Hey on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

1. The Hifory of this Article may consist of too separate Histories: and the second of them may include the History of the two followin Articles, the thirty-erghth and the thirty-ninth.— The first History should be of the Pope’s Supre- macy; the second, of the notions of those, who, aiming at perfection, reject some practices which are ordinarily reckoned useful or necessary in human Life: such as governing by Civil Magi/- trates, inflicting capital punisiments, carry ing on war, possessing property, and taking oaths on solemn oc- casions. That these may go together, will appear hereafter. |

11, First, we take the Pope’s Supremacy : a great deal has been written on this subject, but it is now less interesting than it was in the time of our Henry VIII.

_ Historians tell us, that Christianity was planted in our Island fo soon as the* Apostolic age; though it is not known what persons first taught it to our Ancestors. At the great Council of Nice in 325, it was understood, that the British Christians were not brought under any foreign Patriarch or Metro- politan, but were an independent Church. — The Island was invaded by Saxons, who were then Ido- laters; and Gregory the First, (or the Great) sent a Monk called Augustin, very early in the seventh Century, to convert them. He required the British Christians to be in some subjection to the See of Rome, but they refused. The Saxons shewed

more

= Collier’s Eccles. History, from Gildas, &c.—Comber’s Advice, page 111.

b Can. 6. Dionys. Exig. referred to by Comber.— This Dionysus, called the Little from his stature, was a Scythian by birth, but resided at Rome; lived to near the middle of the sixth Century; was famous for making a good collection of Canons, & c. and is said to have been the beginner of our custom of reckoning time from the birth of Christ, (Ladvocat.)

BOOK IV. 11. 497

more respect to those by whom they had been con- verted, but kept clear of subjection. At that time 1t appears, that the Bishop of Rome, (who, like other Bishops, was sometimes called Papa, a respectful appellation,) was subje& to the Emperor, and considered the Emperor as governing? sacred persons. Indeed the Emperors had always, till the time of Gregory VII. in some degree conferred the Popedom: he was the last Pope whose election was confirmed by the Emperor. The early Chris- tian Emperors had always ordered Councils, and presided at them ; how much authority they exer- cised over the Church, appears from a great many Roman Laws now extant in the Corpus Juris civilis. — Though the Popes, in the day of their greatness, assumed unbounded authority, yet in the early times of Christianity, they had only that precedence which naturally arole from Rome being the seat of the Empire. Under the nineteenth Article we had occasion to compare the see of Rome with those of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch®. Pope Victor, who died in 201, shewed a good deal of arrogance in the dispute about Easter, and excommunicated some worthy* men who differed from him; but even those of the Latin Church did not think it a duty to submit. The mild and good Jrenæust opposed him, and wrote to him a a letter, from himself and the Brethren in Gaul, {ill extant in Eusebius.— About the year 372, Valentiniaus published a law, by which, in order to

avoid

© See Bower’s Lives of Popes, Vol. 2. page goo. where Gregory I. says, that God gave the Emperor dominari sacer- dotibus.

• Art, xIx. Sect. 11.

• See Lardner under Polycrates ; Works, Vol. 2. page 243.

f Lardner, Vol. 2. page 157.—Euseb. cap. 24.—Bower’s Life of Victor. |

[…]

avoid going to profane Tribunals, Bishops were obliged to refer their disputes to the sec of Rome: this might be one reason why the papal pretensions kept rising till the Council of Chalcedon, in 450. At that Council it was held, that, as there were two seats of Empire, the two Prelates who pre- sided at them, should be upon the same rank. — This continued till 580, when Constantinople claimed universal church-supremacy. But Phocas, an Emperor of flagitious character, being rather checked for his enormities by the- Patriarch of Constantinople, and strongly flattered by the“ Pope, declared the latter the supreme Governor of the Catholic Church.

In the ninth Century the Eastern and Western Churches separated. The Pope became a secular Prince, by the Revolt of the Exarchate of Italy, in the contentions about Images, which must help the growth of his spiritual dominion. He in- volved, at one time or other, most European Nations in great troubles; of which there seemed likely to be no end, so long as he could make re- ligious terror, and other passions, operate on the minds of the ordinary subjects, and maintain a strong feeling for the sanctity of religious orders.— In England he gained an influence about the time of the Conquest, by assisting the Conqueror; and from that time to the reign of Henry VIII. it was a perpetual conflict between the See of Rome and the rational part of the English Nation.

The Law, in Theory, was against the See of Rome, and during the reigns of Henry IT. Ed- ward I. and III. and Richard II. several Statutes

Were

Gregory I. see his Life by Bower. Phocas died 610.— | See Nicholls on the Ordination-oath. — Gregory’s Letters to Phocas, are a great disgrace to him.

were made, declaring the rights of England, and enforcing them. The Statutes of the Parliament at Clarendon, those against Provisors, and those decreeing what is called a premmunire, are so well e. in Sir William Blackstone’s Commen— taries, a Book to which every one has access, that I need not dwell upon them: it is enough to mention them to the Student.

Civil wars kept the nation, for a long time, from exerting itself unanimously to regain its rights, and the Popes were always ready to take advantage of all divisions.— Henry VIII. at first ated and wrote in defence of Popery, against Luther, from whence he got the Title of Defender of the Faith; but quarrelling with the Pope about a Divorce, he set himself earnestly, with all the vehemence of a warm temper, and of princely loftiness, to throw off the Papal Supremacy.— The occasion might not be equally creditable with a pure sense of rectitude, and a love of law and liberty; but yet the manner of conducting the emancipation of our Church and State, seems to have been regular, legal, constitutional; and to have implied the re- covery or declaration of an od right, detained for a while by mere violence.—The Supremacy of the Pope was rejected by English Papists: all the powers of the Nation united in rejecting it.

The Necessary Doctrine, on the Sacrament of Order, contains a good account of this matter; plain and clear; as for the people: the work of Cranmer, most probably, who was raised to emi- nence by his efforts to redeem the kingdom. — Thus Henry VIII. assumed the Title of Head of the Church, in spite of Bulls discharged against

him

i Heylin, in his life of Archbishop Laud, page 1. has a short

account of this, —Neal’s account is not long.

500 BOOK iv. ART. XxXXV II. SECT. 111.

him from Rome; and his successors have retained the Title, though Elizabeth thought fit to give an Explanation of it in her Injunfions mentioned in the Article, similar to the explanation in the paragraph which refers to them.

Several attempts have been made, since the time of Elizabeth, to restore the Papal power ; a short and clear account of which may be found in Bishop Gibson’s Postscript to his fifth Pastoral Letter.

Of late years, the Pope’s power over the English Papists seems to have been much weakened, We have had about seventeen hundred of them avow this by signing their names: they call themselves Protesting Catholics. Parliament has past an act for their relief, taking place June 24, 1791. Yet even over these the Pope has some spiritual autho- rity : their oath only imports, that they allow him no temporal or civil jurisdiction” © within this Realm.” - And even this Oath great numbers of English Papists cannot take. Indeed, I believe the notion, that there ought to be ove Head of the Church, and that the Bishop of Rome has good pretensions to that pre-eminence, is deeply rooted in the minds of many.—We are told, that even many men of Learning and Piety,” in the church of Rome, are sensible of its errors, but do not chuse to separate themselves from what they esteem the true Universal Church of Christ k.

111. Having finished our first History, let us proceed to our second. — Declining, through scruple, the use of those expedients which the generality of ordinary men have adopted for the purposes of human life, has arisen from a desire

of

& See second Appendix to Mosheim’s History.— About Dr.

Courrayer, page 110. Comber too presses this point most of any. Advice, Sect. ©. page 110-130,

BOOK Iv. AR r. AxxvII. SECT. 111. 501

of attaining to Perfection: such desire is some- times a part of a mild, gentle, refined tem- per; sometimes of an harsh and austere one. — The former, intent upon the good always likely to result from improvement; the latter dwel- ling on the faults and failures which seem to obstruct it. 8

It must be owned, that Magistracy, capital punishments, war, property, and oaths, all imply great 1mperfeftion. If we were as we ought to be, and had amongst us no “ stubborn and evil-doers,” we should have no need of Magistrates (much less of capital punishments and war) nor even of riches, which occasion fo many dissensions, so much anxiety, and so many vicious a&ts.—If our veracity were to be relied on, oaths would be needless.— These are real evils, though as they prevent greater evils, they are considered as benefits. Every scruple pro- ceeds upon something in Scripture.

1. The prohibition of Magistracy, on Matt. v. 5.— Xx. 25,—Gal. v. 1.

2. Of capital punishments on Matt. v. 21.—

vi. 15. |

3. War, on Matt. v. 39—44.

4. Oaths, on Matt. v. 34. and James v. 12.

It does not happen, that every one who declines one or two of the things we are speaking of, declines them all; some do not allow of oaths, or of war, who do allow of property; but the urn and temper seems to be much the same in all who decline any; variations are most likely to happen

where there is the least solid reasoning and plain

sense : a particular taste, connexion, interest, &c. may set some persons, though of this temper, ; 11 3 upon

88 […] - —— — - […] - * m—_ - […] —

— — De: ”

-< >= of - […] r […] 2 0 * 2 2

IE | — 2 333 Er ”> . TTX I 8

My I — ot. he. i ot a *

[…] —

“x Cn Þ > bl

502 BOOK IV. ART. xxxvII. SECT, IV. v.

upon justifying to themselves some! one of the things in question; and, in such case, their argu- ings will rarely fail of success. |

IV. The Pythagoreans seem to have had a dis- position to decline some things, which common men make use of : their leader persuaded the Sici- lian Dames to strip off their more splendid orna- ments, and make an offering of them to a local Deity.—He made his followers sell their patri- mony, lay the produce at his feet, and live in common, without property.— He held, that war was only lawful on five occasions, such as against the pashons, and so on; meaning, that it was never to be carried on with fire and sword. He would not kill even” Brute Animals.— The necessity of Laws he saw too clearly to be misled. — He there- fore endeavoured to improve, not annihilate, Legislation.

v. Some of the Christian Fathers may be next mentioned. Ladlantius seems to make the com- mandment, „thou shalt not &:/},” to be universal; to admit of no exception whatsover: he is even against killing by word, as he calls It, that is, accusing of a capital crime. God wills man to be sanctum animal. He would not have a man fight, as a soldier, in the justest cause. What he says against fights of Gladiators, and the exposing of children, appears to me to be very good, what- ever the rest may seein.

The Manicheans seem to have“ been against war : Augustinè, in oppoling them, is clearly for just war;

and

1 Fielding describes Col. Bath well, talking as a Christian about Duelling.

m [Ladyocat ; collected from various Lives.

n Lactantius de vero Cultu, cap. 20.—A, D. 306.

o Lardner, Vol. 3. page 476.

» Aug. Contra Faustum, 22. 74.

BOOK Iv. 503

and argues well in excuse for it, calling Soldiers non homicidas sed ministros Legis,—falutis pub- lice defensores. Faustus had been arguing against the Old Testament, and had instanced in the wars of Moses. Augustin says, quid culpatur in Bello?

The Pelagians were against gates. And against Riches a: they held, that a man ought not to /wear at all; and that ric} converts must give up their whole substance, or Baptism would not profit them. Augustin opposed them in both these points, though he himself had given up his pro- perty, and had persuaded some to do the fame : as appears from his Letter to Hilarius, who had written from Sicily to inform Augustin of the Pelagian notions spreading there*. But several Fathers seem to have been against Oaths, thinking them allowed to Fews, but wholly forbidden to Christians. As Basil and Chrysostom: Jerom also and Gregory of Nazianzum might lean that way. Cyprian however seems to have been on our fide ; but, in early times, swearing was confounded with swearing by Heathen Deities; that would be reckoned wrong by all. Vegetius gives an account of the Oaths taken by Christian Soldiers“: fo that Christians did enlist, and had a Sacramentum; they also professed to honour the Emperor next after God. |

vi. The Woaldenses seem to have been very likely to take the turn of which we are speaking.

Accordingly,

94 See the passages in Vossius’s Hist, Pelag. page 723. 727.—

Wall on Bapt. page 179. 183.

r See Wall, 1. 19. 21. page 182, quarto. — The Pelagians had sold their property, and condemned every one who did not. —

Augustin had sold his, and had persuaded some to ell theirs,

but censured none who did not. | Quoted by Vossius, ibid, page 727.— See also Lardner, end af 8th Volume,

C F 1 ‘þ Fn 4, ” FX

—— - […] _ 1 5 ag by m—_ — Pp V uVm-p “ . “ — 2 — 4 […] 2 - — - * . - - N . F 2 — * 27 * : TH = * a

G […] ä — i a — * x - […] - ”_ 2 —

ö : + N 4— SD 8 — = [i

Accordingly, Mosheim informs* us, that“ Their Rules of practice were extremely austere; for they adopted as the model of their moral discipline, the Sermon of Christ on the Mount, which they interpreted and explained in the most rigorous and literal manner; and, of consequence, prohibited and condemned in their Society, all wars, and suits of Law, all attempts towards the acquisition of wea!th, the inflicting of capital punishments, self. defence against unult violence, and Oaths of all k.nds.”

Maclaine, in his note on this passage, observes, that these persons only meant to revive Piety, and oppose abuses.

Wickliffe had such a mass of corruption to re- move, that he might not at once discern what was

acticable: he seems to have had a tendency to decline some of the usages of which we are speak- ing. At the Council of Constance one of his condemned propositions was, © Oatks made to strengthen human contracts and civil commerce, are unlawful“.“ — And Gilpin tells us, he was against capital punishments, and thought war c utterly unlawtul*,”

Vows of poverty may be mentioned; especially as they are generally attended with meekness, and set men at a distance {from war and bloodshed. —ln France, about twenty years ago, the Convents of Monks living in poverty filled very slowly ; they fell far shorr of their complement.

The German Anabaptisis are mentioned in our

thirty-

t Mosheim, Cent, 12. 2. 5. 12. g vo. Vol. 2. page 454.

2 Baxter on Councils, page 433. :

• Gilpin’s Reformers, page 79, 80.—Collier’s Eccles. Hill. 1. 631. mentions four Books of his on the Sermon on the Mount, and three Books of civil Government. |

thirty-eighth Article,—lI gave an account) of them formerly. Luther, who knew them well, describes them in few words, as far as concerns our present purpose: docentes Christiano* nihil efle possiden- dum, non jurandum, nullos magistratus habendos, non exercenda judicia, neminem tuendum aut de- fendendum, uxores et liberos deserendos, atque id genus portenta quam plurima. —In Sleidan’s* His- tory, John Matthew orders all goods to be in com- mon, and people bring their goods to the common itock ; partly, perhaps, through fear of two pro- phefying Virgins, who discovered all embezzling.— The Landerave tells them, they mean to overturn all Government *.—CGheynell says, the Anabaptists gy to sea without any ordnance in their ships” — travel without any **{word,” —one of them does not think it lawful to be a Cutler®.”

The first Socinians have been thought to originate from the Anabaptists*. In a note on Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History © it is said, “there is this

peculiarity

Y Art, vii. Sect. 111. There are some Acts of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. against them. See Burn, under Dissenters.

= Pref. to Ennarations on Matt v, vi. vii fol. 1 page 2.— Works, Vol. 7. fol a paraphrase on Christ’s Sermon on the mount.

2 The Latin title is, Commentaria de Statu Religionis et Reipublicæ, Carole V. Cæsare. in 26 Books. It is translated into English by Bohun.— See also Wall, page 414. 419. 425.

d The Anabaptists resisted Government by virtue of their Christian Liberty,— Art. vii. Sect. 111,-And because Magis- trates imply imperfection; Rogers, page 224.— Confess. Augsb. 1. Cap. 17. the Godly shall rule and possess the Earth, at last ; ergo begin directly. See Moshetm, Cent. 16. 3. 2. 3. 16. 8vo. Vol. 4. page 153.

[…]

4 Mosheim, 8vo. Vol. 4. page 178. Cent. 16. 3. 2. 4. 8

e Ibid. Sect. 10. page 185. B8vo. fee allo Cheynell on Soci- nianism, page 51, 52. —for connexion between -navaptiits and old Socinians, —He is speaking of tome sort of Socinians

when

e

. / -_ : er

m . — n 5 _- \ +* $

— 2 […] h

2 IF

by Gy 4

= : a Sb «EE ———

506 BOOK iv. ART. xxxvII. SECT, VII. VIII.

peculiarity in their moral injunctions, that they prohibit the taking of oaths and the repelling of tnfnries.” — The modern Socinians have not this peculiarity.

vii. The reformed Churches would be all earnest to clear themselves of the imputation of being seditious, and of favouring the Anabaptists, The Helvetic Confession condemns them ex- pressly. The French mentions the error, about a community of Goods, as then subsisting. The Scotch allows the Magistrates to purge Religion; — would it allow a pope Magistrate ?—The Dutch much the same; and it speaks of the Anabaptists, like our thirty-eighth Article, as to holding a community of goods. The Bohemian 1s strongly against the Magistrate’s interfering* in religious matters. The Augustan condemns the Anabaptists warmly; and mentions Magistracy, War, Oaths; and the belief of the actual final Dominion of the Saints.

vIII. I rather suspect our Article of aiming at the Puritauss: blaming the Anabaptists for any puritanical error, would be a way of throwing odium upon the Puritans. In the Play called the

Puritan, one says, We (Puritans) must not ear, I can

when he says, page 52. © God hath not given his people any earthly goods or possessions under the Goipel;”— there is more of it: printed 643.

f It might be inquired, whether those who were for the magistrate’s interfering in affairs of Religion, had not the Magistrate on their fide? and those who were against the magis- trate’s interfering, had not him for an adversary ?

s Rogers refers to a passage in the Preface to Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, in which it is said, that Puritans made a practice of declining oaths in Courts of Law, when their brethren were under prosecution, and if they were sworn, they would then be /ilent, But this seems nothing to a Doctrine of unlaau- fulness of oaths; only as it would put the Puritans upon making what objecticus they could, in their own defence.

BOOK IV. x. 507

J can tell you:“ We may lie, but we must not swear :”—and, © No rich thing shall enter into Heaven, you know.” — The character of Corporal Oath is probably intended to heighten the puritani- cal character, by contrast®.

Ix. In or near 1573, there were a set of Chris- tians in the Isle of Ely, who are said to have mixed the notions of Gnostics, Arians, and Ana- baptists.—They deduced from Matt. v. that they ought not to take any oaths; from the command- ment, thou shalt not &i,“ that all capital punish- ments are unlawful: and from Acts 1. 44, 45. that riches are unchristian. And they held other notions not connected with our present subject. They were thought worth denouncing to Govern— ment.

x. The Family of Love seem likely, from what has been already said of them, to have run into the errors of which we are treating; and in the Proclamation of Elizabeth“ against them, it is mentioned, that they would take an Oath before a Magistrate, and not scruple to deceive him if he was not one of their own sect. However, Rogers on this Article refers to H. N.’s work, Spirit. Land. 6. 5, as raling at Magistracy, and to another work as encouraging men to accomplish the dominion of the Saints. And also to passages condemning all wars, and prohibiting the use of all weapons. |

The 9uakers take up some notions which the Anabaptists! laid down; they hold all war to be

unlawful;

d See the Play amongst Shakspeare’s, Act 1. Scene 2 and 3. and Act 3. Scene 6. Peace has more hidden oppressions, and violent heady sins (though looking of a gentle nature) than a professed war. — This is said with a wiew to Puritans.

i See Collier’s Eccles Hist. Vol. 2; page 545. * Bishop Sparrow’s Collection, page 171. i Burn, under Dissenters.

508 BOOK Iv. ART. xxxvII. SECT, XI.

unlawful; and all oaths; but they expressly allow of property, and difference of ranks, They speak teclingly of the Civil Magistrates interfering about opinions ; but they seem to take for granted the lawfulness of his temporal authority®; and indeed their addrefles to our King have been always loyal: they ground their opinions on Scripture. — One might read an expression or two of Warburton, in” his Alliance.

At the Restoration there? was a very severe act against the Quakers, the tendency of which was, to compel them to take Oaths; but at the Revolution their {cruples found relief: and I hope a {ussicient one,

The Moravians, who stile themselves ©* Unitas Fratrum,” or United Brethren” are called by Limborck*, Communislz, as having goods in com- mon; but I have known Persons of Fortune mem- bers of that Community. Perhaps they might at first have one common flock. In 22 of George II. they had an act of Parliament to relieve them from taking Oaths; yet they make declarations ein the presence of God, - considering God as a «« I/itness.” I oblerve they are called a “ prote- {tant Episcopal” Church.“

x1. We may now proceed to Explanation.

Some, I think, have scrupled to sign our Articles, because it was originally, in the Articles of 1562, the Queen’s Majesty,“ and not, „the King’s Majesty.” Such a scruple requires a constant suc- cession of female {overcigns.

66 The

m Barclay’s Apol. prop. 14. » Page 91. 121.

o Burn, under Dissenters, 13 & 14. Chap. 2. c. 1.

? Limborch on Ads ii.

4 Augustin would tell them that they do not know what swearing is. See Wall, to. page 185. Aug. ad Hilarium. r Burn, under Dissentei 3, 4to. page 525.

BOOK iv. XI, 509

« The chief power” —in Latin, summam habet potestatem : which is sometimes called the supreme or sovereign power.

„Foreign jurisdiction,“ can only allude to the see of Rome : however, the general terms convey something of reasoning.— The first paragraph is against the Papi/ts, the lecond against the I writans.

• By which titles,” — supreme in ecclesiastical causes, supreme in civil causes: this seems to be the meaning; but the grammar seems scarcely ac- curate. This Article is made out of one of 1 5523 and there is more grammatical danger in alteration; than in original compolitionꝰ 5

6 Slanderous folks,“ are in Latin, calumniatores : the Puritans are meant. — The Injunctions spoken of are in Sparrow’s Collection* : we may look at them. « Lately*—in 15

« To all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures” _ the act of a wicked pagan Prince, might not have made a good precedent.—But some (criptural pre- cedents should be mentioned. —Exod. xxxii. 22. Aaron submits to the Lay-lawgiver, Moses. — Deut. xiii. 5. A prophet inticing to Idolatry, is to be put to death.—1 Kings iii. 26. Solomon judges Abiathar.—2 Chron. xix. 5—9. Jehoshaphat gives judicial powers to sacred persons.—xxix: 4, &c.— Hezekiah gives orders to the Levites.—See also ver. 11.—ver. 21. he commands the Sons of Aaron: {ee also ver. $1.—2 Chron. xxx. 1. Hezckiah orders a Passover.—xxxi. 2. He orders the. courses of

Levites.— David, and Josiah are also mentioned a+ instances“.

These

• Tshould like to know, if it were possible, whether the Queen herself had any hand in transplanting her injunction into this

Article. One can conceive, that her Majesty’s grammatical inaccuracy might remain uncorrected,

t Sparrow’s Collection, page 82. Scotch Confession. Syntagma, page 156.

510 BOOK IV. ART. XXXVII. SECT, XII. XIII:

These things are mentioned in the Explanation, lest the precedents of the Old Testament should not be now thought sufficiently binding upon us Christians, to make a part of our Proof.

The * civil sword,” &c. seems an allusion to Rom. xiii. 4. no jurisdiction,” —temporal or spiritual.

The words „ Christian men occur both in the paragraph about capital punishments, and in that about war, which shews that our authorities are to come from the scriptures of the New Testament. — « Mear weapons,” is the expression, probably, of Anabaptists, and the Family of Love.

X11. Let us now go on to our Proof.

. The King of our Realm, and not the Pope, 18 the Head of our Church.

2. The King is not a Minister of the church.

3. Christians owe obedience to the Civil Magis- trate.

4. Capital punishments are not always unlawful in a Christian country.

5. It is not always unlawful for a Christian to engage in war.

Though we have now had the History relating to Property and Oaths, yet the lawsulness of them had best be proved under the subsequent Articles.

X111. The King of our Realm, and not the Pope, is the Head of our Church. In the third Book the principles of Alliance“ between Church and State, were briefly laid down and defended. There it appeared, that when a Church is com- posed of the subjects of a state, there must be one Head of both, in order to effect unity of Govern- ment; and that it is much more useful to both that the King (or civil magistrate) should preside, under regulations arising from the nature of the

Alliance,

• Book 111. Chap. x1v. Sect. v.

BOOK IV. XII1L. 511

Alliance, than the spiritual Head of the eccle- siastical society. So far all lies within the nation.

As to any foreign spiritual 4 interfering, there seems no good foundation for it, either in the Law of Nature, or in the? Gospel. And till the middle of the second Century we are told, that all Christian Churches were independent of each other, and* without any common Head. But is not the Church Universal Christ did mean to form all his Disciples into one Body, but never obliged a small part of his Disciples to continue in communion with a large body, contrary* to all the dictates of Reason and Conscience. Each particular church, as has been frequently observed, ought to consider itself as part of the Catholic Church ; and treat the Members of all the other Churches as Brethren, from whom human weak- ness causes a present separation. This is the most likely method of forming finally a solid union.

But if it were allowed, that the Catholic Church of Christ ought to have one visible head, what pretensions has the Bishop of Rome to be that Head? none which can be considered as established by general consent. Rome was once a seat of Empire; if Christian churches, in or near that Empire, had Zhen occasion to consult together, lome precedence would be proper and convenient, for the sake of maintaining order, and unity of action; reasons of convenience, and analogy, might make a determination to fall, when a de- termination unͥst be made, on the Bishop of

Rome.—But such reasons are now all against a Bishop of Rome.

; Besides, Powell, page 355.

2 See Art, xx1,— Bingham hath something on the subject, Book 2. Chap. 4. & 6.

a (a xviii. 4-— Art. XIX.

Besides, if the whole Church of Christ is to have one head, would it not now be best to fix upon one in some other situation? America mult now be considered, and the state of Christi- anity in Africa, and in Asia: in the East Indies poshbly Christianity may make some progress; nay, would it not be right to have an Head of the Church, if one be necessary, in different places, at different times, according to the actual state of the Christian world? we must not for a moment suppose worldly ambition or interest to throw any difficulties in the way: certainly the Bishop of Rome never was in the office, it such an office there be, of head of the universal Church of Christ.

It may however be said, that the Bishop of Rome has exercised spiritual Power in England. He has; but it was one founded in no right, nor ever /ubmitted to, more than as the plundering of a robber is submitted to whilst his pistol is at your breast. Whenever this nation has been free enough to be capable of making a contract, it has declared against papal usurpations A contract ought always, in order to be valid, to promote the mutual benefit of the contracting parties; the spiritual power of Rome has been exercised merely for the benefit of Rome. |

All Christians ought, no doubt, to act for the good of Christianity; but nothing would be more contrary to the general interests of Christianity, than for the Pope to have authority over the Church of England: —we have left the Church of Rome from the tullest conviction of its errors and corruptions: in what way could the head of that Church now exercise authority over us, but in the way of controverly and persecution? we should re, and the event must be, that Roman and English Churches would hurt each others rc- ligious principles materially.

No

BOOK Iv. ART, XXXVII: SECT, XIV, 313

No; if a Courayer, or if other learned and pious men, anxiously wish to have a Catholic church in fast, as well as in Theory, let them encourage general toleration, and quiet separation of those, who cannot conscientiously hold communion to- gether. Let the Bishops of Rome give up all ambitious and lucrative projects, let the Romish Clergy enlighten their people, as much as they are themselves enlightened :—this done, the Church of Rome is no longer an object of our jealousy; we have no longer occasion to be upon our guard. Intercourse will generate, confidence and mutual good opinion; thele will generate benevolence ; mutual benevolence is mutual attraction: attrac- tion produces Unity. So that the first approach to Unity, is complete independence, and separa- tion.

Should such unity prevail as to give a reasonable prospect of benefit from Councils, some Precedence. may again be wanted, In that case let him pre- side, who shall appear to be the best situated and qualified for presiding. Our Island will scarcely aspire to the honour. But whoever presides, let him be aware of arrogance and oppression |!

I should hope our first proposition may now be considered as proved.

xiv. The King is not a Minister of the Church,

The reasons given why the King should be Head of the Church, his compulsive and pro- tecting power, his ability to maintain the Ministers, shew, that, in the Alliance of Church and State, there is no view of his having any employ that is not of a temporal nature. F or priestly offices he is unqualified, and his time is occupied in others. Our reasoning on this head in the third Book was general; and there is nothing in the English Church or State to be the ground of an exception:

vol. IV, K* | But

514 BOOK IV. ART, XXXVII. SECT, XV—XVII.

But all parties being of one mind on this proposi- tion, an elaborate proof of it, is unnecessary.

xv. Christians owe obedience to the Civil Magistrate.

Here we quit the Bishop of Rome, and come to those scruples or prohibitions, the History of which we have given collectively. Let us observe of them all together, that the error of them turns upon not distinguishing between what is desirable, and what is practicable. However desirable an end may be, if we adopt any impracticable mea- sures, we only get farther from it; whereas if we begin with practical measures, we make some pro- gress, however small; and we may, by 5429 whey rance, attain our end at last: to content ourselves with what is practicable, is the most likely way to attain what 1s ultimately desirable.

For proof that Christians owe obedience to civil Magistrates, we may refer to Matt. xxii. 21.— Rom. xitl. 1—7.— Titus iii. 1.—1 Pet. ii. 13.— But the cogency of these proofs will be best under- stood by reading Bishop Sherlock’s Diicourle * on Rom. X11. 1. which I would earnestly recommend.

XVI. Capital punishments are not always unlaw- ful in a Christian country.—In the Gospel it 1s taken for granted, not ordered, that an offender may be punished with death. — Acts xxv. 11.— Rom. XIII. 4.

The Jew capital punishments prove, that such punishments are not so essentially wrong, as never to be right in any case. And nothing of the Jew- ish Law, relating to punishment, is repealed under the Gospel.

XxVII. Mar is not always unlawful to Chril- tians.

Here again we say, In the Gospel, war is not ordered, but taken for granted. — See Matt. viii. 9.

Luke » Bishop Sherlock’s Discourses, Vol. 4. Disc. xiii.

Luke iii. 14.— Acts x. 1, 2.—2 Tim. ii. 4. Each of which texts should be considered with this question, what would have been said, had war been universally to be prohibited? Would not our Saviour, or St. John*® Baptist, have thrown in some exhortations to quit the military profession ?

Under the Old Law we find many wars; and the Psalmist blesses God for teaching“ his hands to war, and his fingers to fight. To which no blame is annexed in the Gospel *.

XVIII. We have given a direct proof of our _ propositions, but fome indirect seems wanting;

especially for the two last.

It may be asked, in the first place, are not capital punishments inconsistent with the benevo- lent spirit of the Gospel? I would answer, first, that every right punishment is a species of benevo- lence : and is inflicted simply with a desire of doing good. A man by punishing may sometimes do more good than by forgiving.

But * thou shalt not kill: I would here borrow the words of St. Paul; it is manifest that he

© I was glad to find Augustin putting a speech into the mouth of John Baptist, in the way here mentioned, — Contra Faustum, 22. 74. quoted in Sect. v.

4 Pialm cxliv. 1.

© Would Christ have been called the Captain of our Salva- tion if all military offices had been held in utter abomination?

The Papists are apt to urge, that the Pope has a right to Supremacy, as successor of St Peter. The claim seems to me so weak, that I am unwilling to detain you upon it. Limborch, in his System of Theology, (L. 7. c.g & 10,) enters into the subject.— And Macknight takes notice, (Set. 70. end; on Matt. xvi. 19 —23.) of the worldly turn of St. Peter’s mind, at the time when he is said to have received his Commission. — Limborch shews, both that St. Peter was not the Head of the Disciples, so as to have any authority over them, and that the Bishop of Rome was not successor to St. Peter. —See also J. Hales’s Tracts, page 251,

K. &.’S

516 BOOK iv. xvIII.

is excepted” who does not commit murder; and the Jewish practice (for this was part of the Jewish Law), makes this {till more evident. —This is a short command, but if it were as long as a modern Act of Parliament, it would still be liable to limi- tations taken from its true intent and meaning. For instance, if a man attacks my life, I am surely to prevent him from taking it, though by taking his;—one life must be lost either way :—and if he attacks my property, I may defend that, otherwise my right is nothing: and if I cannot defend it but by taking his lite, then J should say, he destroys himself; *tis the fame thing as if I hold out my sword, and he runs upon it.

A Nation, however, you will fay, is safe, they may secure the offender, and therefore need not #k1// him. This may not be practicable in all cases : suppose, in any case, it is; yet, in strictness, what right has the criminal to force the community to maintain and watch him? if they are not obliged to maintain and watch him, then chey have a right to defend themselves against such attacks as he may be expected to make if they do not maintain and watch him. Let it must be owned, that, though some may perhaps, even by man, be given over to as reprobate mind, it is a rational exer- cise of mercy and benevolence, to secure others, even such as had no strict right to be spared.— The possibility of repentance is worth attending to: Reformation would be so great a good, that a light evil might be born for the chance of it.

But we are only concerned with Scripture. — Scripture might not reveal moral philosophy supernaturally, any more than natural philosophy.

A time may come when capital punishments may be

8 Rom. i. 28.

nOOK IV. ART, xxxVII. SECT. XIX= 517

be spared; and yet they might not be forbidden® in Scripture; which 1s all our concern.

xix. In the next place it may be asked, with regard to war, is it not contrary to Matt. v. 38—41*’.? — Bishop Burnet says, this is “a very great difficulty.“ Suppole there was a sense in which this passage prohibited a// war, (as it cer- tainly does all forwardness in going to war); that sense could not be right, because one part of scrip- ture is to be interpreted so as to be consent with other parts.

The Sermon on the Mount is to be interpreted as being in some measure the language of reproof; the language of reproof is a part of Eloquence : what is intended to mortify and correct felt-futf- clency, is not to be interpreted exactly in the same manner as what is delivered to the ingenu- ous and modest enquirer. In what our Saviour delivers, each Christian precept is contrasted to some fault prevailing amongst the reputable part of the Jews: so that one should keep the self- sufficiency and the malevolence of such Jews, con- tinually before one’s eyes: the Jewish character seems to have been malevolent, the Christian bene- volent.— The Christian precept now in question, is opposed to the practice of Retaliation: to male- volent rancour, flying instantly, on the receipt of an 1magined 1njury, to seize eye for eye and tooth for tooth. — This must not be Chrifian conduct, lays our Saviour; it is not rig conduct, nay, it

| | was

I think I said here, in giving this Lecture, that some nations might be so barbarous, or fo circumstanced, after the publica- tion of the Gospel, that rights could not be safe, if no crimi- nals were put to death: and therefore, that scripture could not well prohibit generally capital punishments, whatever it might have done if published in times very much improved, | Barclay’s Apology, Prop. 15.

was never intended to be Jewish. —But why is it not right?! because it is not the most effectual way to banish all injuries from the world, and to perfect human happiness :—1t is a natural movement, on the receipt of an 1njury, to fly to revenge; but this must be checked: it should be a Rule, to yield, to bear, to give way a little, as we do to a bodily grote, when it would otherwise be painful: great good would arise from the practice of this rule; we should find the imagined 1njury no real one; or we should soften the offender, or we should bind to us by ties of gratitude, one of an hasty but generous temper. It 1s not, however, to be understood, that this rule 1s invariable, or univer- sal, any more than another; when punishment will clearly answer a better end, and can be inflifted in the genuine spirit of benevolence, 1t must be ap- plied; else there is a voluntary neglect of the greater good, But, commonly, men want much more per- suading to yield, than to pumish, The mistake with which we are now concerned, 1s this; if a Rule is given, it is taken as an only, or /ngle Rule; whereas, though each rule is given singly, it is not meant to exclude other Rules. One rule is, to let our light shine before men; another, not to let our left hand know what our right doeth; both excellent Rules! on different“ occasions : but nei- ther of them can be followed singly, on all occa- sions. These limit each other; but every rule, if not limited expressly, is to be understood to be so tacitly, by considerations of the greatest good. The very next words to our difficult passage, are, « Give to him that asketh thee; and from him

that

& Matt. xii. 37. makes our final sentence to depend upon our words. Rom. ii 6, &c. on our a&ions.—l need scarce say, that reference is here made to Matt, v. 16. and vi. 3.

that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.“ — Another excellent Rule, in its place :=no one has ever followed this without limitation ; and yet it would be difficult to assign any reason why it is more variable, or liable to limitations, than that which immediately precedes it.

This may suffice to solve our difficulty ; but I cannot quit it without observing, how irksome it is to be obliged to urge anything, which can have any tendency to lessen the force of that divine rule, yield to evil, © give place unto wrath ;”—a rule dictated by that wisdom, which is from above, delivered from the mouth of him who knew what was in man: a rule so much wanted, and so replete with good, that one would not soon find one’s self weary of expatiating on its complicated benefits to mankind.

This is all the indirect proof I will give.— Any one might consult Grotius de Jure, &c. I, 2. 6, &c.

xx. If any application were wanted, we might observe, with a view to mutual concession, that war is generally, or always, owing to some defect in Wisdom or in Virtue; to mistaking rights, to am- bitious restlessness: though we cannot own, as a consequence, that no Natioa can lawfully defend itself. To give up lelf-defence is impracticable. —] have wished to impress the distinction be- tween what is desirable, and what is practicable: and therefore I will conclude with the following incident: we are told, that the Pensy/vantans, after high professions of suffering anything rather than fight, determined to retake by force, a floop from a Pirate.

The

Reference is here made to John ii, 25. — Rom. xii. 19. and James iii. 17. K K 4

A.

» = . Ces —

— . 4 i — —_— C

1 […] —

4 C = - […] 4 —

b g

{

—

520 BOOK IV. xx.

The excuse they made was”, that they did it as Magistrates, not as Quakers. The account

is taken from a printed Book of Trials; of George Keith, and others.

m Leslie’s Srake in the Grass, Sect. 18.

Notes

• . Riches, on Matt, vi. 19.— xix. 21—24.— Luke xvi. 19, &c. 1 Tim. vi. 9, 10.