Green on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

At the Elizabethan revision (1563) the first paragraph was remodelled, the title “ Supreme Head ” being disused, and the words ” chief power ” … “ chief government ” substituted for it ; at the same time the long second paragraph was added. The object of these changes was to state more guardedly the Royal Supremacy, which in the Edwarcline Article had been stated rather baldly, and in a manner liable to an Erastian construction. We know that Queen Elizabeth had scruples in this matter, and was unwilling to be spoken of as “ Head ” of the Church.1

1 See a letter of Jewel to Peter Martyr from London (no date) : —

“ The Queen declines being styled the head of the Church, at which I certainly am not much displeased” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 24).

Cf. also a letter of Parkhurst to Bullinger (London, May 21, 1559) : —

“ The Queen is not willing to be called the head of the Church of England,

3°°

§ 2.— OBJECT.

The object of the Article is evidently twofold : —

(a) To assert the Royal, and repudiate the Papal, Supremacy. (jb) To condemn Anabaptist zealots, who set the civil autho¬ rity at defiance and impugned the lawfulness of war.

[…]

“ Quin et Anabaptistarum profligandus est agrestis stupor, qui negant licere Christianis magistratum gerere, quasi propterea Christus in terras descenderit, ut rerum publicarum administra- tionem aboleret. Imo vero Spiritus Sanctus statuit principes et magistratus esse Dei ministros, ut benefactis favorem suum im- partiant, et maleficia suppliciis constringant ; quae duo si rebus humanis ahessent, maxima sequeretur omnium rerum confusio.”

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

(1.) Assertion of the Royal, and repudiation of the Papal, Supremacy.

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.

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

The principle that every soul owes obedience to the Civil power is laid down in the New Testament ; see especially Rom. xiii. 1 ; 1 S. Pet. ii. 13, 14; and cf. Acts xxv. 10, 1 i, where S. Paul appeals to Caesar as supreme in his own cause. In the days, however, when the State was not Christian, the difficulty in determining the due relation between the Ecclesiastical and Civil powers wras not felt, and the Church shrank from direct connection with the kingdoms of the world. Obedience to the heathen govern-

although this title has been offered her ; but she willingly accepts the title of governor, which amounts to the same thing” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 29) ;

and a letter from Jewel to Ballinger (London, May 22, 1559) : —

“The Queen is unwilling to be addressed, either by word 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 any human being soever ; besides which, these titles have been so foully contaminated by Antichrist, that they can no longer be adopted by anyone without impiety ” (Zurich Letters, i. p. 33).

ment was indeed enjoined ; but in its internal affairs the Church was self-governing, and we even find S. Paul rebuking the Corinthian Christians for going to law in the Civil courts (i Cor. vi. I— 7). When, after the acces¬ sion of Constantine, the ruling power of the State became, for the first time, professedly Christian, the previously existing conditions were at once modified. As a result of the “ establishment ” of Christianity as the Religion of the Empire, actual separation between Church and State became henceforth impossible.

We must here review the historical relations of Church and State in this country, together with the relations of England and

Rome : —

(a) In Saxon times.

It must be remembered that at the time of the intro¬ duction of Christianity into the various kingdoms of Saxon England, the adoption of the new religion was looked upon as a public matter, affecting not merely the personal but also the official life of the king, and also the whole national life. From the time that England acquired national unity Church and State grew side by side, and the Church exer¬ cised an important influence in the development and con¬ solidation of the life of the nation. At the same time the insular position of the country made it natural that business, Ecclesiastical as well as Civil, should be transacted within the limits of the island.1 The King, we find, exercised a certain undefined authority, and had to a certain extent a right of intervention in Ecclesiastical affairs.

( b ) After the Norman Conquest.

At the Conquest (1066) the existing relations of Church and State were altered. William had patched up his title to the English throne by Papal approval, and brought England under the visitatorial authoritv of the Roman See ;

O v /

at the same time he refused to be in any sense the Pope’s

1 The well-known appeal of Wilfrid (Bishop of York) affords a good illustra¬ tion. Theodore of Tarsus (Archbishop of Canterbury), in reorganising the Church, mapped out dioceses and subdivided the large diocese of York. He proceeded in rather a high-handed manner, and Wilfrid, who from the first had assumed a somewhat unfriendly attitude towards him, objected, appealing in person to the Pope (A.D. 678). The Pope sided with Wilfrid, and bv a Bull ordered him to be reinstated in his original and undivided see. The King and the Witan, however, refused to recognise the Pope’s decision, and Wilfrid, on his return to this country, was imprisoned for appealing to a foreign power.

3°2

vassal, and strongly asserted the Royal prerogative. The Pope was to send no legate to this country unless invited to do so by the King, and English Churchmen were for¬ bidden to leave the kingdom, to recognise any Pope, to excommunicate any noble, or to publish any Roman decree or letter without the Royal sanction. Another step taken in the reign of William I., which had very far-reaching consequences, was the separation of the Ecclesiastical and Civil courts. While the King in this matter conferred a great privilege upon the Church, at the same time he took care to retain his supremacy over it ; for we find him not only nominating the bishops, but also refusing to allow any Church Synod to make decrees which had not first received his approval.

(c) During the Middle Ages.

Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), who became Pope in 1073, drew out a great scheme of Papal omnipotence in his famous “ Dictate ” of twenty-seven theses, and from his time we may date the commencement of the great struggle for supremacy between Church and State, taking the form, on the Continent, of a contest between the Pope and the Emperor, and, in this country, of constant friction between the Royal and Papal powers. During the succeeding cen¬ turies the Popes established considerable authority over Ecclesiastical affairs and persons, the English kings, how¬ ever, protesting from time to time against encroachments upon their ancient right.

Henry II., in the Constitutions of Clarendon ( 1 1 64), dealt a severe blow at the Papal power. These Constitutions prevented appeals to foreign Powers, regulated Ecclesiastical appointments, subjected Ecclesiastical property to taxation, and extended the power of the King as against Papal aggression. This attempt to resume the authority of the Crown over Ecclesiastical persons was opposed by Becket, and temporarily thwarted by the strong feeling excited by that prelate’s murder.

Under Pope Innocent III., who was contemporary with King John , the Papacy triumphed, the English king even consenting to hold his kingdom as a vassal of the Roman See. Yret even here we find signs of resistance to foreign aggression : —

(i.) Magna Charta declares (June 15, 1215) that the English Church shall enjoy its full rights and privileges, a provision which clearly revives the anti-Papal part of the Constitu¬ tions of Clarendon.

(ii.) Archbishop Langton, when ordered to excommunicate the Barons, refused, even under a threat of suspension from the Pope.

In the reign of Edward 1. there was strong opposition to the suzerainty of the Roman Pontiff. King and Parliament declared that the Papal claims based on King John’s sur¬ render were void, no king having the power to cede the rights of the Crown and the liberties of the Church and nation. In 1307 a Parliament at Carlisle protested against the many forms of Papal exactions, and refused to allow the legate to leave the country with the money which he had collected.

In Edward IIl.’s reign the encroachments of Rome were further limited by the Great Statute of Provisors (1351), which guarded the rights of patrons against Papal inter¬ ference, and by the Statute of Praemunire ( 1 3 5 3)> which made it treason to appeal to the Pope against the King.

A little later, by ij Richard II. c. 2, any introduction of Papal bulls or sentences into this country was made penal ; and afterwards followed the Great Statute of Praemunire (16 Richard II.), which made penal all applications to a foreign jurisdiction, either in the Court of Rome or else¬ where.

(ft) At the Reformation.

In the reign of Henry VIII. the struggle between Pope and King was brought to a conclusion, the claims of Rome upon the Crown and nation of England being once for all repudiated. In 1534 the Convocations both of Canterbury and York renounced the Papal Supremacy in this land, affirming u that the Pope of Rome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred upon him by God in Holy Scripture, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop.” 1

1 Concil. Magn. Brit., iii. 769, 782.

[…]

“Quapropter illorum etiam intolerabilis est error, qui totius Christiani orbis universam Ecclesiam solius Episcopi Romani principatu coutineri volunt.”

3° 4

The following great Acts were passed by what is known as the Reformation Parliament (i 5 34) : —

(i.) 25 Henry VIII. c. 19. Act of Restraint of Appeals and Submission of Clergy .

This confirmed the Act for Restraint of Appeals, 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, which finally abolished the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction. It also embodied in an Act of Parliament the “ Submission ” which had been wrung from the clergy (February 11, 1531), in which the King was recognised as —

“Ecclesiae et cleri Anglicani singularem protectorem, unicum et supremum Dominum, et, quantum per Christi leges licet, etiam Supremum Caput.”

(ii.) 25 Henry VIII. c. 20. Act for Restraint of Annates . Cong6 Retire and Letter missive.

Annates were the first year’s entire profit of a benefice claimed by the Pope, according to a valuation. By this Act these were withheld from Rome, but almost immediately afterwards were, by 26 Henry VIII. c. 3, given to the King.

At the same time the right of the Church to elect her own officers was taken from her, though the formal Cong6 d’dire still remained.

(iii.) 25 Henry VIII. c. 21. Act concerning Papal Dispensa¬ tions :, Peters Pence , etc. The exempt monasteries handed over to the King.

By this Act dispensations, licenses, faculties, &c., formerly granted by the Pope, were transferred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and England was finally freed from all financial relations with the Roman See.

By the same Act the exempt monasteries, i.e., those which had been previously exempt from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop, or the ordinary, and subject only to the visitatorial jurisdiction of the Pope, were transferred so as to be under the immediate authority of the King as “ Supreme Head ” of the Church.

(iv.) 26 Henry VIII. c. 1. Act of Supreme Head.

This Act declared the King to be “ the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, called Ecclesia Anglicana.” This title had, indeed, been recognised by the Convocations both of Canterbury and York, but the qualifi¬ cation with which the clergy had accepted the title (viz.,

quantum per Christi leges licet) was omitted in the Act of Parliament. It is true that Henry claimed to be simply reviving the Constitutional Supremacy of the Crown, but the title “ Supreme Head ” had an ominous sound, and was in itself new. That the clergy realised the danger is evident from the guarded wording of their acknowledgment of the Royal Supremacy in their “ Submission .” It is, there¬ fore, especially noteworthy that when this acknowledgment was embodied in the Act the qualifying clause was omitted.

By Henry VIII., and by his successor, Edward VI., the Con¬ stitutional Supremacy of the Crown was pressed a great deal too far, and used in a wrong way, and that, too, not unfrequently for the most unworthy ends , so that, while claiming to restore the ancient power of the Crown, the Tudors in reality made new claims, and used their power for the spoliation of the Church. The Acts of Parliament mentioned above, while they freed the Church from Papal aggression, at the same time robbed her of immemorial rights and subjected her to royal tyranny. Thus, according to the Act for Restraint of Appeals, it is in the King’s power —

“ To visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of spiritual jurisdiction , ought, and may be, lawfully reformed.”

The Act also deprived the Church of her right to frame her own Canons and Constitutions. Again the Act for Restraint of Annates was accompanied by a tyrannical destruction of the Church’s free right to elect to bishoprics. Further, by the Act concerning Papal Dispensations, &c., the exempt monasteries (to be followed a little later by the other monasteries of the kingdom) were given over to the King and his creatures for spoliation. In this case, as also by 26 Henry VIII. c. 3 (transferring Annates, which had been recovered, from the Pope to the King), we find a Papal power or privilege made over to the Crown. The general tendency of Henry’s legislation, in fact, was to set the King in the place formerly occupied by the Pope.1 Under Edward VI.

1 Of. Letter of Withers and Barthelot to Bullinger and Gualter (August

1567):—

“ When the supremacy was transferred to King Henry of pious memory, and all things which by the Canon law belonged to the Roman Pontiff as head of the Church were made over to him, he then being both king and pope ” (Zurich Letters, ii. p. 149).

See also Introduction, p. 8 and note 2.

3°6

the precedents of the previous reign were followed, and the newly vindicated Supremacy of the Crown in matters Ecclesiastical, as having the right of visitation and reformation, and as being the source of episcopal jurisdiction, was unduly pressed and un¬ constitutionally used. The visitatorial power of the Crown was most unjustly used for the suppression and spoliation of guilds and chantries (i Edward VI. c. if). The powers of the bishops were suspended during a Royal Visitation of the kingdom,1 Ecclesiastical affairs being ordered by Royal Injunctions ,2 and the First Booh of Homilies was set forth solely upon the Royal authority. The “ Order of Communion ” (issued March 8, 1548) had received the formal sanction neither of Convocation nor of Parliament, but owed whatever authority it had simply to a Royal Proclamation.3 Another example of the high-handed government of the Church through the Privy Council which characterised this reign is seen in the “ Order of Council ” which commanded the demolition of altars, and, “ instead of them, a table to be set up in some convenient part of the chancel within every church.”

It is remarkable that Queen Mary , in the earlier part of her reign, exercised the Royal Supremacy as freely as her prede¬ cessors, retaining the title adopted by her father. As “ Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England,” she issued Injunc¬ tions4” (March 1 5 54) bidding the bishops deprive married clergy, re-establish the ancient services and processions, and set forth homilies ; also, by Commissions appointed under the authority of the Crown, she caused all the reforming bishops, on one ground or another, to be deprived.

(2) The Royal Supremacy carefully guarded, so as to EXCLUDE ErASTIANISM.

Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief govern¬ ment, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our Princes

1 The Commission for the Visitation was issued May 4, 1547.

2 These owed their authority to a most unconstitutional Act of Henry’s reign, which made a Royal Proclamation of equal force with an Act of Parliament.

4 This was purely a State Act, without any approval of Convocation.

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 preroga¬ tive, 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.

Under Queen Elizabeth the language of Henry VIII.”s legislation with regard to the Royal Supremacy was avoided, as being liable to misconstruction ; the obnoxious title, ee Supreme Head,” was dropped,1 and anything like an Erastian interpretation of the Supremacy was guarded against by the insertion of this second paragraph in our Article. The avowed aim of the Queen was simply to restore the ancient constitutional right of the English Crown. Thus I Elizabeth c. i. is entitled : —

“ An Act for restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the State, ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.”

So also in the Injunctions (1559) it is laid down : —

“ That all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and all other ecclesiastical persons shall faithfully keep and observe, and as far as in them may lie, shall cause to be observed and kept of other, all and singular laws and statutes made for the restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and abolishing of all foreign power, repugnant to the same. And furthermore, All ecclesiastical persons having cure of souls, shall, to the uttermost of their wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely, and without any colour or dissimulation, declare, manifest and open four times every year at the least, in their sermons and other collations, that all usurped and foreign power, having no establishment nor ground by the law of God, is, for most just causes, taken away and abolished : and that therefore no manner of obedience and subjection within her highness’s realms and dominions is due unto any such foreign power. And,

3°8

that the queen’s power within her realms and dominions is the highest power under God, to whom all men, within the same realms and dominions, by God’s laws, owe most loyalty and obedience, afore and above all other powers and potentates in earth” (Doc. Ann., i. pp. 211, 212).

In the Queen’s “ admonition,” embodied in the same Injunc¬ tions, the Royal Supremacy is further guarded from an Erastian interpretation : —

“ And further her majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the said oath it may be collected, that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine offices in the church ; wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil-disposed persons. For certainly her majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other authority, than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth, and king Edward the Sixth, which is, and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm ; that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner 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” (Doc. Ann., pp. 232, 233).

We may here draw attention to the attitude of the English Church towards the Pope. It does not deny that he is, as Bishop of Rome, a true bishop of the Catholic Church of Christ, but only protests against his usurped jurisdiction in this realm. It should also be noted that, while in the Injunctions of Edward YI. there is express mention of “ the bishop of Rome his pretensed and usurped power and jurisdiction,” 1 in Eliza¬ beth’s Injunctions reference is simply made in general terms to u usurped and foreign power.” At the Elizabethan revision of the Prayer Book (i559)> too, the clause, ‘‘from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities ” (Good Lord deliver us), was omitted from the Litany.

This very moderate attitude of the English Church stands in contrast with the opinions expressed individually by some of her members, especially those who had sojourned abroad during the

reign of Queen Mary, and had come under the influence of the Swiss school of Reformers.

See, e.g ., letter of Cox to Wolfgang Weidner (from London, May 20, 1 5 59):—

“ Meanwhile we, that little flock, who for these last five years, by the blessing of God, have been hidden among you in Germany, are thundering forth in our pulpits, and especially before our queen Elizabeth, that the Roman pontiff is truly antichrist” (Zurich Letters, vol. i. p. 27).

Letter of Humphrey and Sampson to Bullinger (dated July

15 66) : —

“ In the ecclesiastical regimen there are retained many traces of the church of antichrist. For as formerly at Rome,” &c. (Ibid., p. 164).

Letter of Grindal to Bullinger (London, August 29, 1567): —

“ That tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church, is altogether abolished ; and it is pro¬ vided that all persons shall in future acknowledge him to be the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks ” (Ibid., p. 199).

Letter of Richard Hilles to Bullinger (London, July 27, 1571):—

“That labour of yours, of which you inform me, in replying to the whole of that impudent popish bull which the Roman anti¬ christ has vomited forth against our most serene queen, will be, without doubt, very greatly approved by the three bishops afore¬ mentioned,1 to whom you have sent those three copies ” (Ibid., p. 242).

Letter of Cox to Rodolph Gualter (Ely, February 4, 1573) : —

“ I have your book respecting the pope being antichrist, which this man2 takes much pains to refute. You will not, I hope, allow him to triumph” (Ibid., p. 282).

Language such as that which occurs in the passages just quoted is directly traceable to reformers of the Swiss school, many of whom maintained that the Pope is Antichrist, and spoke of the Church of Rome in their formularies as the Church of Antichrist.

1 Viz., the Bishops of York (Grindal), Ely (Cox), and Salisbury (Jewel).

2 Nicholas Saunders.

3 ro

Calvin , by the language he uses, suggests that the Church of Rome is “ Babylon […] the synagogue of Satan/’ 1 and compares conformity to Rome with apostasy from God, likening it to sacrificing to the calf at Bethel.2 He, moreover, expressly affirms that the Pope is that Antichrist foretold in Scripture ; 3 yet he acknowledges that in the Church of Rome some vestiges of a Church remain.4

The French Confession (Art. XXVIII.) declares : —

“ Papisticos igitur conventus damnamus. … Ac proinde arbi- tramur, omnes eos, qui sese ejusmodi actionibus adjungunt, et iis communicant, a Christi corpore seipsos separare.”

Cf ’. the preface to the Judgment of the Synod of Dort : —

“ Hanc enim Ecclesiam, a Romani antichristi tyrannide et hor- ribili papatus idololatria potenti Dei manu vindicatam.” …

The outcome of the teaching of John Knox and his followers appears in the Westminster Confession, XXV. 6 : —

“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ : nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof ; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”5

It is matter for much thankfulness that these opinions with regard to the Papacy, though shared by some prominent divines of the Elizabethan period, did not find expression in the autho¬ rised formularies of the English Church.

1 Institutes, IV. ii. 4. 2 Institutes, IV. ii. 9.

3 Institutes, IV. ii. 12

“ Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum praedixerunt Daniel et Paulas: Illius scelerati et abominandi regni ducem et antesignanum apud nos facimus Romanum pontificem.”

4 Institutes, IV. ii. 11

“Ut tamen manebant olim inter Iudaeos peculiares quaedam Ecclesiae praerogativae, ita nec hodie Papistis adimimus quae superesse ex dissipatione vestigia Ecclesiae inter eos Dominus voluit.”

•• •••••••

[…]

5 Cf. the similar passage in the Irish Articles of 1615, Appendix VI.

(3.) The lawfulness of Capital Punishment.

The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.

The principle is laid down in Gen. ix. 6, and under the Mosaic Law not only murder but various other grievous offences were punishable with death (see, e.g ., Exod. xxi. 1 6, 17; Lev. xx. 9 et seqq.\ Deut. xvii. 2—5, xxii. 20 et seqq.). In the New Testament, Rom. xiii. 4 indicates quite clearly that the infliction of capital punishment does not conflict with Christian principle. We see, therefore, that the aboli¬ tion of the right of capital punishment would deprive the magistracy of a power given in the Old Testament, confirmed in the New, and which it possesses as God’s minister.

The reassertion of this right of the civil power was felt to be necessary at the Reformation period, more especially on the Continent, owing to the spread of Anabaptism, which brought anarchy and confusion in its train.

Cf. Augsburg Confession, Part I. Art. XVI. : —

[…]

“Damnant Anabaptistas, qui interdicunt haec civilia officia Christianis.”

The Saxon Confession has a long Article (XXIII.), “ De Magi¬ stral politico,” in which occurs this passage : —

“Deinde justitia Dei conspicitur in politica gubernatione ; quia vult puniri manifesta scelera a magistratibus : et cum ipsi, qui praesunt, non summit supplicia de sontibus, Deus ipse mirabiliter rapit eos ad poenas, et regulariter atrocia delicta punit atrocibus poenis in hac vita, ut dicitur : Qui gladium acceperit, gladio peribit: item, Scortatores et adulteros judicat Deus,” &c.

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XXX. : —

“ Damnamus Anabaptistas, qui ut Christianum negant fungi posse officio magistratus, ita etiam negant quenquam a magistratu juste occidi, aut magistratum bellum gerere posse, aut juramenta magistratui praestanda esse, et caetera.”

(4.) The lawfulness of Military Service.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

Christian nations, not less than individual Christians, are forbidden to enter upon strife for ambition’s sake or merely upon a principle of revenge (S. Matt. v. 38—41 ; Rom. xii. 18, 19). “Peace on earth,” sang the Angels at the Nativity ; yet the true peace which Christ, the Prince of Peace, came to bring was soon seen to involve conflict with the evil that is in the world. Hence Christ Himself says, “ I came not to send peace, but a sword ” (S. Matt, x. 34). On account of the evil that is in the world, it will therefore be sometimes necessary for the Christian to tight, since true peace is not peace with evil and wrong. Hence war is sometimes necessary in order to resist unjust oppression or aggression, or for the protection of life, liberty, or independence. The prevalence of war between nations is evidence of the imperfection, or of the want, of international law. If the principles of Christianity and the sentiment of brotherhood, which our holy Religion inculcates, were widely diffused and firmly rooted in the hearts of men, and if a system of international morality were established and generally accepted, then, we imagine, the necessity for war would cease. On account of the mingling of evil with good in the world this state of things has not been attained, but it is the ideal goal to which all progress tends. Thus in the prophetic anticipations in the Old Testament of the reign of Messiah, the cessation of wars between the nations occupies a prominent place (see, e.g., Isa. ii. 4; Hos. ii. 18; Zech. ix. 10). Of course it by no means follows that, in the present condition of the world, peace at any price is to be preferred to war. That it is not in itself wrong to serve in the wars at the command of the civil power may be gathered from —

(a) The advice given by S. John the Baptist to soldiers (S. Luke iii. 14).

(b) The commendation given to soldiers in several places in the New Testament (e.g., S. Matt. viii. 5 — 13; Acts x. 1—4), without any intimation that their calling is in itself unholy.

(c) The fact that many of the early Christians served in the

army of Imperial Rome,1 and that many of the saints of the Church have been soldiers.

This concluding paragraph of the Article, like the preceding one, had special reference to the opinions of the Anabaptists. (See the quotations from the Augsburg Confession and Second Helvetic Confession given under heading [3].)

1 Cf. Tertullian, Apol., Cap. xxxvii. : —

[…]

The stories of the “ Thundering Legion” and of the martyrdom of the Theban Legion are well known.

2 R

Notes

• In the Proclamation the King states that the “ Order” has been set forth ‘‘on the advice of his dear uncle and others of his Privy Council.” There is thus no pretence even of Ecclesiastical sanction (Dodd “Church History,” vol. ii. Appendix viii.).
• See note on the source of this Article, § 1, above, p. 299 ; and note also that in the “bidding prayer,” while Edward YI. was described as “Supreme Head immediately under God of the spiritualty and temporalty ” of the Church (Doc. Ann., i. p. 21), Elizabeth is entitled “ Supreme Governor of this realm as well in causes ecclesiastical, as temporal ” ( Ibid ., p. 235).
• Doc. Ann., i. p. 5.