Tomline on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

ANY FOREIGN JURISDICTION. Thc authority here declared to belong to the sovereign of these ’ realms, is given to him by the laws of our country ; and a little inquiry will convince us, that this authority is properly vested in him ^vith respect to ecclesiastical subjects, which is the point to be principally attended to in thc eaqposition of this Article.

N N 4 We

55.5 Exposition cf the [part hi*

We learn from the Old Testament, that mider tlie Mosaic dispensation the kings exercised the chief power in all matters which appertained to religion, and that their authority was acknow- ledged by the priests and Levites : Abimelech appeared before Saul, and answered the accusa- tions which the king urged against him as hi^ priest (a). David made many regulations con- cerning the public worship of God ; and particu- larly he instituted the courses of the priests (b). Solomon removed Abiathar from the high priest- hood (c)^ and the succeeding kings frequently gave directions and orders, which were readily obeyed, in cases relating solely to ecclesiastical persons and things.

Our Saviour commanded his foUowers to ” render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (d) ; ” from which precept it is inferred that the religion of Christ was not intended to interfere with the established government of a country ; and that it is the duty of all Christians to yield obedience to the civil magistrates, when- ever their commands are not contradictory to the Word of God. These inferences are supported by several passages in the Epistles ; ” Let every

soul

(a) 1 Sam. c. 22. v. 1 1 . (b) 1 Chr. c. 23. v. 6.

(c) iKings,c.2.y.26&27. (“i?^ Luke, c. so. ▼• 25.

ART. XXXVII.] Thirty-nine Articles. . 553,

soul be subject to the higher powers (e)” — ” Put them in mind to be subject to princi- palities and powers, to obey magistrates (f)” — ” Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake ; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as xmto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evils doers, and for the praise of them that do well (g)” — It is to be observed, that these, and other precepts of the like nature, are general, and include the clergy as well as the laity ; and consequently they give equal power to the civil magistrate over both descriptions of persons, in ecclesiastical as well as civil matters. Indeed, ecclesiastical and civil matters are so closely connected together, that it would often be diffi- cult, if not impossible, to separate and discri- minate them.

It is well known, that for the first three cen- turies the Christian religion was not embraced or protected by any Roman emperor. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and many of his successors, enacted laws which are now extant in the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, relative to ecclesiastical matters. Councils were called, and their decrees confirmed by the emperors ;

and

(e) Rom. c. 13. v. 1. (f) Tit, c. 3, v. 1.

(g) 1 Pet. c. 2. V. 13 & 14.

[…]

and when the empire of Rome was divided into independent kingdoms, the soverdgns exer- cised the same authority over all their subjects without any distinction, and made such regu- lations, free from all foreign control, as appeared to them expedient for the good government of their respective churches. This continued to be the case till the aspiring ambition of the bishops of Rome prompted them to claim universal dominion, not only over eccl^iastics, but over sovereign princes, throughout the Christian world.

It is, besides, absolutely necessary for the maintenance of public tranquillity, and for the due administration of public justice, that the authority of the civil magistrates should extend over all orders of men, and over every description of causes. Exceptions, of whatever kind they are, must unavoidably introduce disorder and confusion; and the interference of any foreign power in the internal government of a country, is utterly inconsistent with the character of an independent kingdom.

The auth<Mity, therefore, which the constitu- tion of Great Britain gives to our sovereign in ecclesiastical affairs, is founded in Scripture ; is conformable to the practice of the times previous to the com^tiQns and usurpatims of popery ;

•^ and

ART. XXXVII.] Thirty-nine Articles. 555

and is perfectly agreeable to* the reason and nature of things.

But though the king’s supremacy rests upon these strong grounds, yet when it was first asserted in the sixteenth century, it gave great offence, and was grossly misrepresented ; the article, therefore; proceeds to limit and explain it.

Where we attribute to the queen’s

MAJESTY THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT(bY WHICH SLANDEROUS FOLKS TO BE OFFENDED) WE EITHER OF god’s WORD OR OF THE SACRA* QUEEN DO MOST PLAINLY TESTIFY. The T&-

jection of the pope’s authority in these kingdoms, and the making of our sovereign the head of our church, were among the steps which led to a reformation of our established religion. But this supremacy does not convey to our kings a right to administer God’s word or sacraments. These holy functions can be exercised by none but those who are lawfully appointed to them; nor has such a right been ever claimed by any Christian prince. The Jewish priests submitted to king Uzziah in all things which were not forbidden by the law of Moses ; but when he attempted to

buni

556 Exposition of the [part hi.

bum incense in the temple, which was pennitted to none but priests, they openly resisted him ; and the sacrilegious monarch, while he held a censer in his hand, was suddenly smitten by God with a leprosy, ” and was a leper unto the day of his death (h)” The words slanderous FOLKS referred to the Puritans, who denied the right of the civil magistrate to interfere in any ecclesiastical matters ; and the injunctions here mentioned were published in the year 1559, soon after queen Elizabeth succeeded to the crown ; they related to the affairs of the church, and began with asserting the queen’s supre- macy.

But that only prerogative which we see to have. been given always to all godly princes in holy scriptures by god himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by god, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal; and re- strain with the civil sword the stub- BORN AND EVIL DOERS. The prophet Samuel said to Saul, the first king of Israel, ” When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel; and the Lord anointed thee king over Israel (i),” Here is no

exception (h) 7, Chr, c. a6. v. 16, 8u. (i) 1 Sam. c. 15. v. 17.

ART. XXXVII.] Thirty-nine Articles. 557

exception of the tribe of Levi ; and we learn from the history of the Old Testlament, that Saul and his successors (k) exercised a general indiscri- minate jvirisdiction over all persons and things. And in like . manner the clergy as well as the laity, causes ecclesiastical as well as temporal, are subject to the authority of our sovereign. As the first executive magistrate of a free and inde- pendent kingdom, he restrains and punishes without any distinction of rank or profession, and exempt from the control or cognizance of any foreign jurisdiction; ” he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (l)y’ according to the laws and constitution of our country.

ThEBISHOPOFROME HATH NO JURISDICTION

IN THE REALM OF ENGLAND. It is Unnecessary in these days to enlarge upon this point ; every thing which has been already said concerning any foreign jurisdiction in these kingdoms, is appli- cable to the bishops of Rome ; and I will only add, that the authority usurped by the popes in the dark ages of the church, and which extended into this island, had no foundation whatever

in

(1c) 1 Kings, c. 3. V. 26. 2 Chr. c. 19. v. fi — g.

c. 29. V. 4, &c. c. 30. V. 1. c. 31. V. a. (e) Rom. c. 13. v. 4.

558 ErposUion of the [|?aet iil

in Scripture ; nor was it asserted or even men- tioned, in the primitive ages of Christianity. Irenseus has left an account of a dispute which Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, had with Anioetos bishop of Rome, concerning the observation of Easter; but in this account no mention is made of any superior authority which belonged to Anicetus; and in fact Polycarp, and the church under his jurisdiction, continued io ob- serve Easter according to his judgment, and in opposition to that of Anicetus. It is indeed certain, that for several centuries the bishops of Rome neither exercised nor claimed any power out of their own diocese. Cyprian, Ushop of Carthage, in the third century, expressly says, ’ Nor hath any one of us set himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor by any tyrannical usage terrified his colleagues or fellow bishops into a necessity of stooping and cringing to him, being duly sensible that every bishop is at liberty to use his power according to his discretion, and is neither to judge nor to be judged by another (mj.’ And upon another occasion he says, that ’ all the Apostles were equal in power, and ,that all bishops were also equal, since the whole office and episcopate was one entire thing of which every bishop had a complete and equal share (n).’

The

(m) Concil. Carthag. (n) De Uwt. Ecc,

ART. XXXVII.] Thirty-nine Articles. 559

The next paragraph of the article asserts the lawfulness of capital punishments. The law of Moses, derived from God himself, inflicted capi- tal punishments for a variety of offences; and therefore we conclude, that they are not incom- patible with the essential principles of justice and mercy. It is also certain, that the emperors of Rome, at the time of the first propagation of the Gospel, had the power of life and death, which has indeed been vested in almost all supreme governors, under greater or less limitations, in every period of the world. The New Testament does not condemn that power ; and by enjoin- ing obedience and- submission to magistrates,, w ithout any restriction or exception of this kind, it gives a sanction to it. And we may farther observe, that the passage, just now quoted from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, seems to admit the power of sovereign princes over the lives of their subjects, in cases of heinous criminality: ” He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (0)” The sword is always considered as the instrument of death ; and therefore to say, that ’^ the magistrate bear- eth not the sword in vain,” is to acknowledge that he has a right to punish with death. St.

Paul

(0) Rom. c. 13. 7.4.

560 Exposition of the [paet hi.

Paul allowed the pos3ibility of his having aun- mitted a crime for which he ought to die, and expressed his readiness in that case to submit to the law ; ” If I be an offender, or have com- mitted any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die (p),^* Upon these grounds we may safdy admit, that the laws of the realbi may

The last paragraph relates to the lawfulness of Christians serving in the wars. When soldiers came to be baptized by John, he did not com- mand them to relinquish their way of life, and consequently he did not consider it as incompa- tible with the engagements into which they were entering ; but he ordered them ” to do violence to no man, to accuse no man falsely, and to be content with their wages (q)y^ which was in fact permitting them to remain soldiers ; nor did St. Peter command Cornelius to give up his situation in the Roman army when he embraced Christianity (r). St. Paul speaks of soldiers without any censure upon their profession, but rather considers it as furnishing full employment for those who engaged in it : ” No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this

life,

(p) Acts, c. 25. V. 11. (q) Luke, c. 3. v. 14. (r) Acts, c. 10. V. 1, &c.

[…]

ISlkj that tie ipay pI6atse him who hath chbsea iiiiH f d be a soldier {s) ; ” and by this exampjie of soldiers he exhottsTimotliy to difigence ik jhis caOing. It may here agaiii be observed, that thq injunctions in the New Testament to obey the dvil magistrate are general, and therefore they extend to the case of serving in the wars ; and it is manifest that no nation could maintain its in- dependence, if it did not resist by force the ag- gressions of its ambitious neighbours. We learn from Tertullian, that the primitive Christians served in war under heathen emperors (t) ; and Augustine calls soldiers, non homicidas sed ministros legis — salutis publicce defensores (u)^ V^tius, a writer upon the art of war in the fourth century, gives this account of the oath taken by the Christian soldiers, ” Jurant per Deum et per Christum, et per Spiritum Sanctum, et per majestatem imperatoris, quae secundum Deum generi humano diligenda est et colenda (jc)” But though these reasons and authorities may convince us that in the present state of things,.

WEAPONS AND SERVE IN tHE WARS, yet

every

(s) 2 Tim. c, 2. V. 4. (t) J>% Cor. Mil.

(u) Cent. Faust. 22. 74.

(x) Inst Rei MiL lib. 2. cap. 5.

562 JEAfosUian of the [part in.

every one will acknowledge^ that if the mild and benevolent religion of Jesus had a general and complete influence, not only private quanels and dissensions, but public wars also, would cease throughout the world.

[…]