principles to which the most zealous advocates for passive obedience and nonresistance could not object: professing that in such instances wherein they could not in conscience obey, they ought "not to resist them, but patiently suffer whatever they should inflict for non-obedience to their requirements."* The persons who signed this declaration apologize for their paucity, and seemed not pleased with their brethren, because they were not of their judgment on this point. But their difference in opinion from other Baptists shews, that a uniformity of sentiment concerning the extent of the magistrate's authority and the right of resistance, had no necessary and direct connexion with an agreement on the questions concerning baptism. In the year 1661, the hardships under which many of this profession groaned, again excited them to seek mercy from the higher powers. A petition was presented to the king, on behalf of themselves and others, from some confined in the prison at Dover, and another to the duke of York; describing their great sufferings, protesting that innocence was found in them, and that against the king and his government they had done no harm, soliciting, with much importunity to be set at liberty, and that they might not be interrupted in their worship of the God of heaven, as they were taught it in his word, which they prized above all the world; and urging, that it might be considered," how disagreeable it is with Christianity, to bring tribulation upon any for conscience' sake, seeing all things in worship must be done in faith and love."+

But the application for redress of their grievances, which particularly deserves notice, was an address to the king, parliament, and people, in a treatise entitled, "Sion's groans for her distressed; or, Sober endeavours to prevent innocent blood," &c. This was not a petition only for toleration for themselves, but an able and spirited defence of the rights of conscience. Its design was to prove how contrary to the gospel" of the Lord Jesus, and to good reason, it is for any magistrate, by outward force, to impose any thing in the worship of God on the consciences of those whom they govern; but that liberty ought to be given to all such as disturb not the civil peace, though of different persuasions

1

* Crosby, vol. 2. p. 19. Appendix, no. 5. p. 93.

+ Crosby, vol. 2. p. 165-160.

in religious matters." The question is handled on liberal principles, also with copiousness and strength. The spirit and the reasoning do honour to the people from whom it came; especially when it is recollected, that the assembly at Westminster, and the ministers of London and other parts, had from the pulpit and the press opposed the principles of toleration.

It is argued, that the power of directing conscience by outward force doth not attach itself to the office of magistracy itself, because then all magistrates in all nations have the same power; the Mahometan to enforce the reception of the Koran, the Spaniard to enjoin popery, and every succeeding magistrate to sanction his own religion, to the overthrow of what his predecessor established: because the apostles who command obedience to magistrates, in matters of religion, refused obedience; because all the Scriptures of the New Testament, enjoining obedience to magistrates, being written when the emperors were idolaters; such injunctions cannot be understood as applying to religion: because, if the commands of the magistrate in religious matters were obligatory, there could be no persecutions, and the way to heaven, so far from being strait and narrow, any might be a disciple of Christ without taking up the cross. And the conduct of Gallio, who declined interfering in a matter relative to God's law, and restrained the exercise of his authority to civil injuries only, is with great propriety appealed to, as a worthy example for the imitation of magistrates.

That the Christian magistrate, as such, has no power over conscience, nor authority to impose any thing in religion by outward force, is argued from the conduct of Christ Jesus, who never compelled men by force to receive his doctrine; from the conduct of the apostles, and the elders of the primitive church, who disclaimed any such power. 1 Cor. i. 24. Matt. xx. 25. 1 Pet. v. 2, 3.. Why therefore (say the authors of this piece) the Christian religion should be built and supported by violence, when the foundation was laid, and the work carried on during all the apostles' days, and some hundred years after, by a quite contrary means, is a question should be resolved by those whose strongest arguments for the support of their religion is, Take him, jailer. For such is the difference between the

way which the apostles and primitive saints took, in carrying on the work of the gospel, and approving themselves to be the ministers of God, and the way now used by the national clergy, than which nothing is more unlike." In the prosecution of their argument, they reason forcibly from the parable of the tares and wheat, as forbidding any outward force or violence to be used upon false worshippers and heretics as such. "Hath the magistrate (it is asked) power to remove those out of the world, that God would have permitted to live?" The fallibility of the magistrate furnishes another argument against the exercise of his power in religion; a fallibility which woful experience hath taught the world in all ages; the magistrate of one country establishing the principles and practices which that of another country condemns and persecutes; nay, the same magistrate, at different periods, reversing his own decrees; and now rejecting what he had just before defended by his pen, or supported by his laws: as was the case of Henry VIII. To this fallibility he is equally liable, whether he confide in his own wisdom, or rely on the authority of popes, synods, or general councils. This point is illustrated by various examples. As to national conventions and synods, so far are they from any show of infallibility, it is justly observed, "that the same complexion and temper the nation is of, wherein they are called, you shall be sure to find them of; because they have their dependency on the authority that calls them together." Among other arguments, it is stated, that for the magistrate to inflict temporal punishments upon any for not conforming to those decrees which enjoin any spiritual worship or service, is a breach of the royal law, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." This is a rule which all sorts of men, whilst under persecution, are ready to receive and plead. Nor would they who are forward to persecute, be very zealous in their proceedings, if they were sure that those whom they persecute should have power on their sides, to "mete the same measure unto them." It is well observed, that such proceedings may sometimes prove inconsistent with the very being of nations. "For, suppose any nation were wholly heathen idolaters, and the word of God coming in amongst them should convert the chief-magistrate, and one-twentieth part of the nation more; must he then with

that twentieth part destroy all the other nineteen, if they will not be converted, but continue in their heathenish idolatry? It cannot possibly be supposed to be warrantable. And the reason holds good likewise against the rooting up and destroying heretics out of the world."

These just sentiments are followed by a full answer to the argument in favour of the magistrate's power in religious matters, drawn from the example of the kings of Israel and Judah. In reply to this, it is observed, that the power of those kings to punish idolaters and blasphemers was given them by God, and written in plain precepts in the Mosaical law; but hath the Lord Jesus invested magistrates with such power? if he have, where is it written? The Jews, all the time they kept to the law of God, had a standing oracle amongst them, the Urim and Thummim, and the councils of extraordinary prophets to assist them to judge righteous judgments. Besides, the gospel is a dispensation far different from the law in all its ordinances and administrations, under which the Lord Jesus is the only lawgiver.

Such is the strain of this piece: the importance of the subject, the force of the argument, and the liberality of the spirit, entitle it to particular notice; and will, it is presumed, make this review of it acceptable.* The authors of it, whose names are subscribed to the prefatory epistle, were, Thomas Monck, Joseph Wright, George Hammon, William Jeffery, Francis Stanley, William Reynolds, and Francis Smith. While they earnestly recommend their treatise to deliberate and serious perusal, our design, they say, "in what we beg may be perused, is general good, in setting at liberty that which God made free, even the conscience."

The only particulars I can find concerning these able advocates for liberty are, that Mr. Wright, born in 1623, was a physician: he was educated at the university, and was a man of great learning and piety; a serious and diligent preacher, and greatly promoted the cause of the Baptists. He was confined twenty years in the jail at Maidstone; in this town he died, aged eighty, in 1703.+ Mr. George Hammon, eminent for the ardour and freedom with which he vindicated what he judged to be truth on all occasions,

* Mr. Crosby has preserved it entire in his History, vol. 2. p. 100-144. +. Crosby, vol. 3. p. 116.

and very much persecuted on that account, was pastor of a congregation at Biddendon in Kent; and died at Haseldenswood, in the parish of Cranbrook.* Mr. William Jeffery, born in 1616, of pious parents, in the parish of Penshurst, lived at Bradbourn, in Sevenoaks, Kent; where he and his brother were the great supporters, if not the founders, of a meeting. By his diligence, and that of several others, more than twenty congregations were formed in that county, on the principles laid down in Heb. vi. 1, 2, without entering on speculative and controverted points. As he was vigorous, unwearied, and successful, in his labours, so with great patience and pleasure he suffered much for his principles; these he also often defended in public disputations. He was much valued for his steady piety and universal virtue, and died in a good old age.t His son succeeded him in his church. Mr. Francis Stanley was a man noted for his zeal and piety, and was imprisoned for preaching in the jail of Northampton. Be bore his sufferings like a Christian, and died about the year 1696. He was a native of Northamptonshire, and was buried at East-Haddon, in that county.+ Of the other persons Mr. Crosby gives no particular account.

In the same year in which appeared the piece on Toleration, there were published, a small piece entitled, “A Complaint of the Oppressed against Oppressors; or, the unjust and arbitrary proceedings of some soldiers and justices, against some sober, godly persons, in and near London, who now lie in stinking jails, for the testimony of a good conscience; with some reasons why they cannot swear allegiance to obtain their liberty:" and a tract, entitled, "A Plea for Toleration of Opinions and Persuasions in matters of Religion, differing from the church of England: humbly presented to the king's most excellent majesty: by Mr. John Sturgeon, a Baptist." The former was written by Dr. John Griffith, a worthy man, who suffered a long imprisonment in Newgate for nonconformity. Each piece was an affecting remonstrance on the unjust proceedings, by which many pious and innocent persons, of unblemished characters, in London, and in almost all the counties of England, were suffering; being taken out of their beds at midnight by soldiers, acting without warrant, and with drawn swords, to the great terror of their wives and children; and being * Crosby, vol. 3. p. 103. + Ibid. p. 127. YOL. V.

+ Ibid. p. 97, 98,