Gibson on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

Veky important alterations were made in this Article m 1563, when the first paragraph was entirely rewritten, and the second, referring to Elizabeth’s Injunctions introduced for the first time. Instead of the very careful and guarded statement of the Royal supremacy now contemed L these two paragraphs, the Edwardian Article had bluntly stated that the King of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church oi ff- Jjf Ireland” It also contained a clause (omitted in 15 b 3) after that referring to the Bishop of Rome, statmg in Scriptural language that “the civil magistrate is ordained and allowed of God : wherefore we must obey him. not only for fear of pimishment. but also for conscience’ sake” (cf. Kom. xiii. 1, 5).

The object of the Article is (1) to explain and justify the tenet of the Royal supremacy, (2) to assert formally the repudiation of the jurisdiction of the Pope, and (3) to condemn the attitude of the Anabaptists with regard to the obedience due to the magistrate, and the lawfulness of capital punishment and of serving in war. With regard to this last point it may be noted that so formidable was the spread of the Anabaptists, that they were expressly excluded from the pardon granted by Henry viii. in 1540; and among their errors the following are particularly mentioned : ” That it is not lawful for a Christian man to bear office or rule in the Common-

• It is not euy to say why there is nothing corresponding to this word in ^ll^^ish. In the series of 1553 “jusU belU” was represented by “lawful wars.”

no man’s laws ought to be

wealth,” 1 and “that obeyed.” ’

The subjects brought before us in this Article may best be treated of under the following heads : —

1. The Royal supremacy.

2. The Papal claims.

3. The lawfulness of capital punishment.

4. The lawfulness of war.

L The Royal Sujrremacy.

The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

[…]

In considering the history of the formal assertion of the Royal supremacy, it will be well to mark out clearly two stages — (a) the recognition of the Sovereign as ” Supreme Head,” and (h) his recognition as ” Supreme Governor.”

(a) The formal recognition of the Sovereign as “Supreme Head” begins in the year 1531. In this year Henry viii., who was now bent upon obtaining his divorce, with a view to obtaining the ready submission of the clergy when the question should be brought before them, insisted on the introduction of a new form of the king’s title into the preamble of an Act of Convocation by which a grant of money was to be made to the Crown. As originally presented to the Convocation, the form of the title spoke of ” the English Church and clerg}’, of which the king alone is protector and supreme head.” It was, however, only accepted by the clergy with the qualifying clause, ” as far as the law of Christ permits.” ^

The following year was marked by the ” submission of the clergy,” whereby the Convocation formally acknowledged that the Royal licence was necessary for Convocation to meet, and to make Canons, and also agreed that the existing Canon Liw should be reviewed by a Commission appointed by the Crown.^

Meanwhile Parliament had begun to pass a series of

[…]

• Dixon, vol. i. p. 110, Eccl, Courts Commistiaa, p. 71. It was this agreement that the Canon Law should be reviewed which led to the appointment of the various Commissions from which the liefonnntio Leffuni Ecdes’iastiearum emanated. As, however, was mentioned iu vol. i. p. 28, it never received any authority whatever.

Acts to restrain the Papal jurisdiction in this country, such as the Act for restraint of Appeals (1533), and thus to secure the supremacy of the Crown over all persons and causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil; and in 1534, not only was the submission of the clergy embodied in an* Act of Parliament,! but an Act was passed asserting the supreme headship of the Crown, and defining its character.^ In this it was stated that, ” albeit the king’s majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations, yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ’s religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirpate errors, heresies, and other enormities, and abuses heretofore used in the same : be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the king our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and stile thereof as all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining ; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies,’ abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they may be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought or may lawfully be reformed,

-’ 26 Hem-, viii. c. 1. See Eccl. Courts Commission, p. 72.

repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this realm, any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.”

The title ” supreme head ” was thus formally taken by Henry viiI. Its use was continued by Edward vi., and (at her accession) by Mary, who used it in the early proclamations of her reign.^ She, however, is the last English sovereign who has ever claimed it. It was dropped by her on her marriage with Philip of Spain in 1554 The ** Supreme Head Act,” cited above, was legally repealed, and has never been re-ena/:ted. But for twenty years, from 1534 to 1554, the “supreme headship ” was a tremendous reality. It ” involved a claim on the part of the Crown to exercise spiritual jurisdiction.^ and not merely to see that the spiritual authorities exercised their jurisdiction, and was a wholly new and unprecedented claim.” ” For twenty years the independent jurisdiction of the Church, exercised by her own officers — the ordinaries — and in her own courts according to her own law, was superseded by the authority of the Crown, and the ordinaries became only the officers of the Government, in virtue of the powers said to be vested in the Crown by the recognition of its supreme headship.” *

Jewel makes good use of this fact as against the Romanists more than once. See his Wcrrks (Parker Society ed.), vol. i. p. 61, and iv.

p. 974…

Henry VIii. actually claimed to delegate the exercise of this spintnal jurisdiction to whomsoever he would, and in 1535 appointed Thomas Cromwell to be his vicegerent in ecclesiastical matters.

» Wakeman, IrUroductum to the History of the Church of England, pp. 318, 320, where there is an admirable sketch of the whole subject.

The Church, it must be admitted, after her first protest, acquiesced in and submitted to this tyranny, and during this period many utterly irregular and unconstitutional things were done. Happily the period of the supreme headship was of no long duration, and there is no need to enter further into the history of it here.

(b) On the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, Mary’s Act abolishing the old Act of Supremacy remained unrepealed ; but a new Act was passed, claiming for the Crown the title of ” supreme governor ” instead of ” supreme head.” ^ And although the Act of Parliament conceded to the Crown large powers, and claimed for it, as Henry’s Act did, spiritual jurisdiction, yet, when some of the clergy scrupled to take the oath enjoined by the Act, the sovereign put forth an explanation of it in ” an Admonition to simple men deceived by malicious,” which was appended to the Injunctions of 1559. This explanation is not altogether consistent with itself, for it claims the authority challenged and used by Henry viii., but then proceeds at once to define and very materially limit its meaning, describing it as ” of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this realm, that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her realms, dominions and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them.” And it is added that ” if any person, that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said oath, shall accept the same oath with this interpretation, sense, or meaning ; Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the

said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath.” ^

The explanation thus given is of the utmost importance. It forms an authoritative commentary upon and interpretation of the Act of Parliament, and, taken in connection with the alteration of style and the adoption of the title of ” supreme governor ” in place of that of ” supreme head,” * it indicates a real and substantial change in the conception of the Royal supremacy. It reduces it within reasonable limits, and gives it a far more constitutional character, and one more in accordance with ancient precedents, than could be claimed for the form it had assumed under Henry viiI. Further, it should be noted that Elizabeth’s acts entirely bore out the interpretation which she gave in her Injunctions. Her government of the Church was a very real thing, but she was most careful to maintain that it is ” the Church,” and not the Crown, which ” hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and hath authority in controversies of faith ; ” and the powers which she claimed and exercised were visitorial and corrective, a right of supervision rather than of ordinary administration such as Henry VIII. and Edward vi. with his Council had exercised. It is, then, in this limited and qualified sense that the Royal supremacy was accepted by the Church at the accession of Elizabeth, and all subsequent documents that can claim to speak with any authority whatever upon the subject concur in regarding it in this light. Ignorant people have often spoken of the sovereign as ” head ” of the Church, but entirely without warrant.

• “The Queen is unwilling to be addressed, either byword of mouth or in writing, as the head of the Church of England. For she seriously maintains that this honour is due to Christ alone, and cannot belong to ;uiy human being soever,” — Jewel to Bullinger, Zurich Letters^ vol. i. p. 33.

” Concerning the title of ’ supreme head of the Church,’ we need not to search for Scripture to excuse it. For, iirst, we devised it not; secondly, we use it not; thirdly, our princes at this present claim it not.” So wrote Jewel in 1567,^ and his words remain true still. The interpretation given in the Injunctions was expressly referred to in the Articles of 1563, so that, after claiming for the sovereign the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, the Article proceeds to explain with great care in what this consists.

Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief gOYernment, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended : we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s word or of sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify : But that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

To the same effect in the proclamation issued on the occasion of the northern rebellion in 1569, Elizabeth expressly declared that she pretended “no right to define Articles of faith, to change ancient ceremonies formerly adopted by the Catholic and Apostolic Church, or to minister the word or the sacraments of God ; but that she conceived it her duty to take care that all estates under her rule should live in the faith and obedience

i:

of the Christian religion ; to see all laws ordained for that end duly observed ; and to provide that the Church be governed and taught by archbishops, bishops, and ministers.” *

Once more, in the ” Royal Declaration ” prefixed to the Articles in 1628, the sovereign is made to say that —

” Being at God’s ordinance, according to our just title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these our Dominions, we hold it most agreeable to this our kingly office, and our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to our charge in unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace ; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have therefore, upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following :

“That we are Supreme Governor of the Church of England: and that if any difference arise about the external policy, concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their Convocations is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do : and we approving their said ordinances and constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land.”

These documents are all-important ones, as showing how the supremacy was explained to and accepted by the Church. Something more, however, may here be added in justification of it.

The Article claims that it is only the “prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly

princes in holy Scriptures by God Himself.” This is the view of it which was strongly pressed in the sixteenth century, when an appeal was frequently made to the position occupied by the head of the State in the system of the Jews under the Old Covenant. So Jewel writes that ” Queen Elizabeth doth as did Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Josias, Jehoshaphat.” ^ But the position of the Jewish Commonwealth was so peculiar that it may be doubted whether the appeal was altogether a fair one, or whether the position of the sovereign is perfectly analogous to that occupied by the Hebrew monarchs. It is better to refer rather to those passages of the New Testament which support the claims of established authority to loyal obedience, as Kom. xiii. and 1 Pet. ii. 13-17. The Church, it must be remembered, exists as a spiritual society under the conditions of civil life. Its members must therefore be subject to the law of the State as to conduct and the enjoyment of the civil rights. Thus in very early days appeals were made even to heathen emperors by the Church where cases of property and civil rights were concerned.^ And if Cranmer was right in asserting that no more is given to the sovereign by the assertion of the Royal supremacy than was conceded to Nero, who was ” head ” of the Church in S. Paul’s day, or might be conceded to the Grand Turk, who in the same way is “head” of the Church in his dominions,^ certainly

’ Jewel, Works, vol. iv. p, 1145.

’ E.g. in the case of Paul of Samosata, who refused to give up the bishop’s house after his deposition by the Council of Antioch in 269. After the defeat of Zenobia, the aid of Aurelian was invoked to give effect to the sentence of the Synod, and in 272, by the help of the civil power, Paul was ejected. See Eusebius, H. E. VII. xxx.

’ “Every king in his own realm and dominion is supreme head… . Nero was head of the Church, that is, in worldly respect of the temporal bodies of men, of whom the Church consisteth ; for so he beheaded Peter

I.’

nothing more than a general reference to the language of the Apostles on the obedience due to constituted authority is required to justify it. It cannot, however, be seriously maintained that this is all that is intended by it. The conversion of the empire introduced a new state of things, and put the emperor into a new relation towards the Church. From this time forward a vague authority in the affairs of the Church was considered to be vested in him over and above his ordinary jurisdiction over all men. He was supposed to be in perfect harmony with the Church. His duty was to see its laws carried out; and to him it appertained to summon General Councils.^ In later days, under the “Holy Roman Empire,” the same thing is seen. It may be seen in the laws of Charles the Great, which ” illustrate the action of a strong monarch. When a case could not be settled before the bishop or the metropolitan, he directed that it should be brought finally before himself. The Synods referred their decisions to him that they might be supplemented, amended, and confirmed. He claimed for himself the right and the duty of following the example of Josiah in endeavouring to bring back to God the kingdom committed to him, by visitation, correction, admonition, in virtue of his royal office.” ^

It is something of the same position and power which has been conceded to the sovereign in the Church of England; and the formal documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which claim it as the ” ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical,” ^ are perfectly

and the Apostles. And the Turk, too, is head of the Church of Turkey.” —Examination at Oxford, 1555 ; Bemains, p. 219.

^ Canon 1 of 1604. In the third Canon it is maintained that the sore-reign has ** the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian emperors of the primitive Church.”

justified in their claim. « The early English laws prove that simUar powers [to those claimed by Charles the Great] were exerted by the sovereigns before the Conquest ; and throughout the medieval period the English king never surrendered his supreme visitorial power, the power of determining finally, on his own responsibility and at his own discretion, the ecclesiastical relations of his subjects.” 1 Or, as Mr. Wakeman puts it, ” the constitutional character of the supremacy of the Crown . does not differ in principle from that exercised by William i. or Edward i., being in its essence the right of supervision over the administration of the Church, vested in the Crown as the champion of the Church, in order that the religious welfare of its subjects may be duly provided for.” 2 Thus we maintain that, while its formal assertion in the sixteenth century grew out of the necessity for national resistance to foreign claims, yet the supremacy itself was no new thing. Questions of the utmost importance and delicacy may, of course, arise in connection with it ; and in the present day, when the powers formerly exercised by the Crown have so largely passed from the personal control of the sovereign to the Parliament, a wholly new state of things has arisen. This has been greatly complicated by the unfortunate Act of 1833 (to say nothing of later legislation), which abolished the ancient Court of Delegates, in which the Crown appointed the members of the final Court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes, and transferred its powers to the Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncU. But into the vexed question of the Ecclesiastical Courts there is no necessity to enter here. All that we are at present concerned with is this, viz. that since the Royal supremacy as explained to and accepted by the Church

[…]

is for all practical purposes identical with that anciently enjoyed by the Crown in this country, there is no sort of reason why its formal assertion in and since the sixteenth century should be thought to cause a difficulty to loyal Churchmen. The ” supreme headship ” is not claimed. The extraordinary powers exercised by Henry vni. and Edward vi. are no longer in force. These the Church repudiates as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The supreme governorship, as defined and limited in the formal documents cited above, she loyally accepts.^

II. The Papal Claims.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

The statement of the Article sums up as briefly as possible the position taken up by the Church of England in the sixteenth century. It is, of course, well known that during the previous centuries, although a Papal jurisdiction was freely admitted, yet resistance to the claims of Rome was not infrequent, and various Acts were passed to limit the powers of the Pope in this country. But the summary rejection of Papal jurisdiction, as a whole, belongs to the sixteenth century. The account of the steps taken by the Church and State, including the formal declaration by Convocation in 1534, that “the Pope of Rome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in holy Scripture, in this

It has been impossible to do more than give the briefest outline in regard to the very important subject discussed in this section. Reference has been frequently made in the notes to the Report of tJu EceUtiastical Courts C<ytnmis»i<m, as well as to Mr. Wakeman’s valuable note on the subject. To these the reader is referred for fuller details ; and with them mention should be made of Mr. Gladstone’s famous letter to Bishop Blomfield, ” Tht Royal Supremacy as it is cUfiiud by reason^ history, and the Constitution,”

kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop”* belongs to the province of ecclesiastical history, and there 18 no need to summarise the details here. What is required is to show that the action of the Church of England can be justified, and that the statement of the Article 18 true. If it be a fact that our Lord conferred upon b. Peter a position and power superior to that of the other Apostles, and that this has been transmitted to his successors in the see of Eome, so that the Pope 18 by Divine appointment head of the universal Church, then clearly the Church of England was in the wrong in assertmg her freedom from his jurisdiction. What is necessary for us here, then, is to consider {a) the Scriptnral grounds on which the Papal claims are based, and (6) the evidence from the early Church concerning these claims; for if it can be established that no position of supremacy” involving universal jurisdiction was granted by our Lord to S. Peter, and no such position conceded to the bishops of Eome in primitive times, then It would seem to follow that the assertion of the Papal claims m later days was an unwarrantable usurpation and that the Church of England was perfectly justified m the formal repudiation of them which it made in the sixteenth century.*

(a) TJu Scriptural grounds on which the Papal claims are based.

Three passages of the New Testament are quoted by

! See Dixon’s History ofOu Church of England, vol. i. pp. 227. 238 -The decree of the Vatican Council (1870), “Pastor ternus,” i so drawn as really to put out of court any appeal to theories of “development m connection with the Roman claims, for it boldly asserts thft the tradition received a fidti Chriian exordio attests (1) the right of the b,hop of Rome to a universal jurisdiction, plenary supremeford!-

rtrine […] r.(.mmy when de6ning’. cithedra doctnne on f.,th and conduct as to be held by the Church universal Cf. Brighfs Boman Sec in the Early Chweh, p. 2.

SO

.!l

modern Papalists — (1) the promise to S. Peter in S Matthew xvi. ; (2) our Lord’s words to him in S. Luke xxii. 32 ; and (3) the threefold commission in S. John xxi. Of these the first is far the most important.

” I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In considering this passage, it should be noticed that the words concerning ” binding ” and ” loosing,” here addressed to S. Peter, are afterwards spoken to the Apostles generally (c. xviii. 18). Consequently whatever power was conferred by them upon S. Peter was afterwards granted equally to the others. But the earlier part of the promise refers to S. Peter alone. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument that the ” rock ” is Peter himself, yet it still remains that the promise appears to be a strictly personal one. There is no indication whatever in it of any headship capable of transmission to a series of successors in his see. It is far more natural to take the words as referring by anticipation to the historical position taken by S. Peter in the foundation of the Church, and to see its fulfilment in the early chapters of the Acts, where S. Peter takes the lead throughout, but nowhere claims for himself any powers not enjoyed by the other Apostles, nor acts apart from them. In order to establish the Roman interpretation of the passage, which is certainly not suggested by its terms, it would be necessary to show that from the very first there had existed a strong tradition in the Church thus interpreting it, and referring to it as establishing the Papal claims to headship. But

this isabsolviely wanting And if this passage breaks down It will scarcely be contended that anything can be proved m favour of the Papacy from S. Luke xxi 32, or from S John xxi The former of these (“I have made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren ) is apparently never applied in favour of the Papal claims before the seventh century ; and when the threefold denial of S. Peter is remembered, the threefold commission of S. John xxi. (“Feed My lambs … Feed My sheep … Feed My sheep ”) becomes at once his natural restoration to his office, and cannot be regarded as investing him with any position of superiority to the other Apostles. But if the appeal is made to Scripture we must not be content with the consideration of these three passages alone. There are other passages besides these which really bear on the question of the Papal ckims, for the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles show us the real position historically occupied by the Apostle, and make it clear it was very far from being one of “headship” in the sense of authority over the whole Church. Certainly in the early chaptei of the Acts S. Peter takes the lead in action. But to take the lead m action is one thing; to claim to be supreme head 18 quite another. And against the notion that his position was one of such authority must be set such facts as these. His conduct is caUed in question by others and he vindicates it before the Church (Acts xi. 1-4)! S Paul on one occasion does not hesitate to resist him to the face, because he stood condemned ” (Gal. ii. 11). He is ” sent ” together with John by the Apostles to Samaria

[…]

(Acts viii. 14). At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.) he is not even president : this position being occupied by S. James, who sums up the debate and gives his decision (Sto €70) KpivQ), ver. 19). This of itself seems conclusive, for it is inconceivable that if our Lord had invested S. Peter with any such authority as that now claimed by the Pope as his successor, any but he could have presided on such an occasion. We may, then, safely say that, while a primacy of repute and honour may be rightly conceded to S. Peter among the Twelve,^ there is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that he was ever more than primus inter pares, or that even this primacy was capable of being transmitted to others.^

(b) Tlie evidence of the early Church concemiru/ tJie Papal claims. — Let it be admitted that the evidence for S. Peter’s visit to Rome, and for regarding him as cofounder with S. Paul of the Church there, is sufficient ; and that the succession of bishops in that see may be traced back to him. Yet it does not follow that S. Peter was ever ” bishop ” of Rome in the modern sense, any more than S. Paul was ” bishop ” of the various Churches which he foimded, or, indeed, of Rome itself. But even if his Episcopate could be proved, we should still be

’ It must be remembered that we have S. Peter’s 0^71 Epistles, as well as the accounts of his proceedings and speeches in the Acts ; and it is a simple fact that nowhere does he give “the faintest hint of any consciousness of such office as Papalism assigns to him. This is not a mere argument ex siUrUio ; if S. Peter had been, by Christ’s commission, His unique Vicar, the monarch and oracle of the growing Church, a polity so simple and intelligible must have found expression in Apostolic writings, and could not have been ignored by the •Vicar himself.”— Bright’s Roman Sec in the Early Church, p. 8.

justified in asking for evidence that subsequent bishops inherited from him a position of headship involving universal jurisdiction. Ajid this is just what is not forthcoming. While in later times there is abundant evidence of lofty claims made by the Popes, and (sometimes) admitted by others, in the earlier centuries such language is markedly absent. Attention has recently been drawn to this part of our subject, and the question has been investigated afresh with the greatest care, with the result that it has been conclusively shown, in Dr. Bright’s Eom/in See in the Early Church, and in the Rev. F. W. Puller’s Primitive Saints and the See of Eome, that during the early centuries nothing whatever was known of the claims made for the Papacy in later times. From the first the Eoman Church was invested with a position of great importance in Christendom. Rome was the capital of the world. It was the meeting place for Christians of different nationalities. To it, as to a natural centre, men gravitated from all countries.^ And thus its bishop came to occupy a position of ever-increasing importance. But history shows us quite clearly that in

^ Something of this kind is evidently intended by Irenseus in the famous passage in his works (unfortunately only existing in the Latin translation). *‘Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem (v.l. potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio ” (III. iii.). Irenseus does not mean that every Church ^‘musV as a matter of duty “agree with” the Roman Church on account of its “potentior principalitas ” ; but that the faithful from all parts “are sure to” {necesse est, it is a matter of course) “come together” there. “It is inevitable, S. Irenaeus means, that Christians from all other parts of the empire should, from time to time, for various reasons, visit the Church in the great centre of the empire : this is a process which is always going on, which cannot but go on” (Bright, Romxin See, p. 32). The “superior pre-eminence” belongs, it will be noticed, not to the bishop, but to the Church, or possibly to the city. See Salmon’s Jn/allibility of the Church, p. 375 seq. (c. xx.), and Puller’s Primitive Saints, p. 31 seq., and cf. Bright, as above.

VI

►’

I ■

the second century it was the Church, not the hisJiop, to which a kind of primacy was given. The Papal theory inverts this, and makes the importance of the Church depend upon that of the bishop. It is only towards the close of the second century that for the first time we meet with an attempt on the part of a bishop of Rome to assert his authority outside his own proper sphere. This, however, altogether failed. The action of Victor in attempting to procure a general excommunication of the Quartodeciman Churches of Asia did not commend itself to the other bishops of the West, who (we are told) ” rather sharply rebuked him,” an expression which could not by any possibility have been used by the historian had the notion of the Papal headship been then in existence. In the third century the correspondence of S. Cyprian and the history of the controversies in which he was engaged afford us considerable insight into the position then occupied by the bishop of Rome. There is no question that S. Cyprian regarded the see of Rome as the symbol and centre of unity ; but his actions,* as well as his words, make it clear that in his view ” the function

• The account is given in Eusebius, V. xxiv. xxv.

[…]

• Mention may be made of (1) his persistent opposition to the Roman view of the validity of heretical baptism, and (2) his attitude in regard to appeals, as shown in the case of the Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial, where he set aside altogether the judgment of Pope Stephen, ibjp. Ixvii.

*^ For Cyprian’s view of S. Peter’s ix)sition reference should be made to Epp, xxxiii., xlv. 1, xlviii. 3, lix. 14, Ixx. 3, Ixxiii. 7 ; and De

^

of the Roman see in relation to unity was ideal and typical; it carried with it no jurisdiction, no right to dictate.” i

During the early years of the fourth century the history of the Donatist schism supplies an incidental witness that Rome was not the final authority, for, after the question had been referred by the emperor to Melchiades, bishop of Rome, with a few others, the decision of the Council held by him was reviewed by a larger Council held at Aries, in order that a more authoritative settlement of the question might be arrived at.^

Not until we come to the Council of Sardica, in 343, do we find any legal rights beyond those of other bishops granted to the bishops of Rome ; and even then the right of hearing appeals in certain cases was a strictly limited one, and was granted by the Council as a new thing, as a matter of ecclesiastical order, and not based on any Divine right or inherent authority of the see of Rome.^ In after years the canon was frequently, though wrongly, appealed to as […] and the confusion was undoubtedly advantageous to the interests of Rome. To this canon may be traced the beginning of whatever legal rights of jurisdiction over other Churches were afterwards acquired by the see of

Unit. iv. Cf. Bright’s Eoman See, p. 39 seq. ; and for the famous interpolation in the last of these passages see The Pope and the Council, by “Janus,” p. 127.

’ ** On papal principles [the Emperor] ought, of course, to have upheld, as by Divine right final, a judgment aflBrmed by the Roman see. But nothing of the kind occurred to him, or to any one else at the time.” —Bright, p. 63, where see the whole account of the incident.

Rome. In earlier days, while there is ample evidence of the importance of the Church, and of the growing influence of the hvihop, it is only moral influence, and not legal right of jurisdiction, that can be found. Into the history of the extension of the legal jurisdiction, and the growth of the temporal power (resting largely on forgeries ^), there is no necessity to enter here. In what has been already said it has been sufficiently indicated how there is a complete lack of evidence in the early centuries for the claims subsequently made, and how the power was a matter of gradual growth. The barest outline of the argument has been all that space permitted. Details must be sought in the able works referred to in the text and the footnotes.

III. The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment

The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous ofTences.

This subject admits of the briefest treatment. No question can be raised as to the lawfulness of capital punishment under the Old Covenant. Not only was it expressly commanded in various cases under the Mosaic law : but even before the law was given, it was laid down by Divine command that ” whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. ix. 6). The New Testament nowhere contains an express reversal of this rule. Consequently it can scarcely be maintained that capital punishment is forbidden by the law of God : and no more than this is required. All that the Article asserts is that ” the laws of the realm may punish Christian men with

death ” in certain cases. Into the question whether capital punishment is advisable or not there is no need to enter. That is a matter on which opinions may differ, and with which we are not here concerned, for subscription to this statement of the Article will remain unaffected, however it be decided.

IV. The Lawfulness of War,

It is lawful for Christian men, at the command of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and

serve in the wars (Jitsta bella administrare). Once more brevity must be studied, although the question now before us is involved in much greater perplexity than that which has just been considered. All that can here be said is this. Christianity accepted society and social institutions as it found them; but laid down principles which were intended gradually to alter and abolish what was wrong in them. So slavery was accepted by the gospel. There is not one word in the New Testament which directly condemns it. But the principle of brotherhood was proclaimed, and this has so wrought in the hearts of men that it has at length brought about the abolition of slavery in Christian communities. In the same way Christianity accepted war. Our Lord and His Apostles never urged soldiers to give up theiicalling.^ But it is hard to resist the conclusion that the principles which are laid down in the gospel o^i^ht, if they had honestly been applied on a wide scale, to have led long ago to the disuse of war, at least between Christian nations. What is required is that the principles of Christianity should so leaven society that war should become an impossibility. But

• See also the directions of the Baptist to the ”men on the march” who asked him what they should do, in S. Luke iii. 14.

until this happy result is brought about, in the face of the absence of any directions in the New Testament to soldiers requiring them to forsake their calling, it can scarcely be maintained that it is not “lawful for Christian men to wear weapons and serve in the wars.” It may be added that the numerous allusions to the military life as affording instructive lessons and analogies to the life of the Christian, appears not only to be based on the supposition that the life thus referred to is in itself a lawful one, but also to indicate that it is especially favourable to the development of certain very essential moral qualities.^

• Reference should be made to the masterly sermon on ” War ” in Mozley’s University Sermons, No. V., as well as to the late Aubrey Moore’s paper on the same subject in the lUport of the Portsmouth Church Congress.

Notes

• 26 Henr. viii. c. IP.
• Eliz. c. 1. See EccL Courts Commission, p. 73.
• See Cardweir.s Documentary Annals, vol. i. p. 232.
• Defence of tlie Apologj, f^orks, vol. iv. jj. 974.
• Quoted in Hook’s Lives of tht Archbishops, vol. ri. p. 55.
• Cf. Ecclesiastical Courts C(ymmisai(m, p. xv.
• 76. p. xvi., where see references.
• LUroduction to the History of the Church of Enrjland, p. 321.
• Thc position of S. Peter’s name as standing first in all the lists of the Apostles given in the New Testament, together with the fact that in the list in the Gospel accoi-ding to S. Matthew the word rpCrrot is attached to it (c. X. 2), would seem to point to something like a primacy belonging to him. But primacy is not supremacy.
• The well-known decree of Constantinople (381), which raised the see of that city to the second place in Christendom “because it is the new Rome,” shows very plainly the origin of the importance of the bishop of Borne. The canon was confirmed at Chalcedon (451), when it was laid down that the first place belonged to the see of Rome ” because that is the imperial city.” On the protests of the Roman legates, and the refusal of Leo I. to recognise this, see Salmon’s Infallibility, p. 416.
• Robertson in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. ii. p. 230.
• The canon in question (Canon iii. ) may be seen in Hefele, Councils, vol. ii. p. 112 ; and on it see Bright, p. 85 seq., and Puller, p. 148 seq.
• They were so quoted by Zosimus in the case of Apiarius (Bright, p. 136), as also by Leo i. and others.
• On the “false decretals” and the ” donation of Constautine,” see The Pope and the Council, pp. 94 and 131.