Maclear and Williams on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

The Queenes Maiestie hath the cheese power in this Realme of Eng- lande, and other her dominions, vnto whom the cheese gouernment of all estates of this Realme, whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Ciuile, in all causes doth apparteine, and is not, nor ought to be subiect to any for- raigne iurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queenes Maiestie the cheese gouernment, by whiche titles we vnderstand the mindes of some slaunderous folkes to be offended: we geue not to our princes the ministring either of God’s word, or of Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queene, doth most plainlie testifie : But that only prerogatiue whiche we see to haue ben geuen alwayes to all godly Princes holy Scriptures by God him self that is, that they should rule a estates and degrees committed to the’ charge by God, whether they t Ecclesiasticall or Temporal], and r~ straine with the ciuili sworde th stubberne and euyll doers.

The bishop of Rome hath no iurr diction in this Realme of Englande.

The lawes of the Realme ma punishe Christian men with deat” for heynous and greeuous offences.

It is lawfull for Christian men, the commaundement of the Magi trate, to weare weapons, and serue ’ the warres.

i. Title and Language. The Title of Article xxxvii. has remained uniform since the original draft in 1553, but the language has undergone considerable modification. As it was first drawn up it began, ” The King of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland1.” This language is nearly iden- tical with that of the Act of Supremacy passed in 1534 in the reign of Henry VIII., in which Henry is acknowledged as ” Protector and only Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of England,” but with the important proviso, “so far as is permitted by the Law of Christ2.”

ii. Alteration under Elizabeth. On the accession of Mary the Acts of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were repealed. When Elizabeth came to the throne, her first act was to restore to the Crown ” the ancient jurisdiction over the State ecclesiastical and spiritual, abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.” The title, however, “Supreme Head of the Church,” was never revived, and for it was substituted that of “Supreme Governor of the Church.” In an Admonition appended to her injunctions of A.D. 1559 the Queen explained that nothing was meant by this, other than what was acknowledged to be due to ” the most noble kings of famous memory,” her father and brother3, and which was of ancient time claimed by the

1 ” Rex Anglise est supremum caput what had often before been asserted

in terris, post Christum, Ecclesia.- as belonging of right to the English

Anglicanoe et Hibernicae.” To this Crown.” Earl Selborne, Defence of

one M.S. added, ” Neque in universo the Church of England, p. 32.

[…]

a quo sua potestas et autoritas pen- reign against the Pope’s pretensions to

deat.” Hardwick, Hist. Art., p. 342, jurisdiction in this kingdom did but

n. carry to their full consequences, under

a “It is plain from the recitals in the circumstances of that time, prin-

that and also in another Statute of the ciples admitted in Anglo-Saxon times,

same year, and from other proofs, for which Norman and Plantagenet

that the King did not mean to claim kings had contended, which had been

any spiritual office or character, or embodied in the acts of their Councils

any power different in its nature from and Parliaments, and in which 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 state, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superi- ority over them1.”

iii. Analysis. The present Article, therefore, (i) com- mences with the assertion that “The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions,” and then (ii) goes on to state that to the Sovereign appertains the chief government of all estates of the Realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, and that she is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdic- tion, (iii) Moreover to silence objections, it defines the limits of the government of the sovereign as not extending either (a) to the performance of any spiritual function, or {b) to the exercise of any prerogative other than that allowed to godly princes in Holy Scripture by God Him- self’-, (iv) It declares that the government of the sovereign extends to that coercive power, which alike in the Old and the New Testaments is placed in the hands of princes3, (v) This done, the Article proceeds to lay down the following points :

Ecclesiastical authorities of the realm had either actively concurred or at least practically acquiesced-” Earl Selborne, Defence of the Church of England, pp. 8, 9.

• See Palmer, Treatise on the Church, vol. i. p. 200. 3rd ed. 1842. 3 Thus it is carefully provided that

the civil magistrate is not the source of spiritual as well as civil jurisdiction, and the Church of England “claims to have a spiritual mission and authority, a ministry of the Word and Sacra- ments, neither derived from nor com- municable to the State ; and she acknowledges in the Head of the State that power only, over ecclesias- tical persons and causes, which she believes to be within the rightful pro- vince of all Christian Governments.” Earl Selborne, Defence of the Church of England, p. 35.

(a) That the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm :

That no Foreign jurisdiction can interfere with the right of the national sovereign either to (1) inflict capital punishment, or (2) claim the assistance of his soldiers in war.

iv. The Civil Supremacy in temporal matters is the foundation of all settled government, and Scripture alike in the Old and the New Testament sanctions the extension of this power, under due and proper limits, to matters ec- clesiastical. Thus (a) In the Old Testament: — (1) Aaron is subject to Moses (Exod. xxxii. 21, 22); (2) Saul is declared by Samuel to be head of the tribes including Levi (1 Sam. xv- !/); (3) David distributes the priests into twenty-four courses, and makes various regulations as regards the Temple Services (1 Chron. xxiii. 6)1; and (4) it is dis- tinctly said that the priests and Lcvites departed not from the commandment of Solomon concerning ajiy matter (2 Chron. viii. 15)2. Again (/3) in the Nciv Testament: — (1) Our Lord directs that all alike are to render to Cczsar the things that arc Ccesars (Luke xx. 25); (2) S. Paul bids every soul be subject to the higher poivcrs as being ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1); (3) S. Peter writes to the Christians of the Dispersion, Be subject unto every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: zvhether it be unto the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by Him for vengeance on evil doers, and for praise to them that do well (1 Pet. ii. 13, 14).

v. The Royal Supremacy. These passages guide

1 Similar directions concerning intrude upon the sacred offices of

sacred matters are given by Jehosha- religion, as was shewn by the punish-

phat (2 Chron. xx. 3 — 13) ; Hezekiah ment of Saul (1 Sam. xiii. 8 — 14), and

(2 Chron. xxix. 3 — 19; and Josiah the punishment of Uzziah for intrud-

(2 Chron. xxxiv. 1 — 13 ff.). ing into the Holy Tlace to burn in-

• But the king was not allowed to cense (2 Chron. xxvi. 16 ff.).

4io

us to a right conception of what is meant by the royal supremacy, (i) We do not mean, (a) a spiritual headship, for that belongs to Christ alone ; nor (b) an ecclesiastical headship, such as would empower the sovereign to teach or preach, or administer the Sacraments, or consecrate persons and things, or impose ecclesiastical censures1; nor (c) an arbitrary and unlimited supremacy, so that we should be supposed to put our consciences under the un- controlled guidance of the sovereign, (ii) What we do mean is (a) that the sovereign must hold some position in the Church and this can only be the highest; (b) that for coercive purposes and to preserve the peace of the realm he is over all persons and in all causes supreme; (c) that legally and constitutionally he can do nothing concerning the doctrine and discipline of the Church, unless it has received the consent of the clergy and laity, as represented in Convocation and Parliament respectively ; (d) that he is entitled to those ancient privileges, which belonged to kings and princes in Scripture, to Christian Emperors in primi- tive times, and to the ancient sovereigns of England, and which empower them ” to rule all estates and degrees com- mitted to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesias- tical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.”

vi. The Papal Jurisdiction in the realm of England is claimed on various grounds. It is urged that (i) S. Peter had a supremacy given him over the rest of the Apostles, and over the universal Church; that (ii) he exercised this supremacy as Bishop of Rome for upwards of twenty- five years; that (iii) this supremacy is inherited by the

1 ” It was during the primacy of Archbishop Warham (not Cramner) that the Convocations of both pro- vinces of Canterbury and York for-

mally acknowledged the king’s ’ Su- preme Headship’ of the Church of England.” Earl Selborne, Defence of the Church of England, p. 32.

Bishops of Rome as his successors; that (iv) England was converted to the Christian Faith by Missionaries from Rome and therefore owes allegiance to the Roman See.

vii. The Supremacy of S. Peter. We do not deny that a certain priority was conceded to S. Peter by our Lord. We cannot read the New Testament without noticing that (1) his name is placed first in all the catalogues of the Apostles1; that (2) he takes the lead in speaking and acting for the rest2; that (3) he is peculiarly honoured in conjunction with S. James and S. John3; that (4) our Lord makes to him a special promise as regards His Church4; that (5) after the Ascension he is

1 Matt. x. 2 ; Mark iii. 16 ; Luke vi. 14 ; Acts i. 13.

3 Matt. xix. 27 ; Luke xii. 41 ; Matt. xvi. 16 ; Mark viii. 29.

3 Mark v. 37 ; Luke viii. 51 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 28.

4 “And I say unto thee (KayCo Si cot \iyu) that thou art Peter (on av el n^rpos), and upon this rock (iirl rainy tj irirpa) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, and I will give thee (5u(tw <roi) the keys of the king- dom 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” (Matt. xvi. 18, 19). Amongst the Fathers there is no fixity of interpretation as regards the mean- ing here of the Rock. Different in- terpretations are given by many in different parts of their works. Some apply it to S. Peter himself ; others to the faith he confessed ; others to Christ, acknowledged by the Apostle to be God and Man. S. Augustine himself varies in his interpretation. In his earlier expositions he acknow- ledges he had applied the words to S. Peter, but in his later ones to Christ (S. Aug. Retract, i. 21). It is notice- able that our Lord does not say M <tol

o’tKo8o/j-ri<rui fiov tt)V eKKXijalav but eVl rairri rrj wiTpa. The expression points, not so much to the person of the Apostle himself, as to something to which his name (Hirpos) bore wit- ness, and which had evinced itself in his glorious confession. This much at any rate seems clear ; — (o) The Apostle obviously could not be the Rock in any sense which trenched on the prerogative of Christ Himself, Who is the foundation stone, de/d\ws (1 Cor. iii. 11), the chief corner stone, anpoyoivicuos (Eph. ii. 20), binding the parts of the building of His Church together; (/3) still S. Peter by virtue of his faith and confession had a primacy, not the primacy of absolute sovereignty, but ” the primacy of historical inauguration,” as Bp Light- foot terms it : (7) and so in the Apostolic records he appears using the keys and opening the gates at each successive stage in the progress of the Church. The same courageous faith, which prompted this confession and called forth the promise of Christ, enables him to receive into the Church the three thousand on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 41); to open the gates to the Samaritans (Acts viii. 14, 16); to admit the Gentile Cornelius to Christian Baptism (Acts x. 46, 47).

4I2

signally prominent in the founding of the Church. But priority of order does not involve preeminence of jurisdiction. Had it been so, we surely should have found in the New Testament some traces of such preeminence being asserted and claimed. But so far from it, (a) In the Gospels,

(i) We never find our Lord giving S. Peter himself apart from the rest of the Apostles any title of special honour;

(ii) On the contrary we find Him protesting against any claims to preeminence, and saying, Whoso- ever will be chief among yon, let him be your servant (Matt. xx. 27); Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren (Matt, xxiii. 8);

(iii) Again in the solemn delegation of ministerial authority after His resurrection, He says to the whole Apostolic body in general, As the Father hath scut Ale, even so send I you (vfias, John xx. 21)’.

But then, as though to shew that the Church was not founded on the per- sonality of S. Peter, he vanishes from our sight, and another assumes the chief place in his stead, of whom, not of S. Peter, S. Augustine says ” Ipse (Paulus) caput et princeps Aposto- lorum” and again ” (Paulus) tanti Apostolatus meruit principatum.” See S. Aug. De Pecc. Merit is et Remissionc ii. 20; Bp h\ghl(oot, Apostolic Fathers, Pt. i. Vol. ii., pp. 487 sqq.

1 Again He says Whose sorter sins YE forgive, they are forgiven unto them, whose soever sins YE retain, they are retained (John xx. 23) ; Go YE, and make disciples of alt the nations, bap- tizing them. ..teaching them (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). There is nothing here

to indicate that what the Apostles had, they had not directly from Christ, but indirectly from Christ through Peter. See Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, p. 74. ” Our Lord’s words were addressed to all the Apostles ; no distinction was made ; all were alike addressed, and all were therefore given the same Apostolical authority… Every Apostle was sent as Jesus Christ was sent by the Father ; that is with the plenitude of supreme power ; every Apostle was authorized to remit sins, and to teach all nations. Nothing conceivable by human imagination can surpass the grandeur and the magnitude of this Mission and these powers.” Palmer, Treatise on the Church, ii. p. 480.

(/3) In the Acts,

(i) We find S. Peter actually sent with S. John by the other Apostles to Samaria (Acts viii. 14-16);

(ii) The appeal made at the Council of Jerusalem is not made to S. Peter, but to the Apostles and elders (Acts xv. 13, 19);

(iii) S. Peter did not preside at the Council, but this position was occupied by James the Lord’s brother, and first bishop of Jerusalem (Acts xv. I9V;

(iv) S. Peter retires after this altogether into the background of the sacred history, while S. Paul becomes the prominent figure.

(7) In the Epistles,

(i) S. Paul instead of going up after his conversion to S. Peter as the supreme head of the Church2, waits some time, and only after a considerable interval receives from him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9) ;

(ii) The same Apostle on one occasion actually withstands S. Peter to the face, because he stood condemned3 (Gal. ii. n), and he severely re-

1 See Appendix to Bp Lightfoot’s unto Peter (Gal. ii. 7). “There is no Commentary on Ike Galatians, ” S. sort of dependence of S. Paul on S. Paul and the Three.” Peter which these words do not ex-

Apostle, not from man, neither through 3 Ka.Teyi’uaiJ.tvos r/i> not ” repre- inan (Gal. i. 1) ; I did not receive it hensible,” but “condemned.” His (the Gospel) /toot man, neither was I conduct carried its own condemnation taught it (Gal. i. 12) ; they of repute with it. Comp. John iii. 18; Rom. (i.e. the pillar Apostles, James and xiv. 23. “The condemnation is not Cephas and John) imparted nothing to the verdict of the bystanders, but the me (Gal. ii. 6) ; the Gospel of the un- verdict of the act itself.” Bp Lightfoot circumcision was committed unto me, in loc. ; see also Bp Kllicott’s Commen- ds the Gospel of the circumcision was tary on the passage.

bukes as schismatics those who said, I am of Cephas ( I Cor. i. 12); (Hi) Moreover in his own Epistles S. Peter himself never claims preeminence or superiority over his fellow-Apostles or the Church. He calls himself an elder amongst elders (r Pet. v. 1); an Apostle amongst other Apostles (1 Pet. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 1 ) ; he gives no hint that he stands in any special relation to the chief Shepherd (1 Pet. v. 4) beyond that in which the other Apostles stood, any more than S. John does, when he speaks of the twelve foundations of the Church, equal and coordinate, as the twelve Apostles of the Lamb1 (Rev. xxi. 14). We conclude, then, from these four lines of argument that though it cannot be disputed that our Lord promised to build His Church upon S. Peter, as the great Confessor of His Divinity, there is no warrant for the notion that this gave the Apostle preeminence of jurisdiction over the others, and so over the Universal Church.

viii. S. Peter’s Bishopric at Rome, which is said to have lasted upwards of twenty-five years, really involves an appeal to history, and to history we can go. The martyrdom, then, of S. Peter at Rome, which may be accepted as authentic2, cannot have taken place before a.d. 68, when Nero was Emperor. Now twenty-five years3 subtracted from this date brings us to A.D. 43 as the com-

1 Kal t6 t«xos t^s irbXews <fx°” with his head downwards, and that

[…]

apviov. Rev. xxi. 14. Observe the Chronicle of Eusebius, Lib. ii. anno

studied repetition of the word 5ii5e*a. 43, that we find the first distinct state-

8 Tertullian, De Prescript. 36, ment that S. Peter went to Rome in

Scarp. 15, and also Origen in Euseb. the year A.D. 43, and remained there

Hist. Eccles., iii. 1, refer to the tradi- for 35 years as Bishop of the Church

tion that he was crucified at Rome in that city.

mencement of the Petrine episcopate1; and we have a history of the period from A.D. 30 — 60 in the Acts of the Apostles, but there is nowhere to be found a single hint in it of the Apostle’s presence in the capital of the West. In A.D. 58 S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome2, but he preserves an absolute silence as to the episcopate there of his brother Apostle3. Between A.D. 60 and A.D. 66 he wrote at least five Epistles from Rome, but in none of these does he allude to the presence of S. Peter. In the two Epistles written by that Apostle himself he lets fall no word, which indicates any episcopal jurisdiction at Rome. The only passage which can be alleged to have any pos- sible reference to the Eternal City is the verse, in which the Apostle writes, There sahitetli yon site that is in Babylon, elect together with yon ; and so doth Marcus my son (1 Pet. v. 13)4. But, even if ” Babylon ” here means Rome,

1 ” I cannot find,” writes Bp Light- foot, ” that any writers of the first two centuries and more speak of S.

Peter as bishop of Rome The

language of Irenaeus (iii. 3. 3) is explicit. He describes the Church of Rome as founded by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, who appointed

Linus bishop” “After him came

Linus; after Linus, Anencletus; after Anencletus in the third place from the Apostles Clement is elected to the bishopric, and the others, when any numbers are given, are numbered accordingly.” Apost. Fathers, Pt i. Vol. ii. pp. 501, 502.

2 In this Epistle S. Paul obviously takes for granted that no Apostle had yet reached Rome (Rom. xv. 20).

3 ” If silence can ever be regarded as decisive, its verdict must be ac- cepted in this case. S. Paul could not have written as he writes to the Romans (i. n, sq., xv. 20 — 24) if they had received even a short visit from an Apostle, more especially if that Apostle were S. Peter.” Bp Light-

foot, Apostolic Fathers, Pt i. Vol. ii.

4 A<T7rafeTai ifias t) h Bo/3u\wn ovvtaXcKTr], nal Mdpxos 6 vios pov = the fellow-elect in Babylon greet- eth you, anil so doth Marcus my son (1 Pet. v. 13). The interpreta- tions of the words are various. Some would understand them to refer to some sister or Christian lady, well known to S. Peter’s converts. But the context ‘H tv Ba/Si/Xuwi jwwXeiTi) is unnatural as the description of a person, and several early authorities (including N) add ‘Ek^/jIb.. If a ” fellow-elect Church ” is intended, the mention of S. Mark, S. Peter’s “companion and interpreter” (Euse- bius H. £. iii. 39), points to Rome, where S. Mark composed his Gospel, and where the latest notices in the New Testament represent him either as staying or invited to visit (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). Moreover the Crucifixion of S. Peter (John xxi. 18) is always connected by tradition with Rome, and with no other place. Bp Lightfoot considers

there is no allusion to any jurisdiction in that City1. While, then, it is probable that the Apostle found his way to the Capital of the West and there received the martyr’s crown2, the supposition that he remained for twenty-five years bishop of the Church of Rome involves insuperable chronological and historical difficulties.

ix. The Supremacy of the successors of S. Peter is seriously involved in the doubts respecting the Apostle’s bishopric at Rome3. For if the permanence of S. Peter’s privilege was recognised in early times, it is difficult to account for several historical facts. Thus

(a) In A.D. 95 Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians, and does not give the slightest indication of this privilege; In A.D. 108 S. Polycarp consults Anicetus about the keeping of Easter, but he does not consider himself bound to defer to his authority as con- elusive on the point4;

this to be supported by the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians c. 5, and by that of Ignatius to the Romans c. 4. Apostolic Fathers, Pt i. Vol. ii. pp. 491, 492.

1 Irenaeus says that S. Peter and S. Paul preached at Rome, and laid the foundation of the Church there, and after so doing ” committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” But the Greek word here used cannot be made to mean “handed on” or “handed down,” as if Linus succeeded either or both of them after they died.

2 Bishop Lightfoot considers that S. Peter arrived at Rome in the latter part of A.D. 64, during S. Paul’s absence after his first imprisonment. The Neronian persecution broke out soon afterwards, and he would be one of the most prominent victims. An- cient tradition states that S. Peter was buried in the Vatican, S. Paul on the

Ostian Way. “The Vatican gardens were the scene of the hideous fes- tivities, in which the victims of the fire suffered, and amongst these (we may assume) was S. Peter, A.D. 64. On the other hand an isolated victim who was put to death some years later (say A.D. 67), as was presumably S. Paul’s case, might meet his death anywhere.” Apostolic Fathers, Pt i. Vol. ii. pp.497,

3 There is not a syllable in three texts alleged to embody t” Petrine Privilege (Matt. xvi. 18, 19; Luke xxii. 31, 32 ; John xxi. 15 — 17” which empowers S. Peter to con- the privilege, whatever be its natu: to any other person, and there is evidence producible that he ever d’ confer and transmit his peculiar privi lege and authority.

4 Eusebius Hist. Eccl. iv. 14; 24. Neither bishop would yield the other, but the two parted in pea

(7) In A.D. 196 Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, dis- putes with Victor, Bishop of Rome, on the same point, and as they cannot agree, Victor excommunicates him, and for so doing, although Bishop of the capital of the West, he is rebuked by a number of bishops, and amongst them by Irenaeus himself1, “Victor stood reproved. His excommunication failed2.”

(S) In A.D. 255 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, and other African bishops come into collision with Pope Stephen on the question of heretical baptism, and when the latter refuses to recog- nise them, and renounces communion with the African Churches, they stoutly express their disapproval of his attempt to make himself a ” bishop of bishops” ;

(e) In A.D. 424 the bishops of Africa, with S. Augustine at their head, write strongly to Pope Celestinus, denying his right to interfere with their jurisdiction, and complaining that he had violated the Canon of the Council of Nicaea, which directed that causes between bishops and clergy shall be heard by their own metropolitan, and not carried elsewhere3;

(£”) Above all, Pope Gregory the Great vehemently protested against the bishop of Constantinople4,

1 It is important to observe that Eusebius recognises no special ” Pet- rine privilege,” on the strength of which Victor was justified in taking the course he did. Hist. Eccl. v. 24.

[…]

M.

for claiming the title of “universal bishop,” and not only declares such an assumption to be arrogant, indeed, and schismatical, but affirms that he who made it was a forerunner of Anti- christ1.

x. Decisions of Councils speak with no less certain voice on the same subject. The sixth Canon of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, places the Roman Bishop on a level with those of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. The eighth Canon of the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, for- bids any bishop to invade another’s province, which had not been from the beginning under his authority2. The twenty- eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, con- firms the decrees of the Council of Constantinople, and gives in the West privileges to ” Old Rome ” as the seat of Empire, and to the see of ” New Rome,” or Constantinople, because that city was acknowledged as the seat of Empire in the East3. Evidently the Roman patriarch was considered to have no more authority given to him than the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; the first place was assigned to Rome as being the imperial City; next came Constantinople as being “New Rome”; and every bishop was expressly forbidden to invade any Diocese, which had not from the first been subject to him and to his predecessors. Of any divine right of the Roman See to

2 See Dr Bright’s Notts on the as part of the Catholic faith.” Dr Canons. Bright, Waymarks in Church History,

special preeminence and authority over other Churches the Councils give no hint. Political causes chiefly led to the preeminence of the Roman Church and its bishop. All the roads in the world led to Rome ; all nations were represented there ; the early bishops of Rome possessed the instinct of government more strongly than their con- templative brethren of the East ; and the majesty of the eternal City exercised a mysterious spell over the minds of men, as the one apostolic See of Western Europe.

xi. The Conversion of England. Another claim, however, to direct rights of jurisdiction over England is based on the fact that Pope Gregory the Great won over the country to the Christian Faith. But to this it may be well replied that there is no precedent in early Church history for such an argument. It nowhere appears that a Church, which succeeded in any Missionary effort, acquired permanent jurisdiction over the country it converted1. If this was the case, Jerusalem would be the Mistress, as well as the Mother of all Churches. Again, there was an ancient and flourishing Church in England long before the arrival of S. Augustine2, and after his arrival the British succession3 continued for some time side by side with the Roman. While it is true that S. Augustine won over the

1 “The African Church was accord- inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero

[…]

licorum, xxxvi. and Cyprian, Epist. iii. 7, speaks of Britain joining in the

xlv. both high authorities on the sub- worship of the true God, while S.

ject, planted from Rome, yet the Alban was martyred at Verulam under

Church formally repudiated the au- Diocletian 300 years before the land-

thority of the Bishop of Rome in ing of Augustine. Bede, Hist. Eccl.

A. D. 253, and again in 419 — 422. 1. 6. 7.

Moreover, the Churches of Gaul were 3 At the Synod of Aries, A.D. 314,

certainly founded by Missionaries from three British Bishops were present,

Asia Minor, yet the Churches of Asia and British prelates were also present

Minor never claimed jurisdiction over at the Council of Sardica, A.D. 347.

them.” Denny, Anglican Orders, See Haddan and Stubbs, Councils

S.P.C.K., p. 222. and Documents, Vol. i.

• Tertullian speaks of ” Britannorum

Saxon inhabitants of Kent and some other portions of the country, the conversion of by far the largest part was brought about by Scotch and Irish Missionaries, who received no Mission for this purpose from Rome at all. To these missionaries, indeed, the Christianising of all the north, west, and centre of England is duel, and as Rome never gave mission to these bodies of teachers, she cannot claim jurisdiction over regions which they won over to the Faith.

xii. Capital Punishment. Having thus justified the position that it is not within the right of the sovereign to make over the liberties of the people or the Church to any foreign power, the Article proceeds to assert the right of every independent Christian state, (i) to inflict capital punishment, and (ii) to engage in just and righteous wars. Capital punishment was deemed by some in the sixteenth century, as it is by not a few now, to be inconsistent with the spirit of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, wherein He forbids men to resist him that is evil2, and directs whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matt. v. 39), and again says, All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword3 (Matt. xxvi. 52). But here un- doubtedly our Lord is dealing with the behaviour of indi-

1 See Bright, Early English Church quest, returned with the Christian

History, pp. 94 — 96; Bp Lightfoot, Faith.” Green’s History of the English

Leaders in the Northern Church, p. 11. People, i. p. 42.

“Augustine,” the Bishop writes, “was a ‘E7U 51 Xtyto vfui>, fii) irrw 1 Qpflj

the Apostle of Kent, but Aidan was the wovripiS. Here the words rip

Apostle of England.” We may per- irovripq may be translated ” him that

haps not form the highest estimate of is evil,” as in the K.V., or “evil” as

the success of S. Augustine’s Mission, in the Margin.

but still it effected much. “Practically 3 Oi Xo^ovres fidxaipav. They

his landing had renewed the union who take the sword “of their own

with the western world which that of motion, without authority from God,

Hengist had destroyed. The new who alone gives commission to bear

England was admitted into the older the sword (Matt. xxvi. 52), shall perish

commonwealth of nations. The civi- by the sword of divine retribution.”

lisation, art, letters, which had fled Bp C. Wordsworth in he. See also

before the sword of the English Con- Lange’s Comm. in toe. (T. & T. Clark).

vidual Christians, not with states or communities or the magistrates of any country1. Under the Patriarchal Dis- pensation we find capital punishment was enjoined. Whoso slieddetJi man’s blood, we read, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. ix. 6). This commandment, applicable to the whole human race, was not repealed under the Mosaic Law, and under the New Dispensation we have S. Paul upholding the authority of the magistrate to inflict the penalty of death. He beareth not tlie sword in vain, he writes to the Romans, for he is the minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil (Rom. xiii. 4). If this was true of heathen magistrates, much more is it true of Christian authorities. Violations of justice differ in kind and degree. It is only reasonable that penalties should differ also. The extreme violation of justice is wilful murder. The corresponding extreme penalty is capital punishment, which is necessary for the protection of society.

xiii. The Right of War. As with capital punish- ment, so with the right of war, some of our Lord’s words seem decisive against its lawfulness. But again it is to be noticed that He is dealing not with nations or govern- ments, but with individuals, and laying down general principles of action. War is a necessary evil to be entered upon for the averting of greater evils1’. Wars for revenge and for mere glory are unquestionably unworthy of

1 “The administration of justice of its moral consciousness of the

is not only of importance to individuals authority of law, of duty and respon-

whose rights are thus personally se- sibility, of accountability and guilt.”

cured, but to the whole civil com- Martensen, Christian Ethics, ii. p.

munity. For this reason, legal insti- 176. E. T.

tutions must be absolutely maintained 2 “The true vocation of war is to against all caprice and despotism… serve as a means of preventing injus- Its penal legislation, and the recog- tice and violence by physical force nition and validity given thereto, is a and of extorting what justice de- nation’s clearest expression of its mands.” Martensen, Christian Ethics, consciousness of justice, and therewith ii. 231.

Christian states and Christian men1. But wars for the assertion of national independence, wars for the protection of people’s life and liberty, are not opposed to the will of God, unless we are to believe that the Gospel was designed to condone the supremacy of the violent and unscrupulous. The testimony of Scripture seems to be clear on this point. For in the Old Testament we find the Jews2 constantly engaged in war, and that often by the direct command of God3. And in the New Testament we find John the Baptist, so far from ordering the soldiers, who came to his baptism, to lay down their arms and quit their profession, bidding them do violence to no man, neither exact anything wrongfully, and be content with their wages (Luke iii. 14). Again our Lord heals the servant of the heathen centurion, and instead of ordering him to give up his calling, commends his faith as exceeding any he had found in Israel (Matt, viii. 10). S. Peter again instructs and baptizes Cornelius, but does not demand of him either before or after his baptism that he shall quit the army or give up his profes- sion (Acts x. 34 — 45). Lastly S. Paul not only draws a parallel between the armour of the soldier and the panoply of the Christian, without any hint that the soldier’s calling is wrong in itself (Eph. vi. 10 — 17), but he actually com- mends the prudence and self-denial of the soldier to the imitation of Timothy himself (2 Tim. ii. 4).

1 It is to be observed that the not overlook the fact that war has Latin of the Article has “jitsta bella also its arousing and purifying effects, administrare,” but there is no equiva- It arouses a slumbering patriotism, lent for justa in the English trans- and calls citizens from the luxurious lation. enjoyments of peace, and from petty

2 On the exterminating wars of the and selfish interests, to sacrifices and Old Testament see Mozley, Lectures self-denial for the common cause. It on the Old Testament, Lect. iv. awakens in many a lively conscious-

Notes

• Cardwell’s Doc. Annals, pp. 199 — 201. See the comments of Sir Matthew Hale on the Royal Su- premacy, quoted by Earl Selborne, Defence of Ch. of England, pp. 13,
• Consider again the words of the elude.” Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, great Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul an p. 80, n.
• Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, p. 91.
• See Laud, Conference with Fisher, p. 166; Crackanthorpe, Def. Eccl. Angl. p. 176; Hooker, Eccl. Pol. VII. xii. i.
• “Ego autem fidenter dico quia than that the Bishops, who enacted quisquis se universalem sacerdotem this Canon, did not regard the privi- vocat, seu vocari desiderat, in elatione leges of Rome as part of the divine sud Anlichristum pracurrit, quia su- and essential constitution of the perbiendo se cseteris praeponit.” Greg. Church; nothing is more clear than Magn. Epist. vii. 33 ; ” Si unus that the primacy of Rome is a Patriarcha universalis dicitur, patriar- ’ primacy of honour,’ and that the charum nomen caeteris derogatur.” claims of Rome to supremacy were Ibid. v. 43. not regarded by the Eastern Church
• Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, pp. 97, pp. 223, 224. 98. ” Nothing can be more certain
• “If a one-sided pessimist view ness of the perishableness and in- regards only the many terrors and security of human affairs, teaches devastations of every war, the horrors many to pray, and humbly submit to of the battle-field, the sorrows brought the Lord of Hosts, whose just judg- upon families, the towns burnt, the ments may be executed upon earth cornfields trampled on, and the de- even by means of war.” Martensen, moniacal passions let loose, we must Christian Ethics, ii. p. 233, 4.