AFter our appearance at the Sessions at Kingston, ha­ving been Prisoners at the White Lion in Southwark above nine weeks, we were indicted, for unlawfully and tumultúously gathering and assembling our selves to­gether, by Force and Arms, &c. under pretence of performing Re­ligious Worship, &c. Which Indictment, Richard Onzlow (who sate Judge of the Sessions) said, was according to a Statute made in the 35th year of Queen Elizabeth (the late Act of Parliament, made purposely against the Meetings of the Qua­kers and others, being by them laid aside) whereunto, although most of us were willing to plead, and desired a Tryal, as know­ing our Innocency as to what was laid to our charge; which, although it was at first, promised us; yet at last, would not be granted us; but except we would give Bond to answer at the next Quarter-Sessions, we were to return to Prison again, and there to remain till that time: At length, through urgency and importunity for a present Tryal, that Justice might not be delayed (as it ought not to have been) the Sessions was ad­journed till the 28th day of the 8th month; and because we could not come under Bond for our appearance, contrary to our Christian Liberty and Consciences, we were remanded to Prison till that time. So when we, to the number of thirty two persons, appeared before the Court, in the Sessions-house at Magarets-hill, on the 30th day of the same month, for Tryal; the former Indictment (unto which, for not giving Bond to ap­pear to plead, were committed) was laid aside, and another Indictment was drawn up against us, and presented to the [Page 4] Grand Jury upon the same Statute; the form whereof is as followeth.

This Indictment being read, it was replied, That this was not the same Indictment with that at Kingston, unto which we desired to plead: Richard Onzlow answered, that they had [Page 5] quashed or nulled that, and that they had power to quit one Indictment, and to draw up another, if the former were not sufficient: Then it was required that we might be tryed by the late Act of Parliament; Whereto he answered, They might try us by what Act they would, that was in force. So, after we saw their bad intent towards us, the Country was bid to take notice, that there was another Indictment formed against us at Kingston, to which, we pleaded, Not guilty; and some (that is, six Baptists) were tryed and cleared by that; which they perceiving, refused to try us according to their Promise; but adjourned the Court, that so they might draw up another, and that, for ought we knew, if some of us should be cleared by this, they would draw up another, that so they might ensnare us: To which Richard Onzlow said, we should all be tryed by this. Then it was desired, that that Statute might be read, to see whether it contained all the particulars of this last Indictment: So then he caused but a part of the Statute to be read, saying to the Clerk, it was enough: where­by, the penalty, and other particulars, were concealed from the Prisoners, and from those that were to be of the Jury. Then it was openly declared, as a Testimony against that wicked Law, that the Parliament that made that Act, did at that time, take counsel against the Lord, and against his Anointed. Also, that it was made in the time of ignorance, when that people were newly stept out of Popery, but now there was more knowledge. Also, by this, the Reader may take notice, how unjustly and falsely the first Indictment was framed on the same Statute, which mentions nothing of tu­multuously gathering and assembling together, or by Force and Arms, &c. or of performing Religious Worship.

After this, we were urged to plead, guilty, or not guilty, to the Indictment. Then one desired a Copy of the Indictment, and the Court promised it him; but instead of giving him the Copy, they thrust him out of the Court, because he did not plead guilty, or not guilty, before he had the Copy, notwith­standing they promised it him, and so bad, take him Goaler; and bad the Clerk to give the Copy to another, because he un­derstood it, it being in Latine. Then calling another, who [Page 6] standing in the fear and counsel of the Lord, not daring to answer hastily, they bad, take him Goaler. These, with others, to the number of ten, were violently haled out of the Court, as taken (as they say) pro confesso, or for guilty, and thereupon were soon sent back to Prison again. The rest of us, being twenty two in number, knowing our selves to be most falsly charged, were free to joyn issue, and plead, not guilty: Then the Jury-men were called, who were men fit for their pur­pose; yet were we hardly allowed the liberty of common Ma­lefactors, (as also the liberty that the Court allowed to the six Baptised persons at Kingston, as was re-minded to Richard Onzlow) which is, to except against many persons, without shewing any cause; but we passed five, before we excepted against any; and when we excepted against one, Richard Onz­low seemed to be offended, and said, we must shew a law­ful cause, or else we should not except against him; it was answered, Where we saw envy and prejudice, or a light, vain deportment in any man, it was a cause sufficient; but he did not like of such a reason. Then another was excepted against, which he would allow of, without shewing a reason: to which it was answered, that that man was heard to say, that he hoped ere long, that the Quakers should be arraigned at the Bar, and be banished to some Land where there was nothing but Bears: at which the Court made a great laughter, and the man was put by: So, we made little more exception, seeing what manner of persons we were to chuse out of. Then they were sworn, and two Witnesses were called, who could but testifie at most, that such persons, whose names were specified in writing, they took in such a place met together, but that no words were spoken. After this, we spake to particulars contained in the Indictment, on this wise. First, the Jury was bid to take heed, how they did sport or dally with holy things; and that those things which concerned their and our Consci­ences, could not be denied, but to be holy things: and as a man was not to sport with the health of his Neighbour; so not to sport with the Liberty of, or Banishment of his Neigh­bour. And whereas we were accused for wicked, dangerous, and seditious Sectaries; that was not true: for we were not [Page 7] wicked, because we lived soberly, righteously and godly in the world; and that it was so, we appeal to themselves: neither were we seditious; for that was to be tumultuous; but we were peaceable. And whereas we were charged, for not com­ing to bear the Common-Prayer without any lawful cause, for one month after the 29th of June last; we made it appear, that there was none to hear if we would have come; for the Ser­vice-Book was not quite printed for several weeks after the said 29th of June, (yea, they made haste to have it finished by that which is called Bartholmew-tide, which was the time enjoyned by the late Act of Parliament, for the Priests to reade it) Also, that it was the rigor of the Law, or summum Jus, which was confessed by themselves to be summa Inju­ria, or the greatest wrong, for the Act to be in force against as before the publishment thereof, as Rich. Onzlow said, it was, and would have it to be: whereby the Reader may take notice, how like unto the blind and cruel Aegyptians, this Court of Justice (so called) did act; who required their full tale of Brick of the Israelites, and yet would not allow them Straw. They would have us also, to prove, that we had come to hear Common-Prayer, they having no Witness to prove the contrary, if it had been read; Whereto it was replyed, That it was according to the Law of the Land, in all Criminal Causes, for positive Evidence to be brought against the Priso­ner accused; which Rich. Onzlow could not positively deny: wherefore he told the Jury afterwards, that he thought we must prove we did come, because the coming to Common-Prayer did excuse the meeting. But let the Reader know, that the Judge of a Court is to declare the Law by a positive Asser­tion, and according to knowledge, and not his own thoughts. It was also insisted on the word, Heretique, that it was such a one, who after Conviction of his Error, wilfully took it up and maintained it against the Truth; and therefore the Apo­stle said, such a one was condemned in himself. Rich. Onzlow [...] off that, with the word Sectary, the word Heretique not being in the Indictment, although in effect, it is both as one: for that word which in the Acts, is rendred Sect, is 'Airesis, or Hiresie. Then it was answered, that a Sectary is taken for [Page 8] one that divided or separated in contempt, which he did not deny; but we did not separate in contempt of any man. And indeed Reader, if thou art not wilfully blind, thou canst not but conclude, that whatsoever is done in Conscience to God, is not done in obstinacy or contempt. Thou mayest also here take notice, of the great partiality of these men, who in what might make against us, would keep exactly to the form of words in the Indictment; but would not keep to the form of words therein, although essential to the thing in hand, in what made for the justification of our Cause, as plainly appears by this: for whereas we were charged for an unlawful Assembly, Conven­ticle and Meeting, under colour and pretence of the exercise of Re­ligion, we insisted on the word pretence, as that it came from a word which signified to cover over; So that a pretence is a false cover, and so, to cover Danger and Sedition under meet­ing together; which was false; for we came from a good in­tent, and not from a pretence, as our Consciences bare us witness, namely, to wait upon the Lord, as being in his fear where-ever we are, according to those sayings, Be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long. And wait upon thy God continual­ly. And that a good intent was good in it self. Now although a man might do evil, that good might come of it, which he ought not to do; yet, Whoever did really good, that evil might come thereof? For, ex vero, nil nisi vera sequuntur; Of Truth, nothing but true things do follow. Also, that the word, intent, was not mentioned in the Indictment. And as for pretence, they could not prove any thing either by word or deed, where­by they might gather any pretence; for there was an exercise of Religion mentioned in the Indictment: Now we truly plea­ded, that an exercise, as to man, did imply some visible action, either of the tongue, hand or knee; for the Mind was as invisible Being, and therefore the exercise therereof was not discerned by man: but at the time of our assembling, there was no action, either of Prayer, Exhortation, Doctrine, Pro­phesie, Thanksgiving, or the like; therefore there was no ex­ercise. One thing also is not to be forgotten; that when it was queried, How could the going a stones cast or two from ones dwelling, only to a place, be a breach of the King's Peace? [Page 9] Rich. Onzlow answered impertinently thereunto, unto this purpose, saying, Yes; for if a man did go over or thorow an­other's Ground, he committed a trespass, although he did no­thing else: But the Reader may observe, that this was a going in the High-way, and not out of the Common-path, to our own proper place and ground: neither was it a fit similitude; because we were charged in the Indictment with Wickedness, Danger, and Sedition, under colour and pretence of an exercise of Religion as aforesaid, and so in truth, it was a wresting of Judgment. Also, it was minded to the Jury, that the doors were open, which, according to their own Law, is said to ex­cuse from a Conventicle, which is taken for a meeting to a bad intent, and wherewith we were charged. This was the substance of what was pleaded to the Particulars charged against us in the Indictment, from the first to the last, till the Jury brought in their ultimate Verdict (so called) which appeared to be so sufficient for a just defence unto impartial Judges, and a judicious and consciencious Jury, that the standers-by generally thought we should have been brought in not guilty.

The Jury going out of the Court, they continued a certain time; then coming again, the Bayliff said they had a Verdict: They being asked, if they were agreed? said, Yes. They asked, whether Arthur Fisher and the rest of the Prisoners at the Bar, were guilty, or not guilty? They said, They were guilty in part, and not guilty in part. Then Richard Onzlow said, they must either be guilty of the whole Indictment, or else not guilty; They answered, they could not find us guilty of the whole, but only guilty of meeting; which meeting; they said, they could not find to be upon pretence of Worship, be­cause there were no words spoken: Neither could they find as guilty for not coming to hear Common-Prayer, because it was not to be heard before their Imprisonment: but this Ver­dict would not be accepted of, although Richard Onzlow had told them, that if they could not find us guilty of all, then, not guilty: and they said, they could not find us guilty but in part; So that, according to his own words, we ought to have been cleared; but Judgment was turned backward, and Equity [Page 10] could not enter; but they would force the Jury to bring in an­other Verdict. Then one of the Justices that committed us, was sworn, as to what our Confession was when we were com­mitted, who said, we confessed, we met in the fear of the Lord; and this was the best Evidence that he could give: then the Jury was sent out again, where they stayed long, in­somuch, that the Court adjourned until the third hour, about which time, they sate again, and asked if the Jury were agreed: the Bayliff said, No; but said he, Master Pound is here now; whereupon Richard Onzlow casting his eye up toward the window (the Jury being in an upper room) said, his Evidence was nothing now: The Reader may take notice, that this Pound was the Constable that accompanied the Souldiers to fetch us out of the Meeting. Then in a little space after, the Jury came again, and being asked as before, they an­swered to the same effect; which Verdict would no more satisfie the Court, than the former: Then Pound was called and sworn, whose Evidence, Richard Onzlow had said to be nothing now; neither did we judge it legal to swear Wit­nesses for either party, after the Jury had gone out twice be­fore: but we knowing our Cause to be just, and our selves innocent, we mattered not what any could say or swear against us; and his Evidence, as to what he saw, agreed with the others; but they asked him, if he heard us say, we met to worship God, or upon pretence of Religious Exercise: he said, he heard us say nothing; but we did not deny that we met to worship God; So they took it for granted: But it was told them, that a not denying, was not a confessing of any thing: and we spake to the Jury to mind the fear of the Lord (it was also told them, He that justified the Wicked, and he that condemned the Righteous, both those were abomination to the Lord) insomuch that Richard Onzlow told one of us, he should be bound to his Good-behaviour. And thus, all people may take notice of the unjust dealings of the Rulers of this Na­tion; for when it seemed very probable that we should have been cleared, because the Evidence could prove nothing a­gainst us, Richard Onzlow said, Well, my Masters, if ye be not found guilty now, ye will be found guilty shortly: where­by [Page 11] he manifested the intent of his heart; for his words did imply, that if the Jury did clear us, we should be ensnared by some other means; for he knew not, that all we should ever be brought to any more such Tryals. Then the Jury going out again, returned quickly. Then it was asked, as before, whether Arthur Fisher, and the rest of the Prisoners, were guilty as they stood indicted, or not guilty? they said, Guilty. How are they guilty, said he? Guilty of meeting, said the Foreman: But said Richard Onzlow, are they guilty accor­ding to the form of the Indictment? he answered, Yes. Then they cryed, Look to them Jaylor. Then they began to hale us away, without passing any Sentence upon us: Then we desired to hear our Sentence, which Richard Onzlow pro­nounced, as followeth: That we should return to Prison again, and there lye three months without Bail; and if in case we did not make Submission according as the Law directs, either at or be­fore the end of the aforesaid three months, that then we should ab­sure this Realm; but in case we refused to make Abjuration, or after Abjuration made, should forbear to depart this Realm, with­in the time limited, or should return again without Licence, we should be proceeded against as Felons.

THe Court being sate, there was brought; before them thirteen of the People of God, called Quakers, who being brought to the Bar, an Indictment was read, which was grounded upon an Act of Parliament of the thirty fifth year of Queen Elizabeth, for the punishment of wicked and seditious Sectaries. The Indictment being read, the Prisoners were asked, Guilty, or not guilty? Several of the Prisoners seeing their wicked intent, had not freedom to answer to that limited form of words, [viz. guilty, or not guilty] we said, it was all one whether we plead or not, seeing they had determined what to do, as we had experience in the former Tryal, yet we spake to the same effect, denying the substance of the Indictment, and declaring it to be a pack of lyes and forgeries. Then se­veral of us being suffered no further to plead, were com­mitted back to Prison, and but five only remaining whose Plea the Court accepted; whose Plea could hardly be re­ceived: for, when they asked us, Guilty, or not guilty? some of us answered, That we did believe that they knew in their own consciences that we were not guilty of that Indictment, and that it was lies and forgeries, and that we were not guilty of that Charge. They said, it was a sign our Cause was not good, we were so loth to put our selves upon a Tryal. We answered, we did not question the honesty of our Cause, but we did question the honesty of those that were to try our Cause; and that we knew that such men who fea­red God, and trembled at his Word, could not judge us Evil­doers in this matter. Reply was made; Were not those men [Page 16] that feared God? (meaning the Jury) We replyed to John Lenthal, that if he could say, in Truth and Righteousness, that he was a man that feared God, and trembled at his Word, we would refer our Cause to him; but if he was not such a one, he was not fit to sit there as Judge over us: And whereas we declared against the Forgery contained in the Indictment, they said, we were uncivil: We said, it was not uncivil to say a Lye was a Lye.

The Jury being called and sworn, they also swore two Wit­nesses. The first swore we were at a Meeting at Horsey-Down, to the number of about three-score. The Court de­manded what we were doing? He said, we were doing no­thing, nor he heard nothing spoken.

The second Witness, whose name is Crosswell, he swore we were met at Horsey-Down, to the number of about an hun­dred, and that a Woman was preaching before he came into the Meeting, and continued speaking a good while after he came in; although the former Witness, being asked how long he came in after Crosswell. He said he came in within three minutes after him, and heard nothing spoken; And when it was demanded of Crosswell, what was spoken; he could give but a slender account, but said she spoke out of Jeremiah. But this Testimony was forged by the Devil the father of lyes in the heart of this his servant, which was signified to the Jury; and also, that this Crosswell, who lives at the Horns in Kent-street, is generally known to be a very wicked man, and to keep a wicked house of entertainment for Drunkards and all manner of wicked persons; who was a Constable at the time when we were brought to Prison, he took us out of our peaceable Meeting, where we were in silence waiting upon the Lord, which was testified in open Court; and this false Witness was objected against, as not being a Compe­tent Witness, because he is known to be a man of a wicked Conversation, and one that is a Common Swearer, and not making conscience of an Oath. It was also pleaded to the Jury, that they ought to take notice of the Confutation of the Witnesses; the first affirming that nothing was spoken, the last affirming that a Woman spake.

[Page 17] It was also questioned, whether that Court had any law­ful Authority to proceed against us, seeing it is enacted in a Statute, made and provided in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, That no matters of Religion, or Causes Ecclesiasti­cal, shall be judged Errour, Heresie, or Schism, but by Eccle­siastical Authority by especial Commission, by Letters Patents un­der the Great Seal of England. The Court said, that Statute of the thirty fifth was since. To which it was answered, that this Statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth, is not re­pealed, but is yet in force. John Lenthal said, that should not hinder their proceedings. John Lenthal asked us, where­fore we were met together? We said, the end of our meeting together, was to wait upon the Lord, to feel his Power and Presence in our hearts, and that we were nei­ther wicked, seditious, nor Hereticks, but were in the fear and counsel of God, bearing Testimony against those things in our Conversation, whereof we were accused in the In­dictment.

Then John Lenthal said, directing his speech to the Jury, that one Witness said, we were at the Meeting; and the other said, that a Woman spake; and thirdly, that we confessed that we were there worshipping of God, which he charged against us as matter of fact; They also charged us of obstinately re­fusing to hear the Common-Prayer: Some of us said, we were in Prison before it was in being: Others of us bid them pro­duce Evidence that we did not hear it. They answered, that we should prove that we did hear it. We said, that did not belong to us, nor the Law doth not require it.

Then we, directing our speech to the Jury, bid them take notice of the Confutation of the Evidence, and that it was a weighty matter they went upon; that not only our Liberty, but our Lives also were concern'd in it, for they sought our Blood; and that the End and Issue of it was to take away our Lives; for we see the end of their Proceedings, by this Act, is, to make us abjure the Realm, which is, to swear, which we must rather die than do; (Oh! must you so, said the Cryer) We said, we were innocent men, fearing God, and because of that they sought our lives; but if we had been Drunkards or [Page 18] Swearers, we might have our Liberty. They said, if we would conform, we might have our Liberty. It was answered, we might obtain our Liberty for our bodies for a time, and bring our souls in bondage to all eternity. So they sent forth the Jury, who remained together till the Court adjourned to Dinner, and after they were set again, the Jury came down; the Court asked them if they were agreed? They said, No. Some of them questioned, whether a Woman speaking might be called the Worship of God. John Lonthal said, it was all one for that, whether Men or Women: But after some time, the Jury came in again, and brought us in guilty, as the Court said. We demanded their Verdict, but they would give us no answer. Then John Lenthal pronounced the Sen­tence, That we must return to Prison for three months, without Bail or Mainprize; if in that time we did not recant, we must abjure the Realm. We asked them what benefit we might obtain by such Submission? They answered, we might have our Liberty. We answered, that they could afford us no more than the Divil offered Christ; All this will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. One of them said, that was not a fit comparison. Whereupon we answered, If we should say that with our mouthes, which we did not be­lieve with our hearts, we should be Hypocrites and Children of the Devil, falling down to worship him. So as we passed from before the Court, we bid them remember Cain, who was the first that persecuted about Sacrifice and Worship, who flew his righteous Brother.

Now let the impartial Reader take notice of the slender ground that either the Jury had to bring us in guilty of that Indictment, or the Court to pass such a cruel Sentence, there being only two Witnesses. The first swore, that a Woman was speaking before he came into the Meeting; and a good while after; and the other came within three minutes after, and heard nothing spoken. This was all the Evidence that was against us, as the Auditors that were present at the Court can witness. Now whether this Evidence was a sufficient ground for such a Verdict (so called) and Sentence, let all [Page 19] sober-minded people judge: they could not prove us either wicked, dangerous, seditious, nor Sectaries; neither have the effects of our meeting ever at any time tended to any such consequence; but our Meetings do, and alwayes have ten­ded to Peace, and to the rooting out the ground of Wicked­ness, Sedition, and Heresie; therefore not guilty of this In­dictment. Secondly, There was no Evidence against us, that we did obstinately refuse to hear Common-Prayer; neither was it in being at those places which they call Churches and Chappels, till after we were in Prison; therefore we are not guilty of this Indictment. Thirdly, They did not swear that we were met in pretence of Worship; therefore we are not guilty of this Indictment. Fourthly, The Evidence did not swear that we were met in Contempt of the King, his Laws and Statutes; for we were met in the Fear and Counsel of God, which is not an evil, but a good Example to others; not against the Peace, but against the ground of strife; not against the King's Honour and Dignity, but in the ground of all true Honour and Dignity; therefore not guilty of that Indictment: Our Meeting-doors were open; and therefore by the Law not a Conventicle, which is to plot and contrive mischief, which it is manifest to all People was not our intent; therefore not guilty of that Indictment, nor deserving such a cruel Sen­tence.

Now all People who have any sence or seeling of the mea­sure of God's Spirit in their hearts, may see and discern that this persecuting spirit is no other, but that which was in Cain when he slew his Brother about Sacrifice and Worship; for, no other but that same spirit hath persecuted about Religion and Worship, from Cain to this day; who, because of that spirit, are and ever have been driven out of God's presence, as Cain was, and so are become open Enemies to that Inno­cent Life in all the Faithful, which was in Abel, whose Sa­crifice God accepteth at this day, as he did his.