210

HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

CHAP.

IX.

would persecute the most loyal of the clergy and gentry with■ more than the animosity of the Rump or the Protector. Thattime had however arrived. It was now to be seen how thepatience which Churchmen professed to have learned fromthe writings of Paul would stand the test of a persecution byno means so severe as that of Nero. The event was such aseverybody who knew anything of human nature would havepredicted. Oppression speedily did what philosophy andeloquence would have failed to do. The system of Filmermight have survived the attacks of Locke: but it never re-covered from the death blow given by James.

That logic, which, while it was used to prove that Pres-byterians and Independents ought to bear imprisonment andconfiscation with meekness, had been pronounced unanswer-able, seemed to be of very little force when the question waswhether Anglican Bishops should be imprisoned, and therevenues of Anglican colleges confiscated. It had been oftenrepeated, from the pulpits of all the Cathedrals in the land,that the apostolical injunction to obey the civil magistratewas absolute and universal, and that it was impious pre-sumption in man to limit a precept which had been promul-gated without any limitation in the word of God. Now,however, divines, whose sagacity had been sharpened bythe imminent danger in which they stood of being turned outof their livings and prebends to make room for Papists, dis-covered flaws in the reasoning which had formerly seemed soconvincing. The ethical parts of Scripture were not to beconstrued like Acts of Parliament, or like the casuisticaltreatises of the schoolmen. What Christian really turned theleft cheek to the ruffian who had smitten the right? WhatChristian really gave his cloak to the thieves who had takenhis coat away? Both in the Old and in the New Testamentgeneral rules were perpetually laid down unaccompanied bythe exceptions. Thus there was a general command not tokill, unaccompanied by any reservation in favour of thewarrior who kills in defence of his king and country. Therewas a general command not to swear, unaccompanied by anyreservation in favour of the witness who swears to speak the