we shall see, Thomas Smith himself worked) and Smith and Hammond undoubtedly
knew each other well. Hammond himself incidentally used the so-called Codex
Bezae (a manuscript of the Greek New Testament) in his Paraphrase and
Annotations upon all the books of the New Testament (1653).
Dispute with Robert Peast, a parishioner
of Cambridge
On 6 November 1657 Dr John
Worthington (who had been elected Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University on 4
November 1657) entered in his diary (edited by J. Crossley [Manchester, 1847])
that "he kept court" in the afternoon:
Upon the same day, it was desired,
that I should give sentence upon the case, depending betwixt Mr. Tho. Smith of
Christ's Coll. & Robt. Peast of Caldicote. But Mr. Twelves desired, that
exceptions might be put in the next Court Day.
These "exceptions" were
indeed put in by Mr. Twelves, Proctor to Peast on 13 November 1657 and the next
we hear of the incident is under Worthington's entry for 19 November (two days
later):
I kept a Court; I was told there by
Mr. Twelves, that the suit between Mr. Smyth, & one Mr. Peast of Caldicot
(his parishioner) was ended betwixt them. I had on Wednesday spoken to Mr.
Smyth, wishing that an end of that controversy might be made.
There is no other record of this
dispute between Peast and Smith, although it might be speculated that since
Peast was a farmer and Smith the Rector in Caldecote it is not inconceivable
that the matter concerned tithes in some way.
Work on Arabic manuscripts
Under an entry for 29 May 1658
Worthington also records:
I received of Mr. Smyth of Christ's
Coll. that ancient book, the Syriac Version of the Prophets &c. & did
deliver to him Dr. Walton's bond of 200 lib for the book wch was borrowed of
the University in Dr. Lightfoot's year.
Smith had been one of Walton's
assistants in producing an edition of the Polyglott Bible, acting as his
Cambridge intermediary. Walton had requested that the Syriac lexicon which he
had borrowed "be delivered to Mr. Smith, whom I have entreated to take
special care in the sending of it". Thus it was that Smith, as Worthington
notes, returned the Syriac Version of the Prophets to the Library on 29 May
1658 and received in exchange the £200 bond which Walton had given against its
safe return in 1655.
University Librarian
The diary of John Worthington also
reveals that on 17 April 1659 the University Librarian, William Moore (of
Caius) died. Exactly a week later (on 24 April 1659) Smith preached a funeral
sermon in honour of Moore in Great St. Mary's Church, Cambridge. This was later
printed and edited by Charles Bertie (The Life and Death of Mr William
Moore, Late Fellow of Caius Colledge, and Keeper of the University-Library: As
it was delivered in a Sermon preached at his funeral-solemnity, April 24, 1659.
In St. Maries Church in Cambridge; by Tho. Smith, B.D., his successour, John
Field, Cambridge, 1660).
In
the sermon Smith reminded his congregation of the claims of the Church of
England, noting that Moore had not been buried in his own college because the
master, Mr Dell, "would not suffer him to be buried by the Liturgy, which
was his last request". Smith described Moore as learned in "all
ingenuous sciences, especially History and all kinds of Antiquity (which, if
any thing, must bring the men of this age to their wits again, when all is
done"; he also praised Moore for
sticking close to that faith into
which he was baptized, the true ancient, catholick, and Apostolick Church of
England, whose doctrine is contained in the 39 articles, the book of Homilies,
and our own LITURGY, which he looked upon as the onely probably medium to
re-unite the shatter'd pieces of decaying Christendome. In this Religion he
lived, and in this he died, commending his soul (in my hearing) to God with a
loud voice...
Five days later Worthington records
in his diary for 29 April 1659 "Mr. Tho. Smith of Christ's Coll. was
chosen Library Keeper".
John
Oates (Cambridge University Library: A History, vol. 1 [Cambridge,
1986], pp. 300-3) discusses Smith's short (1659-61) tenure as University
Librarian and quotes in particular from a letter which Smith wrote to Joseph
Williamson at Queen's College, Oxford on 3 September 1659:
I lately recd 2
letters from yu concerning a MS in Benet College. Immediately I went to yr
College to enquire for it: & staid there 3 houres before I could get ye 3
persons together yt have ye 3 keyes of that library. And wn they were come
together old Mr Dobson said yt he was to preach a fast sermon ye week following
in sa country church within a mile of Cambridge & till that was over he
could not spare any time I entreated him to spare any time. I entreated him to
spare half an hour: for that I could dispatch. He was obstinate & angry
with me & ye rest of ye Fellows for endeavouring to perswade him. So twas
put of till last Thursday on wch day we were almost as long in getting ye keyes
together as before. With much [trouble] I found ye book (for ye MSS are not
placed in ye order of James's catalogue) & I desired to borrow it into
their Masters lodge to transcribe it being but 16 leaves in 4o. I was answered
by all ye 3. yt that could not be granted me or any els without a meeting of Mr
& Fellows: & when that meeting may be they know not. Then I desired to
know wt MSSS they had in yt library ac were not in ye James's catalogue, but
brought in to ym since (for I desire to publish an appendix of MSS to his for
or whole University) but they told me Mr Dobson could not stay so long as to
search that I must come again Aug. 6 yt is a yeer hence...
Confrontation with John Bunyan at
Toft
In May 1659 John Bunyan (of Pilgrims
Progress fame) preached in the tithe barn (near the village green) of his
friend Daniel Angier at Toft . Known as the "tinker", Bunyan's holy
orders and his right to preach were always being questioned (he was a member of
the so-called Bedford Church). Thus when Thomas Smith "attracted by the
sound of devotion" walked in on the service towards the end of the sermon
there was bound to be trouble. Bunyan was preaching from 1 Tim. 4:16 and was
actually stating that he knew most of his audience were unbelievers. When the
service ended, Smith approached Bunyan and asked him what right he had to call
the people of Toft unbelievers (half of whose faces he had never seen before).
Smith claimed that Bunyan was being uncharitable and as such was unfit to
preach. Bunyan replied that when Christ preached from a ship to his hearers on
the shore, he taught that there were four kinds of ground onto which the good
seed of the sower fell and that only one of the four brought forth fruit. Your
position", said Bunyan, "is that he in effect condemneth the greater
part of his hearers hath no charity, and is therefore not fit to preach the
gospel." At this Daniel Angier rose to defend Bunyan and rebuke Smith, but
Smith denied the layman's right to preach and asked Bunyan how he could answer
the apostle's question "How shall they preach except they be sent?"
Bunyan replied that the Church at Bedford had sent him, to whom Smith responded
that the Church at Bedford since they were only lay people could not give the
tinker that which they had not themselves.
Letter to Mr E. of Toft
Within a few weeks Smith had written
and published a pamphlet entitled "A Letter to Mr. E of Taft [sic] Four
miles from Cambridge!. To which No Answer hath been returned". Mr E. is
presumed to refer to Mr John Ellis Junior, son of John Ellis, the minister of
Toft. The pamphlet begins:
Sir,
1. Since
you had not so much patience as to hear me t'other day, nor would suffer your
daughters to tarry, I now make use of my first hour of leisure to write to you
part of that which you might have heard me speak then; Hoping that you and they
(whom I look on as having more breeding than any other, his Auditors that I
saw) will not believe this, whom his Friends generally call the Tinker, upon
his bare word, but like those noble Bereans, Acts 17.11 with readiness of mind
search the Scripture whether those things were so.
2. I
guess at the breeding of most of his followers by this passage; one of them,
viz. Daniel Angier (who invites him to that Town, entertains him in his house,
lends him his barn for a meeting place) when I charged him in that place with
maintaining that God was body, (viz. that he had hands, feet, a face, &c.
Like one of us) saying that he contradicted me in my Churchyard, after I had
preached people when he saw his Ring-Leader T. would not defend it, that I
lyed; whereas my whole Parish are ready to witness the truth of what I said.
3. But
to the purpose, I shall in this paper follow that method which the T. commanded
me (though I desire the contrary) shewing first his false doctrine and then
prove 'tis a dangerous sin in him to preach (as he did publickly) and in the
people to hear him...
All this your tinker hath been
guilty of, and much more, for he hath intruded into the pulpits in these parts,
and caused the people of your town to hate their lawful minister, but (as he
told me) encouraged them to proceed as far as to cudgel him and break open the
church doors by violence...
Smith concludes:
And now, sir, let me beseech you for
God's sake, for Christ's sake, for the Church's sake, for your reputation's
sake, for your children's sake, for your country's sake to consider these
things sadly and seriously, not to think a thinker more infallible than the
pure Spouse of Christ, and to foresee what will be the sad consequences both to
the souls, and bodies, and estates of you and your children in following such
strangers.
The pamphlet is written from
"Caucat" (i.e. Caldecote) and dated May (1659). Margaret Spufford (Contrasting
Communities, Cambridge, 1974) concludes:
The implication of Smith's pamphlet
is that he had been visited in his own parish and heckled there, after a sermon
by Angier. Smith returned the compliment and invaded the Angier barn at Toft,
where he was called a liar for his pains.
Smith certainly states that Angier
had preached in the churchyard at Caldecote (Smith's parish church) and that
"the whole parish" of Caldecote was ready to back him (Smith) up
against Angier's accusations.
A reply from Henry Denne
Bunyan himself does not seem to have
replied to this pamphlet, but there was a response from Henry Denne, a
colleague (and friend) of Smith's at Cambridge University. For in a work known
as The Quaker No Papist (London: Francis Smith, 1659) Denne wrote:
You seem to be angry with the tinker
because he strives to mend souls as well as kettles and pans. The main drift of
your letter is to prove that none may preach except they be sent. Sir, I think
him unworthy of the name of a tinker that affirms that any one is sufficient to
preach the gospel without sending. By your conferssion the tinker thinks
otherwise, and doth not deny what you labour to prove, and so you contend with
a shadow. He proves his mission and commission from the Church at Bedford, you
should also have proved that Mr. Thomas Smith hath a better commission from
some other Church than the tinker either hath or can have from the Church at
Bedford. You must give me leave to propound something for your consideration:
Some shipwrackt men, swimming to an island, find there many inhabitants, to
whom they preach; the heathen hearing are converted, and walk together in love,
praising the Lord; whether the preaching of these shipwrackt men were a sin?
Secondly whether it be not lawful for this congregation to chuse to themselves
pastors, governours, teachers, &c. ? Thirdly, whether this congregation may
not find some fitting men full of faith and the Holy Ghost to preach to other
unbelieving heathen?
An encounter with a Quaker called
George Whitehead in London in May 1659
Soon after his encounter with John Bunyan
(a Baptist) in Toft, Smith went to London (perhaps to supervise the printing of
his pamphlet "A letter to Mr. E....") and there in May 1659 he had
his first encounter with the Quaker called George Whitehead. Smith recalls the
incident in The Quaker Disarm'd:
In May last this Scholar [i.e. Smith
himself] walking over from the Palace Yard about his necessary occasions
chanced to see a great magnitude of People over against Westminister Hall
encompassed with Souldiers in red coates. Drawing neer he heard Whitehead
preaching against Universities, Learning, and Tithes, and the Clergy; and askt
him the same question, who said No, No. Another Souldier that stood neer him,
said, hold thy tongue or Ile stop thy mouth.
So
the Scholar held his peace till W. had done his railing against the Priests.
Then the People cried out with one voice, Let the Gentleman speak, let the
Gentleman speak. Whereupon the Scholar stood up, and used such arguments in few
words against W. (in answer to which, W. said nothing; but another Q stood up
and prayed) that all the People showed.
Smith was destined to encounter
Whitehead again, in Cambridge, in the near future, but for the moment he
returned to Cambridge.
Whitehead's
own account of the encounter is given in his Christian Progress:
I remember I had a Meeting at
Stephen Hart's, by the Palace-Yard at Westminister, which was a throng'd
Meeting, more than the Room could well contain, of our Friends, and other
People, of divers Sorts and Ranks. The meeting continmued quiet until near the
latter End, and the People appeared generally well satisfied with the clear and
plain Testimony the Lord enabled me to bear.
At
last, a Priest, one Thomas Smith of Cambridge, Keeper of the University
Library, stood up, and made Opposition, with a Charge against the Quakers, as
being Hereticks, such as bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that
brought them, applying and perverting that Scripture, 2 Pet. ii.1. But could
not produce any Proof, or Colour of Proof against the Quakers, (or any of us)
of any such Heresy, or Denial of the Lord that bought us, (who have himself a
Ransome for us and for all Men) either by our own Doctrine or
Conversation: Contrarywise we were, and
still are deeply obliged to confess him both in himself for us, to redeem us
from all Iniquity, and for his Light and Grace given us for that End, that we
might receive and experience that Redemption throughh his Blood, which he
obtained for us: Therefore Blessed be
his Glorious Name, we are far from denying the Lord that bought us.
The
said Priest being more confident and loud in his Charge, than Proof, and there
being a Denial of Christ the Lord in Practice, as well as in Doctrine, I turned
the same Scripture, 2. Pet. ch. ii. upon the Priest which he brought against
me, and my Friends called Quakers, reading to the People, several Verses of the
same Scripture, to shew what Teachers they were who denied the Lord that bought
them, whose Ways were pernicious, Verse 2. And many shall follow their
pernicious Ways, by Reason of whom, the Way of Truth shall be evil spoken of,
Verse 3. And through Covetousness shall they with feigned words make
Merchandize of you, whose Judgment now of a long Time lingereth not, and their
Damnation slumbereth not. And Verse 14. Having Eyes full of Adultery that
cannot cease from Sin, beguiling unstable Souls; an Heart they have exercised
with covetous Practices; cursed children Ver. 15 which have forsaken the right
Way, following the Way of Balaam the son of Bofor, who loved the Wages of unrighteousness,
&c.
Upon
my urging these Scriptures, 2. Pet. ch. ii, against the covetous Priest's
Practices, which are against Christ and his Doctrine, and consequently a
denying of him, as also against their Doctrine whereby they teach. That no Man
can be free from Sin in this Life, insomuch that they cannot cease from Sin,
while they believe they cannot (or may not) be freed from it in this Life,
hereby they also deny the Lord that bought them, in their denying the End and
Purpose of his purchasing, or redeeming Mankind, and of his being made
manifest, to destroy the Works of the Devil, and to reduce us from all
Iniquity, for which End he gave himself for us. See 1 Joh. ch. 3. Titus ch. 2.
I
say, upon my urging the Scriptures cited before, against the covetous Practices
of Priests, and their not ceasing from Sin (but rather arguing for it) in this
Life, our Disopute at that time soon came to an end, the Priest had enough of
it, and for his unjustly charging the Quakers with damnable Heresies; even as
unjustly as the Persecuting Papists were wont to brand the Martyrs, with their
being Hereticks when they were minded to murther or destroy them. But the
controversy did not end here; the said Library Keeper some Time after had a
mind to try his Strength and Skill further against us.
The Margaret Pryor witch/horse
incident
In July 1659 Widow Morlin, a
Quakeress of Cambridge, was indicted by the Grand Jury and brought to trial
before Judge Williams at the mid-summer assizes at Cambridge. Widow Morlin was
acquitted but the story of her alleged "crime" made headline news in
the "tabloid" press and literature of the day. As with all such
stories, names and actions became distorted and the actual woman whom Widow
Morlin was accused of harming by witchcraft (Margart Pryor) mysteriously became
"Mary Philips" in some versions. A pamphlet entitled Strange &
Terrible Newes from Cambridge (London, 1659) reads as follows:
...as manifestly appears in the case
of Mary Philips, who falling from the Church of England, entered into the
Society of Robert Dickson, and Jane Cranaway, two unrefined Quakers, but after
a few weeks expired, she declined their ways, utterly renouncing them, and
detesting their actions; insomuch that they adjudged her to be in a Reprobate
Conditiion, and not worthy of an Earthly Being; but rather a Transfiguration
from the Glorious Image she was created in; which (poor soul) she was soon
divested of, even in the Night, as she betook herself to rest with her Husband,
being bewitched or enchanted out of the Room where she lay, and transformed
into the perfect shape of a Mare, and so rid from Dinton [?Ditton] to a Town
within four miles of Cambridge, where a company of seeming Quakers were met;
But upon the aforesaid Inchanting Witches alighting off, and hanging the Bridle
upon her Pails, the snaffle (or Bitt) came out of her mouth, and miraculously
she appeared in her created Form and Likeness, to the great astonishment of the
Neighbors, who beheld this unexpected change with abundance of astonishment;
and upon the Womans declaring of her self, and the state of her Condition, she
went along with some Officers to the Meeting, and coming into the Room, she
pointed to the two Quakers, saying, This is the Man and Woman that betwitcht
me: Whereupon they were apprehended, and carried before a justice, who
committed them to safe Custody, there to remain until the Assizes, which on
Thursday last began at Cambridge, and on Friday they were brought to Trial,
where the Woman that was bewicht made Oath against them, and shewed her hands
and feet, which were lamentably bruised, and changed as black as a Coal, her
sides also being exceedingly rent and torn, just as if they were spur-gal'd,
and her smock all bloudy: Evident signs of her sad sufferings; yet utterly
denied by the prisoners, who at last were cleared, notwithstanding the Grand
Jury finding the Bill of Indictment.
Alderman Blackley, one of the most
prominent Quakers in Cambridge published a pamphlet entitled A lying Wonder
discovered on 8 August 1659 in which he made the whole incident much
clearer. He notes that after withdrawing her charges against William Allen, one
of the Quaker equestrians, Margaret Pryor (not Mary Philips) had reaffirmed
before the court her accusation of Widow Morlin, who on 20 November 1657 had
taken her out of bed from her husband in the night, "put a bridle into her
mouth, and transformed her into a bay mare, and rode her to Maddenly
[Madingley] House, where she said they hung her on the latch of the door, and
that they went in to the Feast, where she said they had Mutton, Rabbets and
Lamb". Blackley noted the inconsistencies in Pryor's story. In answer to
the judge's question of whether her hands and feet had not been sore or dirty,
she replied only her hind feet. Moreover, it was noted that lamb was out of
season in November. The jury apparently took only 15 minutes to acquit Widow
Morlin.
Bunyan's
role in the affair seems to have been to encourage Margaret Pryor to take Widow
Morlin to court. He was accused himself by Blackley of slandering the Quakers
and of wanting to have the Widow destroyed by rope or fire as a witch.
The second encounter with Whitehead
(in Cambridge)
I have inserted the details of this
incident to illustrate the feeling against Quakers in Cambridge at the time, a
feeling in which (strangely) both Thomas Smith and John Bunyan were united.
Smith indeed recounts in A Quaker Disarm'd a second encounter with the Quaker
George Whitehead on 25 August 1659:
The same S. [Thomas Smith] having
been all the Afternoon (from one a clock till four or five) in St. Johns Coll.
Library turning over Arabick and other MSS. returning hom wearied his nearest
way, unexpectedly saw the same Whitehead preaching in the Quaker common
meeting-house. So he went in, desired leave to speak; and when (Whitehead had
done) confuted his Doctrine.
The next day (26 August 1659) Smith
"considering how apt silly Women were to be led away captive by such
deceivers" wrote to the Mayor of Cambridge saying that he wished to
dispute publicly with Whitehead, and prove that his doctrines were heretical.
He added that it was a "damnable sin" for Whitehead to preach and for
anyone to listen.
The
Mayor's wife was a Quaker and had apparently convinced her husband of the truth
of her convictions, so much so that a Quaker is said "to have been moved
by the Lord to discard his garments and, to the confusion of the profane, to
pace naked through the streets of Cambridge".
Smith's public debate with the
Quakers
Whitehead and his fellow Quakers,
William Allen (who had been accused of being one of the equestrians who rode
off with Margaret Pryor) and George Fox promptly accepted Smith's challenge and
the debate was held soon after in the Friend's Meeting-house in Jesus Lane,
Cambridge.
Paul
Hammond ("Thomas Smith: a beleagued humanist of the interregnum", Bulletin
of the Institute of Historical Research 56 [1983], 180-94) has discussed
the actual debate in detail, so only the main points need to be stressed. It
seems that Smith began by endeavouring to prove that Whitehead "opens the
door to damnable heresies" by means of a syllogism, e.g. he stated that
"All Papists open a door to damnable heresies. You...are a Papist.
Therefore...you open the door to damnable heresies". After some dispute
about the use of such syllogisms, Whitehead denied that he was a Papist. Smith
tried another syllogism ("He who refuseth to take the oath of abjuration
is a Papist. You...refuse to take the oath of abjuration. Therefore [you
are]...a Papist." Whitehead again denied this and justified his refusal to
swear by quoting Math. 5:34. Further syllogisms were put forward by Smith based
on the "commission of Christ" ("He who pretends to be an
ambassadour of Christ and hath no commission to show but what all the damnable
Hereticks in the world do or may shew, that man opens a door to damnable
Hereticks"). When Whitehead denied
Smith's syllogism, Smith reported (in The Quaker Disarm'd) that
"almost all the Company laught, shouted, stamped and hissed". After
another series of syllogisms the debate centred on the Trinity and Fox
challenged Smith to prove that there are three persons. Smith adopted the
argument that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are mentioned in three places and
are therefore three persons. After briefly debating this, Alderman Blackly interposed
and called a halt to proceedings.
The Quaker Disarm'd
Following the debate both Smith and
the Quakers produced a series of pamphlets amplifying and extending their
arguments in print. Smith was the first to publish his version of the debate
and extended arguments in The Quaker Disarm'd (London, 1659). In this
the account of the debate is followed by 55 questions put by a certain R.B.
[?Richard Blome] to Whitehead and Fox, basically on the theme why the Quakers
denied the scripture to be the word of God, rejecting the doctrine of the
Trinity and the sacraments of baptism and communion. Whitehead replied with a
pamphlet entitled Truth defending the Quakers in which he argued that the
scriptures do not mention the word Sacraments and so they are unnecessary for
salvation. He also took Smith to task about his views on the Trinity,
concluding "Oh! Thomas Smith thou dark sot and dreamer, who thus hath told
thy dreams and lying imagination concerning the Godhead...doest thou believe
that the Holy Spirit was not in Christ before that John Baptized him in
Jordan...?"
Henry
Denne, one of Smith's colleagues at the University, produced a second reply to
Smith with his pamphlet The Quaker No Papist. Denne questioned Smith's
own theological views and especially the assertion that the canon of scripture
is received solely on the authority of the "pure Spouse of Christ, the
Church of all ages". We have already seen Denne's defence of Bunyan's
commission and right to preach at Toft and this formed an integral part of the
reply of Smith at this stage.
A Gagg for the Quakers
Smith immediately replied with a
further pamphlet entitled A Gagg for the Quakers in which he cited
innumerable pamphlets from both English and continental theologians and
referred Denne to read these pamphlets and thereby gain an answer to his
questions. He also charged Whitehead with a Popish tendency, reprinting R.B.'s
55 questions and a highly edited version of Whitehead's replies.
Whitehead
himself responded with a further pamphlet (published in 1660) called The Key
of Knowledge not found in the University Library of Cambridge, in which he
answered the charges of Popism on the Justification by stating that
"Justification is in the Righteousness of Christ by the Spirit of
God". He says of Smith "thou hast shewn thy self not to be come so
far as to common Civility, nor Moral Honesty, in so palpably wronging my
Answers to thy Queries, as thou hast done, in perverting my Words, and giving
answers for mine in thy own terms". He concludes that "So we see that
Priest Smith hath not found the Key of Knowledge in all the Library, nor among
all his Books, who is thus ignorant of the gift of God, of the Word of Wisdom,
which hath discovered his Wisdom to be meerly natural, sensual and
devilish".
In
a Gagg for the Quakers Smith relates that he has been appointed to compile a
catalogue "which is now ready for the press", of all the manuscripts
in Cambridge. Oates (History of Cambridge University Library, vol. 1, p. 301)
notes how there is no record of this appointment but mentions that in 1660 the
University agreed to encourage Smith's labours by extending to him, in view of
the pressure of work in the University Library and his small salary, the
exemption from preaching in Great St Mary's enjoyed by the chaplains of Trinity
and King's (University Grace Book H, p. 221).
Smith's will
Among Bundle 16 of the Vice
Chancellor's Court Wills in the University of Cambridge Archives (1661-6) held
in the University Library, West Road, Cambridge is the will of Thomas Smith,
written (in his own hand) on 1 November 1660.
In nomine Dei. Amen.
I Thomas Smith Bachelor of Divinity
of Christ's College in Cambridge being in perfect health (God be praised) but
bearing in mind the saying of the wise man Eccles. 9.12. That man knoweth not
his time; but as fishes are taken in an evil net and as birds areb caught in a
snare, so are the sons of men caught when death falls suddenly upon them; and
not forgetting the advice of wisdome itself Mat xxiv 42.44 Be ready and watch
for you know not at what hour the Lord shall come I do think it requisite to
set my house in order and do hereby make and constitute this my last will and
testament, as followeth:
First
of all I profess, and declare that when ever it shall please God to call me out
of this life, I desire to dye in the ancient Catholic and Apostolic faith
professed in the Church of England, contained in the 39 articles, but more
fully in the Augustan confession. And if any thing have been writ or spoken by
me not agreeing with this Catholic faith, I desire it may be looked on as not
spoken or writ. I commend my soul to God beseeching him to have mercy on me for
his son Jesus sake, my body to be interred in the Parish Church wheresoever I
shall dye without pomp or sermon but with the Liturgy of the English Church. I
bequeath all my worldly goods to Dr John Fell of Christ's Church in Oxford and
Mr William Goodman fellow of Kings College in Cambridge to be disposed by them
to charitable uses after he hath paid out of them those legacies following. To
my Father or Mother ten pounds of lawfull money of England to my sister Esther
ten pounds, to Mrs Elizabeth...[illegibly amended] ten pouinds, to her...
[& forty shillings to the Poor
of Caldecoat (where I am now Pastor) to be left in the Churchwardens hand
yearly, and the rest of it to be...yearly on the 1st of November by the Pastor
my successor for ever to buy a new testament for some poor child of the parish
or whom he pleases shall think it most charity to bestow it]
that little land which I have at
Newborough in Staffordshire I bequeath to my brother Cleophas? because it was left me by my father who hath
hitherto had all the rents for it. And my bonds, mony, books & other goods
(and lands if I shall have any besides that at Newborough whatsoever I bequeath
to the aforesaid Mr Fell my very dear friend, to be disposed to charitable uses
as are aforementioned. This I writ with my own hand and sealed with my own seal
this first day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and
sixty; on the feast of All Saints.
Sealed and owned in the presence Tho.
Smith
of Rit: Pettit ?thelden (seal)
Four lines_ are expunged because I
have don the thing myself, given them 6 h to be kept &c I should not have
disposed of so much money & goods besides my books when ever it shall
please God to call me (unless some enexpected storm befell the Church or me)
both to bury me and pay all the legacies so that Dr John Fell and Mr William
Goodman may keep my study of books entire to his own use; getting some
bookseller to prize them and bestowing of money at which they shall be prized
to charitable uses. But if I leave not money or goods enough (beside books) for
the uses aforementioned and refer all to Dr John Fell aforesaid now Dr in
Divinity & to Mr William Godman aforementioned fellow of Kings College in
Cambridge.
The spelling has mainly been left as
in Smith's handwriting. There are many alterations and deletions beside the
major one which Smith has himself acknowledged.
Death and burial
In the autumn of 1661 it seems that
Smith contracted "the new disease, which spreads all over England"
(as Hartlib calls it). Presumably this was some form of plague which was
prevalent in Cambridge for most of the seventeenth century. At all events Smith
died on 27 September 1661 (aged 37) and was buried soon after at Kingston
churchyard. There seems no explanation for him not being buried at Caldecote
itself, unless he actually died in Kingston. Whatever the reason, Hartlib (when
he heard the news) thought that Smith was "truly to be lamented, being so
fit a Keeper of the public library, for there are few of that ability".
Endnotes
1
In a letter written in 1961 to a member of Caldecote Parish Council, the
Revd. J. H. Cawte (himself a former rector of Caldecote) stated that
"Caldecote is said to be the oldest known Danish settlement, and the Danes
came up the Bourn river in their long boats. This may seem strange to those who
have only seen the present meagre trickle, but the Cement works which adorn the
Kingston side of the brook are built on water-worn gravel. There was almost certainly a Saxon settlement, with a
church or pagan temple on the site now occupied by St Michael and All Angels
Church. Invaders frequently occupy the old religious sites for their own
purposes." I have discussed the implications of this letter and the
probability of a late Roman/early Saxon route between the sites of Barton,
Comberton, Toft, Caldecote and Bourn churches in detail elsewhere.
2 George
Whitehead, The Christian Progress of that ancient Servant and Minister of Jesus
Christ George Whitehead Historically Relating His Experience, Ministry,
Sufferings, Trials and Service in defence of the Truth and God's Persecuted
People, Commonly called Quakers. In four Parts. With a Supplement to the Same.
London: Printed and Sold by the Assigns of J. Sowle, at the Bible in
George-Yard, Lonbard Street, 1725, pp. 163ff.
Appendix 1
The Quaker disarm'd, or a true relation of a late publick dispute held
in Cambridge by three eminent Quakers [i.e. G. Whitehead, G. Fox and W. Allen],
against one scholar of Cambridge [i.e. Thomas Smith, the author]. With a letter
in defence of the ministry... Also several quaeries proposed (by R B[lome]) to
the Quakers to be answered if they can.
[Sig. C. cropped] 4 o, 20 cm.
By J.C. London, 1659
THE QUAKER DISARM'D,
OR
A TRUE RELATION
Of a Late Publick
DISPUTE
HELD AT
CAMBRIDGE
___________________________________________________
By Three Eminent QUAKERS, against
One Scholar of Cambridge.
___________________________________________________
WITH
A Letter in Defence of the MINISTRY,
AND AGAINST
LAY PREACHERS
ALSO
Several Quaeries proposed to the Quakers to be
answered if they can.
___________________________________________________
LONDON,
Printed by J.C. and are sold neer the Little North-Door of
S. Pauls Church, 1659.
THE PREFACE.
Before I set
down the particulars of this Dispute, it seems not amiss to premise (as an
introduction to it) what passed between this Scholar and the forementioned
George Whitehead before it.
In May last this Scholar walking over
the Palace Yard about his necessary occasions chanced to see a great multitude
of People over against Westminster Hall compassed with Souldiers in red coates.
Drawing neer he heard Whitehead preaching against Universities, Learning, and
Tithes, and the Clergy; and asked some of the red-coates whether he might speak
a word? They answered they could not tell. Whereupon he crowded up to Whitehead
and askt him the same question, who said No, no. Another Souldier that stood
neer him, said, hold thy tongue or Ile stop thy mouth.
So the Scholar held his peace till W.
had done his railing against the Priests. Then the People cryed out with one
voice, Let the Gentleman speak, let the Gentleman speak. Whereupon the Scholar
stood up, and used such arguments in few words against W. (in answer to which,
W. said nothing; but another Q stood up and prayed) that all the People
showted. Notwithstanding which the Q. going on in his prayer, the people made a
hideous shriek to disturbe him. The Quakers all desired the S. to quiet them,
telling him they were his followers and Sons of Ishmael. At length the People
(seeing that none of the Quakers would attempt to answer the Scholars argument,
desired him to come away, lest the Q. should do him a mischief. So he left the
Quakers and with him came all the People, leaving a few Souldiers and about a
douzen Quakers at their exercise. The Day following, and severall days after
the S. went to seek the Quakers at the said house, but found none, and never
yet heard that any of them met there since.
But upon Aug. 25 1659. the same S.
having been all the Afernoon (from one a clock till four or five) in St. Johns
Coll. Library turning over Arabick and other MSS. returning home wearied his
neerest way, unexpectedly saw the same Whitehead preaching in the Quaker common
meeting-house. So he went in, desired leave to speak: and when Whitehead had
done) confuted his Doctrine. Next day, considering how apt silly Women were to
be led away captive by such deceivers, he sent this following Note to the Major
of Cambridge, hoping in the conclusion to reclaim his Wife, who is a Quaker.
Whereas George Whitehead preacher to
the Quakers in Cambridge deliver'd in his Sermon among them Yesterday, 1. That
they are not Hereticks, and 2. that they teach no other Doctrine but what
Abraham and Christ taught; and 3. afterwards said, that the Scriptures are not
the word of God.
I am ready this Day (at any hour or
place) to prove the forementioned Doctrine very false, and 3ly. to defend those
3 arguments that I urged against him yesterday, by showing that he neither did,
nor can answer any thing to them; and 3ly. to prove by divers other arguments
that 'tis a damnable sin for him (or any such man) to preach, and a damnable
sin for any man or woman to hear him.
Chr. Coll. Aug.
25. 1659. T.S.
Hereupon the Major sent for Whitehead,
who (before him) wrote down the following positions; which he said he would
defend against T.S. at what time, and place, the Major should appoint.
1.
That we called Quakers is not open a door to damnable Heresies.
2.
That we called Quakers are not Hereticks: because
3.
We do not teach any Heresy, and
4.
We walk not in the steps of Hereticks.
5.
That the Bible is not the Word.
These things I will defend against the
contrary affirmations of T.S. George Whitehead.
Then he caused these three positions
to be write saying he would defend them also.
6.
The Scriptures doth not say, If any man say he hath no sin he deceives himself. 7.I
7.
I deny that this is truth [If any man say he hath no sin he deceives
himself] as concerning the Saints.
8.
'Tis not a Damnable sin, for me or any such man to preach, and for any
man or woman to hear us.
On Saturday night Aug. 27. T.S.
wondring that he heard nothing of the time and place of meeting, went to the
Major to ask what was resolved, who answered, that the Alderman, were not
willing it should be in the Town-Hall; So that if there were any Dispute at all
it must be in the Quakers common meeting house, but that severall Aldermen were
not willing there should be any Dispute, and that he himself would not advise
T.S. to Dispute. Whereupon T.S. resolved not to dispute against the minde of
the Corporation. Next day Aug. 29 between 12, and 1. a clock came this
following Summons to T.S. from W.
Friend, T.S. This is to certifie thee,
I am willing to give thee a meeting. And seeing that no other place is
appointed, I intend to be at our meeting place (over against Sidney Colledge-gate
this day about the 1. or 2d. hour in the afternoon. Where I may expect thy
appearance, according to thy promise to me, first to produce thy arguments,
&c.
Subscribed G.
Whitehead.
Cambridge this 29th. of the 6th
Month. 59.
Superscribed for T.S. at that place
called, &c.
Immediately the same Person received
another Summons from Mr James Alders beginning thus.
Sir, I was called this Morning to Mr.
Major, and there I was told that 'tis the desire of the Quakers to meet you, at
their house of meeting; they begin to think you are afraid to meet them,
&c.
Notwithstanding these T.S. continued
in his Chamber, till a Messenger came from Mr Alders to tell him, that the
Quakers were met and reported that T.S. did not dare to come. Thereupon he went
and found G. Fox preaching. Esteeming it not lawfull to hear him, he left the
room, but entred again, as soon as sermon was done. There was some debate where
T.S. should stand, and because the Q. would suffer him to take no place but
where he should be compassed with Quakers (as G. Whitehead was also) he stood
where they appointed him.
THE DISPUTE
As soon as T.S.
had taken his place, G.W. made a long speech to tell the people the occasion of
that dispute: and that the questions to be discussed were these.
1. Whether it were a Damnable sin for him to
preach and 2. a Damnable sin for any to hear him. And charging T.S. with folly
for saying that Whitehead was an heretick, and yet confessing that T.S. knew
not all W's Opinions. T.S. interposed only this, Mark the word all. I may truly
say you hold heresies, if I know only some.
When he had done T.S. said thus Good
people; you come not hither to hear sermons and speeches but a dispute. This
man hath troubled you with a long discourse wherein he concludes that I must
begin at the latter end, which of what consequence it is, all you that have
skill in any trade or science know as well as I. I shall not trouble you with
many words, but (in short) shall only entreat you to hear him again, Ile read
to you his own paper. George Whitehead is this your hand or is it not.