flaws
in the reasoning which had formerly seemed so convincing. The ethical
parts of Scripture were not to be construed like Acts of Parliament, or
like the casuistical treatises of the schoolmen. What Christian really
turned the left cheek to the ruffian who had smitten the right? What
Christian really gave his cloak to the thieves who had taken his coat
away? Both in the Old and in the New Testament general rules were
perpetually laid down unaccompanied by the exceptions. Thus there was a
general command not to kill, unaccompanied by any reservation in favour
of the warrior who kills in defence of his king and country. There was a
general command not to swear, unaccompanied by any reservation in favour
of the witness who swears to speak the truth before a judge. Yet the
lawfulness of defensive war, and of judicial oaths, was disputed only by
a few obscure sectaries, and was positively affirmed in the articles of
the Church of England. All the arguments, which showed that the Quaker,
who refused to bear arms, or to kiss the Gospels, was unreasonable and
perverse, might be turned against those who denied to subjects the right
of resisting extreme tyranny by force. If it was contended that
the texts which prohibited homicide, and the texts which prohibited
swearing, though generally expressed, must be construed in subordination
to the great commandment by which every man is enjoined to promote the
welfare of his neighbours, and would, when so construed, be found not
to apply to cases in which homicide or swearing might be absolutely
necessary to protect the dearest interests of society, it was not easy
to deny that the texts which prohibited resistance ought to be construed
in the same manner. If the ancient people of God had been directed
sometimes to destroy human life, and sometimes to bind themselves by
oaths, they had also been directed sometimes to resist wicked princes.
If early fathers of the Church had occasionally used language which
seemed to imply that they disapproved of all resistance, they had also
occasionally used language which seemed to imply that they disapproved
of all war and of all oaths. In truth the doctrine of passive obedience,
as taught at Oxford in the reign of Charles the Second, can be deduced
from the Bible only by a mode of interpretation which would irresistibly
lead us to the conclusions of Barclay and Penn.

It was not merely by arguments drawn from the letter of Scripture
that the An