The Juryman charged; OR, A LETTER To a CITIZEN of London.  
Wherein is showed the true meaning of the Statute, Entitled, An Act to prevent and suppress Seditious Conventicles. As also, the false Glosses and Interpretations detected. And it is evinced by Undeniable Reasons that the Quakers and others that are ordinarily committed to Prison, by Justices of the Peace and Chief Magistrates of Corporations, upon that Statute, are not guilty of the breach of it; and yet in reason it is impossible to convict any man among us of being present at a Meeting, under pretence and colour of any exercise of Religion in other manner than is allowed by the Lyturgy or Practice of the Church of England, except those that in than Meetings are manifestly Seditious or otherwise notoriously wicked. And that that Juryman that finds any other person guilty, is himself guilty of Perjury, and liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come.  Hales of Schism. 
For indeed all Pious Assemblies in times of Persecution and Corruptions, howsoever practised, are indeed, or rather alone, the Lawful Congregations and Public Assemblies; though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition.  
London, Printed in Year, 1664.   

The JURYMAN Charged: OR, A LETTER to a Citizen of LONDON, etc.  
Dear SIR,  
AS it is the nature of true Love and Friendship, both to wish and endeavour the Good and Weal of those we have registered in our hearts for Friends; so it cannot be but that the happiness of the one will redound to the other, and there will need nothing to the making your Friend partner in your Joys but the knowledge of them. But among all Goods that can beautify a F●…nd, none is comparable to that of a mind habituated to Holiness, 〈◊〉 delighting to do the Will of God. And because God speaks to us by our Consciences, it must needs be our necessary duty to walk according to the Light we find in that Divine Closet. And inasmuch as the Light and Knowledge, at least a great part of it, comes from without, through the windows of our senses, we ought by all means to keep those Mediums pure and untinctured; for otherwise the Light in our Souls will not be clear & orient. How can I then but greatly rejoice in you, whom I find not only willing to obey, but diligent to know your Heavenly Masters Will? the former of these Divine Qualities separates you from the multitude of the world that lies in wickedness and disobedience, the latter distinguishes you from ignorant Zealots and blindly obedient. Not but that I confidently believe that God that gave his Son for us when we were Enemies, will much more pardon and save us, being weak, and in some things ignorant Friends: but many and lamentable are the sad Consequences even of pardonable Ignorance, much more of the damnable Ignorance of those that in killing and casting out the Servants of God, think they do God good Service. And I have no slender grounds of fear lest this may be the case of many of those that are forward in executing penal Statutes upon Religious persons for matters relating properly to their Religion and Conscience. And lest you may in the least offend, through ignorance of any sort, you are pleased to ask my advice what you should do, if it should be your lot to be called forth on a Grand Inquest or other Jury, for the putting in execution the late Act entitled, An Act to prevent and suppress Seditious Conventicles. I could wish you had made use of some other in this Question, that had been well-skilled in the Laws of England, rather than of me that am wholly ignorant in that study; but however, being assured you will pardon what you know flows from a sincere intention, I shall not be afraid to give you my private judgement as a Christian (whatever it is) in a case that may be my own as well as yours, though likely to be yours first. We have seen the Title of the Act already, it proceeds thus:— For providing therefore of further and more speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practices of Seditious Sectaries and other disloyal persons, who under pretence of tender Consciences, do at their Meetings contrive Insurrections, as late experience hath showed: Be it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Common in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That if any person of the age of sixteen years or upwards, being a Subject of this Realm, at any time after the first day of July, which shall be in the year of our Lord 1664, shall be present at any Assembly, Conventicle or Meeting, under colour or pretence of any exercise of Religion, in other manner than is allowed by the Lyturgy or Practice of the Church of England, in any place within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, at which Conventicle, Meeting or Assembly there shall be five persons or more assembled together, over and above those of the same household; Then it shall and may be lawful to and for any two Justices of the Peace, of the County, Limit, Division, or Liberty wherein the Offence aforesaid shall be committed, or for the Chief Magistrate of the place where such Offence aforesaid shall be committed (if it be within a Corporation where there are not two Justices of the Peace) And they are hereby required and enjoined, upon proof to them or him, respectively, made of such Offence, either by Confession of the Party, or Oath of Witness, or notorious Evidence of the Fact (which Oath the said Justices of the Peace and Chief Magistrate respectively are hereby empowered and required to administer) to make Record of every such Offence and Offences under their Hands and Seals respectively; which Record so made at aforesaid, shall to all intents and purposes be in Law taken and adjudged to be a full and perfect Conviction of every such Offender for such Offence: And thereupon the said Justices and Chief Magistrate respectively, shall commit every such Offender so convicted as aforesaid, to the Goal or House of Correction, there to remain without Bail or Main prize for any time not exceeding the space of three months, Unless such, etc.  
Now Sir, give me leave to tell you, that there are some that except against the whole Act as null and void in itself, as all Statutes are that are made against Piety, as this seems to them to be: but then they that thus judge, take it for granted that it forbids some exercise of Religion which God commands or allows, and in that case all Lawyers will readily confess it to be of no more force than King Darius his Decree, Dan. 6. against ask any Petition of God or man for thirty days save of himself, and which Decree Daniel was by a miracle defended in disobeying.  
Another Exception which they conceive destroys the whole Act is, its contrariety to the Fundamental Laws of the Land in respect of its proceed; for it seems contrary to the best Clause in all that so much magnified Magna Charta, viz. chap. 29. Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur, aut disseisietur de libero Tenemento suo, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuitudinibus suis, aut ut legetur, aut exubetur aut aliquo modo destruatur, ver super eum ibimus nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale Judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terra. Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus justitiam vel rectum. No Free Man may be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised of his free Tenement, or his Liberties or free Customs, or Outlawed or Banished, or any way Destroyed: Neither will we go upon him, or send upon him, but by lawful Judgement of his Equals, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to none, we will deny to none, or defer Justice or Right. It is to be observed that that great Lawyer Sir Edward Cook, 2d Part Inst. p. 49. observes upon the Exposition of Per Legale Judicium, that the manner of Trial by Juries was by Law before this Statute itself, and so is more ancient than Magna Charta. And upon these words, p. 50. Nisi per Legem terra, But by the Law of the Land, he saith it is, without due Process of Law; and that is by Indictment or Presentment of good and lawful men where such deeds be done, in due manner, or by Writ original of the Common Law. Against this Ancient and Fundamental Law, I find (saith he) an Act of Parliament made, that aswel Justices of Assizes, as Justices of the Peace (without any finding or presentment by the Verdict of 12. men) upon a bare Information for the King before them made, should have full Power and Authority by their discretions to hear and determine all Offences and Contempts committed or done by any person or persons against the Form, Ordinance, and Effect of any Statute made and not repealed, etc. By colour of which Act shaking this Fundamental Law, it is not credible what horrible Oppressions, and Exactions, to the undoing of infinite numbers of People, were committed by Sir Richard Empson Kt. and Edmund Dudley, being Justices of the Peace, throughout England: And upon this unjust and injurious Act (as commonly in like cases it falleth out) a new Office was erected, and they made Masters of the King's Forfeitures.  
But at the Parliament holden in the first year of Henry the 8th, this Act of the 11th of Henry the 7th, is receited, made void, and repealed; and the Reason thereof is yielded, for that by force of the said Act, it was manifestly known, that many sinister, crafty, feigned, and forged Informations had been pursued against divers of the King's Subjects, to their great damage and wrongful vexation. And the ill success hereof, and the fearful end of these two Oppressors, should deter others from committing the like; and should admonish Parliaments, That instead of this ordinary, and precious Trial, Per Legem Terra, they being not in absolute and partial Trials by discretion. Thus far Cook.  
Now Sir, Inasmuch as this Act allows two Justices of Peace, or the chief Magistrate of the place, not only to be Witnesses, but to pass Sentence of Imprisonment or Fine, and make Record of the Offence, without any Finding or Presentment by the Judgement of twelve men; it being contrary, both to the Custom of England, Magna Charta, and the Statute of Henry the 8th, they judge it absolutely nul and of no effect: So that those that carry on the execution of it are liable to the same miserable end with Empson and Dudley aforesaid. Besides, That this Judgement and Record of one or two Justices of the Peace, is full two parts of the proceed, whereby 5000. of his poor Neighbours may be Banished from their native Country, their dear Wives, sweet Babes, loving Friends, and all other accommodations, into another world, for seven years; yea, and if they return before that time expired, to be hanged as Felons: And all this for nothing but worshipping God according to what they are fully persuaded to be his will. Is this according to the so much Celebrated Laws of England? Judge, O ye Turks and Pagans!  
But suppose we that this Act were as just in every respect as Justice itself, and most neccessary to the Weal of the Nation, so that at least, a third part of the People would be destroyed without it be duly executed (as they are likely to be by the execution of it) yet it must by no means be executed upon those that are not proved to be guilty of the breach of it: Let us see then, what is neccessary to be proved against every man or woman that is justly convicted of Breach of this Act. First, This Prisoner must be sixteen years of age. 2ly, He must be a Subject of this Realm. 3dly. A must be present at an Assembly, Conventicle or Meeting. 4thly. Such Assembly, Conventicle or Meeting must be held under colour or pretence of some exercise of Religion. 5thly. He must be present at such Assembly or Meeting under such colour or pretence of some exercise of Religion. 6thly. That exercise of Religion must be in another manner than is allowed by the liturgy, or Practice of the Church of England. 7thly. There must be present at this Assembly five persons over and above those of the same household. If the Witnesses fail in any one of these Particulars, the Indictment is void. Now Sir, I beseech you, Where shall we find Witnesses competent for such Evidence? Take, for example, a Meeting of Quakers, for they are most free and open in their Worship; who will be so daring as to venture his soul upon it, That they meet together under pretence or colour of any exercise of Religion in other manner than is allowed by the Liturgy or practice of the Church of England? or if any should be so bold and mad, as to make no Conscience of Swearing any thing that the Judges should bid him Swear, Shall you, or I, be so mad as to believe him, or be satisfied in our consciences that it is so? For, let us consider, what knowledge is requisite in such a Witness, and then try the Hackney-Witnesses whether they be so qualified. First, It is necessary, that he know every single person against whom he bears Testimony, was there present under colour or pretence of Religion: But how should he know this, except every such person should tell him so? But they do constantly aver, That they come not together under any pretence or colour (As pretence and colour is opposed to intention and reality) and therefore are not guilty. I beseech you, mark, the Act doth not say, Whosoever shall be present at any exercise of Religion, but, shall be present [under pretence of any exercise of Religion; which words of pretence and colour are to no purpose, and might have been spared, if to be [present] at a Religious Meeting be sufficient to make a man guilty. So that really, according to the best understanding I have, they do wickedly abuse the King and Parliament that adjudge men guilty upon any other score. Again, It is usual both for Quakers and others, to visit one another, and being together, they take occasion to do some Act of Religion, and perhaps, are found therein, and apprehended; What, did they therefore come together under colour of Religion, because they are Religious? Are both those that profess to meet for Religion, and those that profess it not, but somewhat else, equally guilty? Such a Witness must be of wonderful discerning.  
But suppose we, that our Judges will persuade the silly Witnesses, that, if they were found Praying, or Exhorting one another, that then the pretence of Religion is evident, (for I will not imagine so much wickedness in any of our Judges as in Br. to adjudge men guilty, that say, nor do any thing) But 2dly. our Witness must know, that this exercise of Religion was in other manner than is allowed by the Lyturgy or practice of the Church of England; and how shall he know that? Can any man tell what the liturgy allows, except he hath read it all, and every part, or heard it read? and truly, there is little less than the whole Bible contained in the Litturgy, if you consider the Epistles, Gospels and Chapters that are there appointed to be read. So that the result will be, Whether this exercise of Religion be allowed in the Bible, or Lyturgy or Practice of the Church of England, and then it will be necessary that our Deponent have read or known, understood, and remembered all, and every part of the holy Scriptures; all, and every part of the Litturgy; all, and every part of the Practice of the Church of England concerning Religion, whether it be written, or not written. He must also be able to compare this exercise of Religion in the accused Assembly, with the Scriptures, Litturgy, and Practice of the Church of England. He must also be able to determine all Controversies in Religion, to know on which side the Truth lies between the party accused and the Exercise of Religion allowed by the Scriptures, Lyturgy, or Practice of the Church of England, and if perhaps the Lyturgy and Practice of the Church of England do thwart and contradict the Scriptures, or one another, or themselves concerning this point of Religion in question, so that they do in some places allow it, and in other places disallow it: our Witness must be able to determine certainly upon his Oath, That this exercise of Religion is not allowed by the Lyturgy or Practice of the Church of England; and then, eris mihi magnus Apollo?  
But you will say, perhaps, That it is determined by the Church of England already what only exercise of Religion is allowed, and by consequence all other are disallowed: So that, the Witness needs only to tell, In what manner they exercised Religion, and the Judges will tell the Jury, That the Lyturgy and Practice of the Church of England doth allow it, and then it will be clear between the Witness and the Judges to the Jury-man's conscience, that the Prisoner is guilty according to the Indictment. But will this satisfy you Sir? Can you take a passionate and tasty Judge's word as your infallible Director in so many most difficult Controversies as must in this case be decided? Will you pin your Faith upon the Judge's sleeve in matters of Religion, (of which perhaps he knows no more than he can find in the Statute-Book,) when you have rejected the Church of Rome, with all her pretences of Infallibility, from being Determiness in this matter? where I pray hath the Church of England determined all Acts of Religion that are to be performed by five or more persons? Doth she not tell us, the Scriptures are the Word of God? Doth she not commend it as a perfect Rule of Faith, and Manners? Doth she not translate it into our Mother Tongue, and charge us to read it diligiently? And must we not obey what we judge we find there? The Papists are in far better case than we, that are not permitted to read the Scriptures, if when we have read them we must be punished for understanding and obeying them the best we can. O wittily done, Robin Everard, that didst choose rather to go to Rome, than return to the Church of England! perhaps thou thought'st she was hastening thither, and thou wouldst go before to get a good quarter, as fearing thou shouldst scarce get any entertainment when so great an Army came. But to return, Doth the Church of England allow only one manner of exercise of Religion, that is, reading the Lyturgy? Why then do ye Preachers usually make Prayers before and after your Sermons, that are not in the Lyturgy? Doth not the Church of England allow what the Scriptures command? but the divine Author to the Hebrews commands Christians, Heb. 10.24, 25. To consider one another, to provoke one another to Love, and to Good Works, and not to forsake the assembling themselves together, as the manner of some is: For how should they provoke one another to Love and Goodworks, if they should not Assemble? but you will say, They must assemble among their Neighbours at Church; but there is only one permitted to exhort the rest, if any other should speak there to exhort one another, he should presently be haled to prison, and perhaps lose his life among the Rabble. The same Author commands us to exhort one another daily, while it is called to day, lest any be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. What, will not the Church of England allow us to endeavour to prevent the deceitfulness of sin, and hadness of heart? Surely the Lyturgy (in the Litany) hath one clause against hardness of heart; must we pray against it, and not labour against it? How absurd is that? Or what? doth not the Church of England allow a man to read the Scriptures or the Lyturgy in his own Family, if there be five persons besides his Family? And is not reading the Scriptures an exercise of Religion? Doth not the Church of England allow five persons besides the Family to meet together, to consult of relieving a poor Widow or Fatherless, and to exhort and stir up one another to this work by mutual Conference or continued Speeches, and Orations out of the Scriptures, and to pray for one another, that they may keep themselves unspotted from the Adulteries, Fornications, Profane Swear, Oppressions, Cruelties, Malice, Envy, Revenge, Covenant-Breaking, Persecution of Good men, and all manner of Debaucheries of the times? But the Apostle James saith, Pure Religion, and undefiled is this, to visit the Fatherless and Widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Who will dare to take his Oath, the Church of England doth not this allow? Again, I would fain know whether a man may not invite six poor People to his House, and there feed their hungry bodies, and instruct their ignorant souls in the knowledge of the Gospel, without incurring the penalty of this Law? Is not this an Act of Religion? Can any man be saved without Charity? Doth the Church of England not allow us to go in the way to Heaven, except it banish us to Barbados or Jamaico? It shall be lawful there to obey God and be Merciful, but not in England.  
The holy Apostle Paul bids us, Rom. 12.15. Rejoice with them that rejoice, and mourn with them that mourn; and the Apostle James bids us Confess our faults one to another, and pray one for another, (Jam. 5. 16.) that we may be healed; What, must we not do it, five or six together, without Banishment? Doth not the Church of England allow it? Have we not just cause to say to these, as our Lord said to the Scribes and Pharises, Thus have ye made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition, Statute.  
Nay, besides the Contradiction to our Saviour's Commands, Doth not such an Interpretation of this Law, (forbidding all Religion of six persons, but what is performed at Church by hearing a Parson, read the Lyturgy, as the never-to-be-forgotten Judge Bridgman expounded it to the ever-to-be-remarked Hartford Juryes) Doth it not I say, make us inhuman beasts, as well as irreligious men and women? for how can a man in prudence suffer his wife to go to her neighbour's labour when she cries out for her help, lest perhaps there should be four more, and they all be taken for Conventiclers, for certainly in such extremities, it is usual for the Labouring woman to cry to God for help, which is a plain Act of Religion; nay, I hear it is common to the good Women after they have finished their work, for the Midwife or some other to give thanks, and pray solemnly in other manner than is any where to be found in the Lyturgy. Let it therefore be considered, that the Travelling-woman, or any other for her, be henceforth prohibited to pray unto God in such cases, lest she bring upon her Neighbours for their goodwill and humanity, the penalty of three or six months' imprisonment, or Banishment for seven years. Or for better security, let the Parson always be sent for as soon as the Midwife, to act his part among the good women till their work be finished.  
Again, how will it be safe for a man to go to his deceased Neighbours funeral, lest some body should salute the surviving Relative with a I pray God comfort you, or I pray God give you Joy after your Sorrow, and so make the whole company liable to a penalty? The like may be said, for praying Joy to a new married Couple, or saying God be with you to our friend, taking a Journey by Land, or a Voyage by Sea, or much more for five persons going to their neighbours to dinner, except the Priest be there to say Grace.  
But lastly, I know not how any persons meeting together upon any Occasion whatsoever can escape, taking Judge Bridgman's Sentence for Law, that is, saith he, You must not expect a plain punctual Evidence against them for any thing they said or did at their Meeting, for they may speak to one another, though not with or by auricular sound, but by a cast of the eye, or a motion of the head or foot, or gesture of the body, etc. if you find or believe in your hearts that they were in the Meeting under colour of Religion in their way, though they sat still only, and looked upon each other, seeing they cannot say what they did there, it was an Unlawful Meeting, etc. If they are sworn to give Verdict according to Evidence, may proceed to condemn men without Evidence according to what they believe in their heart; and if they may without hearing or seeing what they did, judge them according to what may be in their hearts or gestures; then may the Judge have his skin pulled over his ears for false Judgement, for it may be he knows in his own conscience it was so. But saith he, their use and practice was not according to the liturgy of the Church of England, for it allows and commands when people meet together in the Church, that Divine Service should be read, etc. Is it not rarely well argued? the Lyturgy commands that when people meet together in the Church, Divine Service shall be read, therefore it doth not allow that when people are met together in a private house, Divine Exhortations should be given, or that people should sit together without saying or doing any thing. This is not Lawyers Latin, but Lawyer's Logic, and the great and dreadful God of Heaven and Earth will try it, whether it be made in any true mode or figure of Justice. I have proved to you that in many cases, and might in many more, that if the Lyturgy be not contrary to the Scriptures and itself, it allows of Meetings and Acts of Religion, the manner whereof is not determined by the Lyturgy of the Church of England. The Judge might as well have argued thus; The Lyturgy allows men to eat and drink Bread and Wine given by the hand of a Priest at Church; Therefore men may not eat and drink Bread and Wine with thanksgiving at their own Tables. If a Sophister in the Schools should use such a Fallacy, he might be hissed at for a Dunce, and there's an end on't; but to delude God and jurymen's Consciences, and to banish harmless and meek men from their Native Country, Husbands from their dear Wives, Parents from their tender Babes, Kinsfolk from Kinsfolk, and loving Neighbours and Friends from the sweet society of their Neighbours and Friends; this is intolerable, and a Judgement that God will judge! and I persuade myself you will ever keep yourself from partaking in such gross Iniquity. And this leads me to the consideration the Equitableness of the punishment, and the proportion that is between that and the Offence; for in all just Laws the penalty is not greater than the nature of the Fault requires. Now supposing the Fault to be such as the Interpreters would make us believe, that is, that men and women from an erroneous persuasion do meet together to worship God in other manner than is allowed by the Church of England, can it be imagined the Parliament would punish such an Error as this with horrid Banishment for seven years? far be it from us to think so unworthily of an English Parliament. No, the Intention of the Parliament is manifest from the Title and Preface of the Act: the Title, An Act to prevent and suppress seditious Conventicles: but what Sedition in worshipping God erroneously? The Preface, For remedy against Seditious Sectaries and other disloyal persons, who under pretence of Tender Consciences, do at their Meetings contrive Insurrections, etc. and therefore the matter of Fact is, persons meeting under colour and pretence of Religion; whereby it plainly appears they intended not to punish those that have no other Intention in their religious Exercises but what appears; but such as only pretend Religion for Seditious ends: To such indeed, where that Seditious mind is discovered and manifest, the punishment may be proportionate; but for persons that have no other intention in Meeting, or at least in whom no other intention can any way be made manifest, but to please God and satisfy their own Consciences, for them to be punished in this manner, is like as if a Parent should banish one of his Children out of his presence, and from his table, into Jamaica or Barbados to be educated among his Cowherds and Hog-herds for seven years, because he hath a weak stomach and cannot eat the wholesome food of the other Children. Therefore it is wholly to be held that either this is not the punishment, or that is not the offence; for there is no proportion between them.  
Again, how can it be imagined the Parliament would forbid all religious Meetings, save at the Parish Church, because thirty men once came out of such a Meeting to make a Sedition and Tumult? Can any man suppose that Insurrections are contrived in a Meeting of eighty or an hundred People of all sorts, Men, Women and Children? Surely no State or Kingdom need fear such Plots; Are not Insurrections rather contrived in secret chambers, where questionless there are not above five besides those of the household? why should it not therefore be prohibited for men to come together upon any occasion whatsoever in any number? You will say this cannot be, for it will destroy Trading and Society? But what I pray, is not trading for Heaven and religious Society, as necessary as civil commerce and worldly Commodities? But you will say, They may meet at the Parish Church for Religious Society: But I have showed before, that many things are to be done in Religion which cannot be done there, neither is it permitted if it could. And besides Sedition hath been moved and acted at the public Church, witness Scotland in the beginning of the late Wars; and Dr. Duck at Magnes: A common thing to preach Sedition in the Pulpit. Must we therefore be prohibited from meeting at Church, and commanded to worship God at home, every Family by itself? if some persons abuse of a thing could have made it unlawful, we should by this time have had nothing lawful. The preaching of the Gospel was in the purest times, done by some out of envy, and yet that did not hinder others from doing it out of good will. The Grace of God was by some turned into Lasciviousness, yet it taught others to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, etc. Those that met Seditiously, were therein as offensive to those that meet now peaceably, and religiously, as they were to the King and Parliament.  
Now Sir, upon the whole matter, that I may draw to a conclusion; Can you believe in your conscience that the Quakers and others that come before you for religious Meetings, have seditious Intentions and Contrivances under the pretence of Religion? Do you think it possible for any Witness or Judge on Earth to satisfy your sworn conscience, that the Exercise of Religion among the Quakers or any other profession among us is not allowed by the Scriptures, Lyturgy or Practice of the Church of England? Mistake me not, I say not that you cannot be satisfied in conscience that some professions do err in some matters of Doctrine or Practice, so as that you can neither consent with them, nor do as they do: But can you take your Oath that they err maliciously? Can you venture your Eternal Salvation on it, that their exercise of Religion is a sin that deserves to be punished with seven years' Banishment?  
Suppose the Witness say, they were met together at a private house, and prayed together, and exhorted one another, but did not read either their Prayers or Exhortations out of a Book called the Lyturgy, and the Judge tell you that this is sufficient as to matter of fact; can you hereupon pawn your Soul and all your earthly comforts, that they are guilty according to the Indictment? They shall be banished out of their Country for seven years; Will you freely be banished out of Heaven evermore, if they be not sufficiently proved guilty? They shall be sent to Jamaico or Barbados; Will you be sent to Hell if they be not sufficiently proved guilty? They shall be separated from their Wives, Children, Parents, Kinsfolk, Friends and Neighbours for seven years; will you willingly be separated from the presence of the Lord and his holy Angels and Saints for ever, if they be not sufficiently proved guilty? They shall be damnified in their Trades, and in the comfortable enjoyment of their Families and Friends; are you willing to be cursed by God in your Trades, Families, Friends, and in whatsoever is dear to you, if they be not sufficiently proved guilty? They shall be hanged up as Felons if they return without Licence in seven years' space; can you appeal to God with a good conscience, and say before the great and dreadful Judge of Heaven and Earth; Lord, let me suffer Death and Damnation as a Murderer, if these persons be not sufficiently proved guilty? Whoever understands the nature of an Oath and Verdict, this is the Case between the Juryman and the Prisoner.  
But you will say, Perhaps the Judge will be angry, & threaten, and say, My Masters, will you make a nose of wax of the Law, and suffer the Law to be baffled? those that think to deceive the Law, the Law will deceive them: and perhaps I shall be sent for to the Court and imprisoned in the Gatehouse, and so be undone by great Charges and loss of my Trade. But such a thing as that would be such Injustice as never was heard of; and it cannot be imagined, that his Majesty would suffer it: It is altogether improbable that any man should suffer in this kind: I only suppose the worst that can be supposed; and if the worst is to be endured; how much more when it shall be only a chiding? I ask thee again, Whether thou hadst rather incur the displeasure of God or of man? Whether thou hadst rather suffer from men in thy Trade, Family and Liberty, or be cursed by God in them all? Whether the Gatehouse or Hell be worse? Whether it be not better to trust God, with a good conscience, than to trust the Devil with a bad one? If thou dost believe that God rules the world, that he favoureth and blesseth the Righteous, and punisheth the Wicked, both in this world, and that which is to come, then keep thy conscience clean, do righteously though thou suffer by it: Fear not them that kill the body, and have no more that they can do; But rather fear him, which is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell.  
But why do I use such severe expostulations with you, of whose tenderness of conscience I have so great and clear evidence? I know you can sooner die upon the place, then bring in any such peaceable person, Guilty; as well knowing that there is a heavy Woe pronounced against him that shall offend the least of Christ's little ones; it were better for him that a Millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the depth of the Sea. I know you do approve of that most prudent counsel of that most Famous Doctor of Law amongst the Jews, Gamaliel; Act. 5.38, 39 Refrain from these men, and let them alone, (for if this counsellor this Work be of men it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it) lest happily ye be found even to fight against God. I cannot but much wonder, with what conscience two Justices of Peace, or one Chief Magistrate, can play the parts of Judge, Jury, and Witness, against these poor men, and condemn them for Meetting Seditiously, because they meet simply to exercise Religion according to their conscience. I appeal to you, whether this Oppression doth not call for the Judgements of God upon the whole Nation.  
The Lord give them that are guilty in this kind, Repentance and Remission of Sins; and deliver you from partaking with them, either in their Sin or Punishment.  
I am Your affectionate Christian Friend H. E.  
THE END.