Trollope on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

By the laws of the land the Queen is constituted the supreme Governor of all states and conditions in this king- dom ; and she claims allefiiance from her subjects as the minister and vioerent of Him, * by whom kin reig and ‘princes decree justice’ (Prov. viii. 15.). [See Leges Ed- vardi Coi\fe8S. c. 17. Statutes at lare : 16 Rich. II. A. D. 1392. c. 6. ; 28 Hen. VIII. A. D. 1536. c. 7. Canon. Eccles. II.]. For the maintenance of public peace and order it is necessary that there should be different degrees of estab- lished authonty; and it is not only agn*eeable to reason, but sanctioned by Scripture, that the ruling power over all should be vested in the Sovereign.

2. Shew that this supremacy is necessarily Ec- clesiastical, as well as Civil.

Since it is clearly the moral duty of Sovereigns to pro- mote the welfare and interests of their subjects, it would be taking a very low estimate of this duty, to confine it to their worldly interest alone. Now in order to advance their spiritual as well as temporal welfare, it is necessary that tney should be invested with a power ’ in all causes, eoclesi- ‘astical a« well as civil, supreme.’ This Ecclesiastical su- premacy is vindicated in this Article to the English Throne : and it is agreeable with the Scriptures both of the Old ana

New Testament, and man^ practical examples of fonner times. Indeed, ecclesiastical and civil matters are fre- quently so closely connected, that it would be impossible to make a distinction between them.

3. Shew from the Old Testament that the kings exercised supreme authority in the Jewish Church.

Thei’e are many circumstances which prove that, under the Mosaic dispensation, the kings of Judah exercised the chief authority in religious matt;ei’8,and that their authority was recognized by the Church. The hi^h-priest Abimelecn appeared before Saul to answer certain chaises alleged against him in his sacerdotal character (1 Sam. xxii. 11.) ; David distributed the priests into twenty-four courses (1 Chron. xxvii. 6.), and made a variety of regulations for the devout celebration of the Temple service ; ’ Solomon ‘thioist out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord’ (1 Kings ii. 26.) ; Jehoshaphat invested some of the priest- hood with certain judicial powers (2 Chron. xix. 8, 9.) ; and Hezekiah commanded the priests and Levites, on more than one special occasion, to ofier sacrifices, and to minister and give thanks in the house of the Lord (2 Chron. xxix. 21. xxxi. 2.). With respect to the Church of Christ also, Isaiah (xlix. 23.) foretold that * kings should be her nursing ’ fathers, and queens her nursing mothers ;’ which implies rule and government as of the parent over the child.

4. What appears from the Books of the New Testament to have been the intention of Christ and his Apostles respecting magisterial authority ?

It does not appear to have been the intention of Christ or his Apostles to interfere with the established govern- ment of any country ; but that, on the contrary, they enjoyed obedience ‘to every ordinance of man, for the ‘Lord’s s^e; whether it be to the king as supreme, or ’ unto f ovemora, as unto them that are sent by him for the ’ punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that * do well’ (1 Pet. ii. 13, 14.). Compare also Matt. xxii. 21. Rom. xiii. 1 — 7. These precepts, oe it observed, are de- livered in general terms, without any distinction between the Cler^ and the Laity ; so that both one and other are equally bound to obedience, in all things which are not for- bidden by the word of God. St. Paul ‘appealed unto

‘OflBsar ’ (Acts xxr. 11.) as his lawful sovereign ; and indeed it should seem that the Clergy, who are to ’ put others in ’ mind of their subjection to principalities and powers’ (Tit. iii. !.)« are more especially bound to support their doctrine by their examples.

5. To what extent, and under what circum- stances, is this obedience inculcated; and what is the inference ?

The reverence due to Sovereigns, and those in authority under them, is altogether apart from any consideration of their nrivate conduct. * The Scribes/ said our Lord, ’ sit

• in Moses* seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you

• observe, that observe and do ; but do not ye after their ’ works ; for they say and do not* (Matt, xxiii. 2, 8.). Even in a case of flagrant illeg^ty. St. Paul excused the waimth with which he had resented an act of violence on the part of one, who does not seem to have been justly entitled to the office which he held :— ‘I wist not that he was the High- ’ Priest ; for it is written. Thou shall not speak evil of the ’ ruler of thy people’ (Acts xxiii. 6.). At the time too, when these precepts were thus given and exemplified, the ruling powers were heathen ; so that a peculiar obligation must necessarily lie upon Christian subjects * to honour and

• obey their King. In elhort l^e command is at once most explicit, and exempts neither Clergy nor people : — * Who- ’ ever resisteth, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they ’ that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation ’ (Rom. xiii. 2,).

6. Why is it necessary that the Queen’s power in this realm should be subject to no foreign juris- diction.

The interference of any foreign power in the internal l^vemment of a kingdom must be entirely subversive of its independence ; and more especially anv external allegiance on the part of the Clergy must inevitably tend to introduce disorder and confusion into that branch of the universal Church, over which, under Christ as the supreme head, the sovereign of each country is ordained of Ooa to preside.

7. What changes were introduced into this Article in the reign of Elizabeth ; and why ?

ABarcLB xxxviT. 169

In the Article of 1552, the King of England was declared to be “Sapreme Head in Earth, and next under Christ, of ^tbe Church of England and Ireland.’ To satisfy the scruples of some who objected to the title under this foim, it was laid aside in 1662, and the royal authority asserted in the clause as it stands at present. At the same time the nature of the Sovereign’s office was more clearly defined, in order to obviate the insinuation of the Pu- ritans, who not only denied the right of the civil magis- trate to interfere in any ecclesiastical matters whatsoever, but insinuated that the power of ministering in the congre- gation was implied in the assertion of sinritual supremacy. Hence they are called in the Article eatumniataray or dan- deroui persons.

8. The monarchs of England then lay no claim to the exercise of any of the sacred functions of the ministry ?

The Kings of England have never asserted or assumed a right to the ministermg either of GK)d’s word or of the Sac- raments in their own person; but ‘that only prerogative ’ which has been given to all godly princes in Holy Scripture ’ by God himself. In 1559, soon after hei* accession to the throne, Queen Elizabeth set forth the ’ Inj unctions’ to which the Article alludes, and which began with asserting the Queen’s supremacy ; but they did ’ not challenge any ’ authority which is not, and was not of antient time, due to ’ the imperial crown of this realm ;’ and the Declaration of Charles I., prefixed to the Articles, appoints ’ Churchmen ’ to do the work proper unto them.’ Our monarchs have therefore no authority to exercise the sacred functions of the ministry, or to violate the canons of the Church : but they are bound to provide, that those ’ who are duW called ’ and sent’ into the Lord’s vineyard, faithfully perform the charge with which they are entrusted.

9. Shew from the Scriptures that the office of Kings is controlling ^ not sacerdotal.

When Saul was anointed king over Israel, he was * made ’ the head of all the tribes ’ without any reservation in re- spect of the tribe of Levi : and the Jewish priesthood readily submitted to him and to his successors in all things, which did not infringe upon their sacerdotal functions. See 1 Sam.

170 QUBBTIOirS AI7D AUSWSBS OS

XT. 17. 1 Ein^B iii. 26. 2 Chron. xzx. 1. No sooner, how- ever, did Uzziah attempt to bum incenee in the Temple, than the priest openly resisted him ; and, as a mark of the divine displeasure, the sacrUe^ous monarch was smitten with a leprosy, and he ‘was a leper unto the day of his

• death* (2 Chron. xxvi. 16.). As ^ai*dian8 therefore of both Tables of the Law, Kings have supreme authority over all persons and in eiU. causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil : and they are commissioned * to restrain with the civil sword

• the stubborn and the evildoers,’ without distinction of rank or profession^ and without control or cognizance of any foreign jurisdiction.

10. ’ Whence does it Appear that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in England ?

What applies to any foreign jurisdiction whatsoever, ap- plies equally to that of the rope of Rome ; nor had the dominion once exercised over these realms^ as well as over the rest of Christendom, any other foundation, than that of a restless and insatiable ambition, which prompted the Papal see to build upon the ignorance and superstition of the times a claim to universal sovereignty. From the period that the Roman Empire became Christian, Constan- tine and his successors enacted laws with relation to spiritual matters, which are still extant in iJ^ie codes of Theodosius and Justinian ; coimoils were called and their decrees con- firmed by the Emperors ; with respect to Britian, no ec- clesiastical control was exeroised by the Popes therein for the first six centuries of the Christian sera ; and the en- croachments upon her liberties were followed by remon- strance after remonstrance, till they were at length fully vindicated by the Reformation.

11. Upon what grounds is it pretended that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Pope ought to be acknowledged in England ?

By virtue of the alleged supremacy of the succession of St. Peter over every branch of the Catholic Chur<^ of Christ; of the right acquired bj the conversion of the Saxons through the instrumentahty of Aug^ustine : and of the concession made to the Papacy by mUiam uie Con- queror, and his immediate successors, but more especially by King John.

12. Shew that the Church of Home derives no

exclusive rights from St. Peter ; and that St. Peter

himself exercised no supremacy over the rest of the

Apostles.

It does not appear that St. Peter was ever at Rome ex- cept as an Apostle ; and even if it could be proved that he was the first bishop of Rome, his commission was in no re- snect superior to that of the other Apostles. The power qf the Keys was committed to him merely as the representa- tive of all the Apostles ; and, as far as priority of foundation ffoes, the Church of Jerusalem was the mother of all the Uhurches. Indeed St. James premded over a Council at Jerusalem, at which St. Peter merely assisted (Acts xv. 13.). St. Paul certainly considered himself not a whit behind St. Peter in Apostolical authority (2 Cor. xi. 5.), and even * withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed * (Gal. ii. 11.).

13. Does it appear that the mission of Augus- tine establishes any claim to the Pope’s jurisdiction in Britain 7

Without undei*valuin^ the labours of Augustine, and the benefits derived from his preaching, it is certain that all his efforts would have been unavailing unless King Ethelbert had been induced to sanction and encourage his mission. Besides, there was a flourishing Church in Britain more than three centuries befora the arrival of Augustine ; and there is rea.n to believe that one of the Apostles, pro- bably St. Paul, was the founder of the English Church. St. Alban, the first British martyr, suffered under Diode- tian, A. D. 305.

14. Did not, however, the cession of their rights

by the Norman kings invalidate the prerogatives of

the crown ?

It is not in the power of a Sovereign to alienate any part of his prerogative. William the Conqueror was doubt- less glad to secure his conquest by means of the Papal in- fluence; and the weakness, physical and moral, of his successors were a sure means of Romish aggrandisement : but no power save that of God alone can transfer the hereditary rights of kings from their legitimate successors.

[…]

15. Are not bishops priests, and deacons of the English Church required to make a solemn declara- tion of their assent to this principle at the time of their ordination ?

Yes ; in the oath of the Queen^s supremaoj, which is as follows : — ’ I do declare that no foreign prince, person , pre- ’ late, state, or potentate, has, or ought to have, anyjurisdic- ‘tion, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecdes- ’ iastical or spiritual, within tins realm. So help me 6od.^

16. Upon what grounds does the Article assert the lawfulness of capital punishments ?

Although a government, founded on Christian principles, will limit the punishment of death to the most * heinous ’ and g^evous offences,* and, if possible, to murder alone ; still it has seldom been Questioned that this, the severest penalty, is sometimes inaispensably necessarv for the wd- fare and protection of society at large, uj the law of Moses, capital punishments were adjudged to a variety of offences ; and though they are not expressly enjoined by the Gospel, the principle is distinctly recognised. St. Paul, in appealing to CaBsar’s judgment-seat, observed that ’ if he * were an offender, or had committed any thing worthy of ‘death, he refused not to die’ (Acts xxv. 11.); and, in writing to the Romans, he speaks of rulers as ’ a terror to ’ evil works, and not bearing tne sword in vain* (Rom. xiii. 3, 4.). Hence it follows that, as the sword is an instrument of death, llie civil magistrate may adjudge that punishment in cases of aggravated guilt.

17. Shew that it is not unlawful for Christians to serve in the wars.

If mankind were universally influenced by the genuine spirit of Christianity, both private quarrels and public wars would cease in all the world ; but, in the present state of things, it is manifest that no kingdom could maintain its independenee^ unless it were prepared to resist the ag- gressions of its enemies. Tt nas indeed been frequently affirmed that war is utterly at variance with the mild and benevolent precepts of Jesus Christ, and the teaching of the Apostles: but atthougb wars are only to be undertaken

afler the most persevering^ forbearance, the most mature deliberation, ana in the most just cause ; and to be prose- cuted without any unneoessaiy excess of vengeance ; the lawfulness of wearing weapons, and serving in the wars, is implied in the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testa- ments. The Israelites were continually ei^aged in war by the command of God himself; John the Baptist exhorted soldiers ‘to be content with their wages* (Luke iii. 14.) without denouncing their profession ; our Loi*d commended the faith of one Roman centurion (Matt. viii. 10.), and St. Peter was sent to baptize another (Acts z. 20.) ; and, by the example of a military life, St. Paul urges upon Timothy the duty of pastoral diligence (2 Tim. ii, 4.). War therefore, however deplorable, may be necessary, and therefore justi- fiable.

18. What opinions were entertained by the Fathers on the several positions maintained in this Article ?

The following are testimonies to the supremacy of kin: — Tertull. ad Scap. c. 2. We reverence the emperor, so Jar as it is lanvful tor , and expedient for him ; ax having received his authority Jrom God., and as being in- ferior to God alone. Chrysost. Hom. 2, in Rom. x’iii. 1. The Apostle, in the very Jirst words, extends his command to cUl, whether priests or laymen, by saying, Let every soul be subject, though lie be an Apostle, tJumgh he be an Evan- gelist, though he be a prophet, or whatsoever he be, Socrates moreover (lust. Eccl. v. pr.) states, that as soon as the emperors became Christians, they began to conduct the affairs of the Church, and to take cognizaticeqf ecclesiastical causes. See also Basil. Const. Monach. c. 22. Oit&t, Lib. III. Ter- tull. Apol. c. 30. With respect to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, it is certain from the account of the early con- troversy respecting Easter (Euseb. H. E. v. 23.), that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, recognized no supremacy in Anicetus, bishop of Rome ; nor did Irenseus of Lyons ac- knowledge any inferiority to Pope Victor (Iren. Hser. ii, 3.). Moreover, Cyprian bishop of Carthage, writes thus, in Concil. Carthag. c. 7. Nor has any one qf its set himself up for a bishop qf bishops, nor by any tyrannical ujiage terrified his colieagvs into a necessity qf stooping and cring- ing to him ; since every bishop is free to exercise authority according to his discretion, and is neither to judge nor be judged by another. And again, de Unit. Ecdes. p. 106.

q2

QTJESTIOirB ANI> ANSWBBS ON

All the Apostles were equal in powfr, and all hishvps are also equal ; since the wJiole Episcopate is one etUire thing, of which eoery bishop has a com’plete and equal share. Even Gregoiy the Great declared (Epist. vii. 33.) that the assumption the title of Universal Bishop savoured of Antichrist, Of the punishment of death, Irenaeus (Haer. v. 24.) obRerves that God imposed the fear qfman upon the unrulu, the covetous, and murderers, that they might he terrified by the sword which was publicly set bore them ; and that magistrates, being invested for this end with the laws qf justice, are not to be questioned or punished for their proceedings according to law. AVith respect to the last clause of the Article, the primitive Christians, according to TertuUian (Apol. C. 42.), served in the ware of the heathen emperors ; and Auistine (c. Faust. Man. xxii. 74.) speaks of soldiers not as lumi- cides, but defenders of the public safety. He also writes thus in Civ. I). I. 22. He is no murderer, who, God being the arbiter, serves in war ; or who, as the representative qf the public authority, and acting according to law, punisfies the wicked with death.