1

denied the first, second, and fourth of these, has been that of the Quakers. They were not, however, within the view of the framers of the Article, since they arose subsequently, in the time of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, in the opinion of Mosheim, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, derived his doctrines indirectly from some of the Dutch m mystics; and these were certainly connected with some sections of those known as Anabaptists. And it is also true that the mystic and fanatical notions, which had been rife in Germany for some centuries, found expression during the ferment of the Reformation among the Anabaptists. The fanaticism of George Fox was reduced into a philosophical and theological system, with much learning and ability, by Robert Barclay in 1675. Since that time Quakerism has been a consistent and coherent creed, and has dropped all its earlier extravagances. This part of its code of morality will be found considered in the Fifteenth Proposition of Barclay's Apology.

THE SCRIPTURAL TREATMENT OF THESE SUBJECTS.

Old Testament examples will scarcely suffice under any of these heads, inasmuch as our opponents contend that in this respect the law of the New Testament is in advance of the Old Testament.

It is needful to draw a preliminary distinction between what is lawful to man in his private capacity as an individual, and what is lawful to him as an official person, being, as St.

Paul says, a เ minister of God.' The student will recall the argument, pressed so often in Butler's Analogy, that the organisation of human society is distinctly from God, inasmuch as it is a necessary consequence of man's nature, as a social being formed to live as a member of society. Hence, in a certain sense, all rulers of men have responsible duties and powers, distinct from their duties as individuals, and are, as St. Paul calls them, 'God's ministers.' Care must be taken to allow no confusion of moral principle in drawing this dis

1 Cent. xvii. II. ii. 6.

inction. The law of love and of care for human life, feelings, and happiness, binds alike ruler and subject. The application of that law in a particular case may require the individual to forgive, and the ruler to punish. Without this distinction between the principle and the mode of applying the principle, many precepts of Scripture (even the simplest) must often be a mass of confusion.

Thus Matt. v. 16 commands us to let our good works be seen; Matt. vi. 4 bids us carefully to conceal our alms; Matt. vii. 1 absolutely forbids us to judge; Matt. vii. 16 gives us the rule by which we may judge. Probably few persons are, even for a moment, perplexed by these apparent opposites in dealing with the outcomings of certain principles in different cases. But we must style it a perverse treatment of similar unqualified announcements of the Christian duty of individuals, which has led to the tenets condemned in the Articles now under consideration.

1. The Lawfulness of Capital Punishments.

In the New Testament the leading persons are continually brought into collision with the authorities. It will be uniformly found on examining the instances that the authority is recognised, however wrongfully a particular officer may act. We have further the direct recognition of this exercise of the power. (Acts xxv. 11; Rom. xiii. 1-4; 1 Pet. iv. 15.)

To this must be added that the original command (Gen. ix. 6) was primæval, universal, and distinct from the Jewish law.

2. The Lawfulness of Military Service.

The distinction between public and private duties must here be strongly insisted upon. In the execution of justice, which God has in a certain degree committed to man; in the defence of the weak, and of the welfare and happiness of those who are entrusted to the care of the community; some amount of force and violence is, to say the least, necessary. If there is to be a ruler (under whatever name) that ruler must be empowered to exercise force. No property, no right, no hap

piness can be preserved without it. In a word, without it society could not exist, and the non-employment of force in a sinful world would lead to the reign of wicked force. If, therefore, the law of love, of charity, of the protection of the affections and interests of human life, requires force, it follows that the forceful agent of the ruling power exercises a lawful calling, and is empowered to use what amount of violence (even to death) may be requisite to carry out his duty. If this be so, it is impossible to draw the line of right between the employment of the policeman against violence and wrong emanating from a domestic foe to society, and of the soldier against the multitudinous violence and wrong offered by a foreign enemy. This is quite apart from the right or wrong of any particular war. It is probable that these will usually be more or less intermixed in the present confused state of human affairs; and it will follow that in ordinary cases it will not be the soldier's duty to act on his own private judgment as to the merits of the war in which he may be engaged.

These principles being premised, we are prepared to find that the New Testament recognises the military profession as an incident of the present state of man, and nowhere hints that it is unlawful.

See the cases of instructions to soldiers, Luke iii. 14, and of the centurion received, as such, into the Church (Acts x). Many metaphors are drawn from military service in a manner which could scarcely have been done were it unlawful.

Moreover, Rom. xiii. 4, recognises the use of the sword.

3. That Community of Goods is not the Christian Law.

This subject is easily dealt with. The principles involved will be these:

1. The ideas of property arising out of the fruits of industry, which are involved in the notion of society as it exists by virtue of the natural law of God.

2. The necessity for liberality and bounty, which have no place if the Christian has nothing individually his own to give. 3. The exact treatment will be the consideration of the cases

in Acts iv. 32, 34, 35, and v. 1-10. It will be needful first to examine how far the transactions there described were required as a law of the Church (Acts v. 4), and then further to enquire whether in point of fact the community of goods was afterwards imposed as a law in the Churches founded by the apostles, and recognised in the Epistles as existing or needful. There can be no question as to the result of such an examination.

4. That Judicial Oaths are Lawful.

It may well appear that, apart from the general question of oaths, the English formula may be thoroughly defended. For it simply consists of a solemn (at least such it ought to be) petition to the Almighty that the person so attesting may speak the truth, or perform the truth in the premises. The simple ceremony added to this of kissing the book of the Holy Gospels, appears (to say the least) an innocent and significant testimony that the person so attested has that faith which is the basis of such an appeal.

But the general lawfulness of judicial oaths is usually defended, apart from the Old Testament, by our Lord submitting to be put on his oath before Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64). By the language of St. Paul in many passages (e.g. Rom. ix. 1; Gal. i. 20, &c.). And by the apparent recognition of such oaths (Heb. vi. 16–18).

In this case the declarations in Matt. v. 34–37, and James v. 12, must be classed with many positive assertions alluded to in p. 308, which must be understood not by our arbitrary decision, but as they stand qualified by other passages. Nor can there be any difficulty in this to one who has closely studied the manner and the phraseology of Holy Scripture.