Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles (Browne, 1883)/Article XXXVII

Part of Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles (Browne, 1883).

Article XXXVII: Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates

Of the Civil Magistrates.

THE Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; 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 states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

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

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

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

The Latin text as printed:

De Civilibus Magistratibus.

REGIA Majestas in hoc Angliæ regno, ac cæteris ejus dominiis, summam habet potestatem, ad quam, omnium statuum hujus regni, sive illi ecclesiastici sint, sive civiles, in omnibus causis, suprema gubernatio pertinet, et nulli externæ jurisdictioni est subjecta, nec esse debet.

Cum Regiæ Majestati summam gubernationem tribuimus, quibus titulis intelligimus, animos quorundam calumniatorum offendi, non damus regibus nostris, aut verbi Dei, aut Sacramentorum administrationem, quod etiam injunctiones ab Elizabetha Regina nostra, nuper editæ, apertissime testantur. Sed eam tantum prærogativam, quam in sacris Scripturis a Deo ipso, omnibus piis Principibus, videmus semper fuisse attributam, hoc est, ut omnes status, atque ordines fidei suæ a Deo commissos, sive illi ecclesiastici sint, sive civiles, in officio contineant, et contumaces ac delinquentes, gladio civili coerceant.

Romanus pontifex nullam habet jurisdictionem in hoc regno Angliæ.

Leges Regni possunt Christianos propter capitalia, et gravia crimina, morte punire.

Christianis licet, ex mandato magistratus, arma portare, et justa bella administrare.

[The American Article reads:—

"ART. XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

"The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted."

The writer ventures to consider it unfortunate that the two declarations concerning "capital punishment," and the propriety of Christians bearing arms, were omitted. The reasons for the omission, though he can conjecture what they were, he does not feel sufficiently sure of, to state.—J. W.]

Section I. — The Supremacy of the Crown

THE present Article concerns one of the most involved and difficult questions that have agitated Christian men: the question, namely, of the due proportions and proper relation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers in a Christian Commonwealth. The whole course of Church History, from the time of Constantine to the present, seems to have been striving to unravel the difficulty and solve the problem. Perhaps it never will be solved, until the coming of the Son of Man, when there shall be no king but Christ, and all nations, peoples, and languages, shall bow down before Him.

Without pretending then to clear up all that is dark in such a question, we may by a hasty survey of past events be enabled to place ourselves in such a position, that the mists of prejudice, whether religious or political, may not blind us to the perception of that light which Providence has given to guide us.

For the first three hundred years, the spiritual kingdom of Christ was on earth, having no relation to any earthly kingdom. The kingdoms of this world, instead of fostering, persecuted it. There was a direct antagonism between the Church and the world; and the external development of that antagonism was plainly visible in the opposing organization of Church and State. Christians indeed were from the first obedient subjects, wherever obedience was not incompatible with religion. They even marched in the armies of the heathen emperors, prayed for them in their public liturgies, and in persecution took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, resisting none but those commands which could be obeyed only by disobedience to God. But the whole Christian Church, as far as possible, shrank within itself from the polluting atmosphere of heathenism and heathen morality. The Apostle had condemned the Corinthians for going to law before the unbelievers (1 Cor. vi. 1), and had encouraged them to erect private tribunals among themselves, for the decision of disputes, which would inevitably arise. The result was naturally, that the courts of the bishop became the ordinary courts of judicature, when Christians impleaded Christians. The rulers of the Church were looked up to with that kind of veneration which we call loyalty; whilst obedience to the emperor was the result of no natural enthusiasm, but of a principle of self-denying, self-sacrificing obligation.

The accession of Constantine to the throne of Augustus, his conversion to Christianity, and his removal of the seat of empire to Byzantium, produced a remarkable revolution. Christians fondly hoped, that the kingdoms of this world had become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ. They naturally recognized the duty of Christian princes to protect the faith of the Gospel. They joyfully embraced the newly opened course for the progress of the Gospel. They reasonably were thankful for the promised freedom to worship God according to their consciences; and alas! it is to be feared, that they were not averse to using the civil authority to put down the pride of the now fast increasing heresy of Arius. Constantine, on his part, whether sincere or politic in his adoption of the Gospel, could not be ignorant of the vast machinery which his connection with the Church might put into his hands. In heathen times, the supreme ruler at Rome was also the supreme administrator of the affairs of religion. There was a sacredness attached to him, however vile his personal character. The Roman Emperor even became the Pontifex Maximus. And, although Constantine found it not possible to assume a sacerdotal function in the Christian Church, he yet claimed a peculiar supremacy; which was sufficiently undefined to be inoffensive to others, and yet satisfactory to himself. "You," said he to the Christian prelates, "are bishops of the things within the Church; but I am constituted by God bishop of those which are without." The words were perhaps originally spoken in jest, but time led him to apply them in earnest.

From this period the Church, though never endowed by the State, received a full and ample protection for the revenues which it might acquire. The Christian princes ever considered themselves as its protectors, and in some sense as its governors. There is good reason to think, that the power, which they so exercised, was often by no means paternal, but as tyrannical and arbitrary as was their more secular administration. The bishops indeed maintained the exclusive right of the clergy to minister in sacred things; and the emperors readily admitted that to the clergy alone such functions appertained. Moreover, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of bishops and patriarchs was carefully preserved to them. Patriarchs were permitted to call provincial, and bishops to call diocesan synods; but a synod of the universal Church was never called but by the Emperor himself. Though the decrees of the councils were made by the bishops, yet the Emperor thought himself justified in enforcing them by his own temporal power. Thus Arius, condemned at Nice, was banished by Constantine; and there is too good reason to fear that court influence was unsparingly used to intimidate the members of a synod into voting with the Emperor, or absenting themselves altogether. Eusebius assigns to Constantine a principle, which was probably never admitted by the Church at large, but which may have materially influenced him in his own conduct; namely, that as a kind of universal bishop, he assembled councils of the ministers of God.

From this time, then, the Church and the State were no longer in the position of a persecuting power and a patient victim. They no longer represented, respectively, the principle of good and the principle of evil. The good of the one had penetrated the other; and it may be feared, that there was something of reciprocal interchange. They had, however, entered into an alliance; but still, more or less, the Christianized state was sure to retain some of the worldly elements which characterized it when heathen; and there was still a struggle, though less conspicuous, between the Church in the Church and the world in the State. In the East, the power of the Emperor over the Church was the greater, because the East had become the seat of empire; and there is little doubt, that the degeneracy of the Eastern Church had much connection with the influence of the court. Nay! the power of that court became at once apparent, when, on the adoption of heresy by the Emperor, the whole East seemed suddenly overspread with Arianism.

There was a different state of things in the West; the result, it may be, in part, of the greater vigour of the Western bishops, but still more of the absence of the seat of government from Rome. The Church was no longer the same isolated, distinct body that it had been when the empire was heathen; and had it not been for the nucleus formed for it by the clergy, it might have been all dissipated in the midst of the half Christianized people that were around it. But the clergy were still a substantive, tangible body; and, irrespective of any ambition of their own, it was almost essential to the existence of the Church, that they should form themselves into that kind of close corporation which had before embraced the whole society of Christians. Besides which, as their sacred character brought them respect even in the eyes of their tyrants, as they had a prescriptive right to hold private tribunals for the settlement of their private differences, as their sacred buildings had conceded to them the right of sanctuary possessed of old by heathen temples; they had in their hands the power, not only of supporting religion, but also of evading, or at least limiting, both for themselves and their fellow-Christians, the tyrannical domination of the emperor. The subject has been so clearly and liberally set forth by an accomplished writer of the day, that we may well use his own words. "If it be right to condemn the fiscal tyranny of the Roman rulers, it can hardly be also right to condemn those sacerdotal claims, and those imperial concessions, by which the range of that tyranny was narrowed . . . The Church is arraigned as selfish and ambitious, because it formed itself into a vast clerical corporation, living under laws and usages peculiar to itself, and not acknowledging the jurisdiction of the temporal tribunals. That the Churchmen of the fourth century lived beneath a ruthless despotism no one attempts to deny. That they opposed to it the only barrier by which the imperial tyranny could, in that age, be arrested in its course, is equally indisputable. If they had been laymen, they would have been celebrated as patriots by the very persons who, because they were priests, have denounced them as usurpers. If the bishops of the fourth century had lived under the republic, they would have been illustrious as tribunes of the people. If the Gracchi had been contemporaries of Theodosius, their names would have taken the place which Ambrose and Martin of Tours at present hold in ecclesiastical history. A brave resistance to despotic authority has surely no less title to our sympathy, if it proceeds from the episcopal throne, than if it be made amidst the tumults of the forum."

If this was true of the relation of the Church to the empire, it was certainly not less true as regards its condition under the several kingdoms which were formed by the Gothic barbarians out of the ruins of the empire. The feudal monarchies, whether in their earlier condition or in their more matured and full-grown despotism, were amongst the most lawless, oppressive, and tyrannical forms of government that an unhappy people have ever groaned under. In those days when might was the only right, "we may rejoice to know," says the just-cited authority, "that the early Church was the one great antagonist of the wrongs which were then done upon the earth, that she narrowed the range of fiscal tyranny,—that she mitigated the overwhelming poverty of the people,—that she promoted the accumulation of capital,—that she contributed to the restoration of agriculture,—that she balanced and held in check the imperial despotism,—that she revived within herself the remembrance and the use of the franchise of popular election,—and that the gloomy portraits which have been drawn of her internal or moral state, are the mere exaggerations of those who would render the Church responsible for the crimes with which it is her office to contend, and for the miseries which it is her high commission effectually, though gradually, to relieve."

The same may be said of much later times. The struggle between the crown and the clergy was, in fact, often a struggle of religion against lawlessness, avarice, licentiousness, and tyranny. The clergy were the guardians not only of the Church, but of the people; and one great secret of their increasing power was the conviction, even among their opponents, of the righteousness of their cause, and, among those whom they defended, of the blessings of their protection.

But there was one important element at work, which we have now to take into account. From the earliest times, the Bishop of Rome was the most important prelate in the West. His see was in the imperial city. It claimed the chief of the Apostles as its founder. The Apostolic sees were everywhere respected; and Rome was the only Church in Europe certainly Apostolic. So early as the third century, St. Cyprian had urged the priority of St. Peter, and the precedence of the Bishops of Rome, as an argument for the unity of the Church. To all Europe Rome was, on every account, a centre; and the ambition of its prelates never ceased to turn such advantage to their own account. There were few Churches which owed not some obligation to the Roman Church; if not as founding, yet as strengthening and enlightening them. There were a thousand causes tending to give additional importance to the Popes. The emperors found it politic to court them. The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch sought defence from them against the overwhelming power of Constantinople in the East. The kings of distant nations asked for missionaries from them, to instruct their people more perfectly in the Gospel. The removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople, whilst it raised the see of that city to the position of eminence next to that of Rome, yet rather favoured the increase of the power of the latter. When there was an emperor at Rome, the Pope was controlled by a superior; but when the emperor was at a distance, the Christian bishop became the most important person in the imperial city. By degrees a primacy, which might have been reasonable, became a supremacy which was pernicious. The whole constitution of Europe favoured such an arrangement. As all Europe looked to Rome as its civil centre, so Christian Europe looked to Rome as its ecclesiastical centre. Then, the power of the Pope was a happy counterpoise for the power of the sovereign. In the Middle Ages the barons owed fealty to their feudal suzerain; and the bishops and clergy owed a spiritual fealty to their ecclesiastical head. The Church, as an united body, was disposed to look to one visible centre, one visible head. Evil as its consequences have been, still in these dark and troubled times such union and submission on the one hand, and a corresponding aid and protection on the other, may possibly have been the means of keeping the Church from utter disintegration, by protecting it from that lawless and arbitrary feudalism which might otherwise have swept away both Church and religion from the earth.

But the authority, thus fostered and matured, now overtopped all other authorities, and grew into a tyranny as intolerable as that against which it once promised to be a bulwark. Like a dictatorship after a republic, it was more absolute than legitimate monarchy. The power of the Pope was not merely spiritual, but political. In the first place, the clergy were not esteemed as subjects of the crown, in the country in which they lived. The Pope was their virtual sovereign; to him they owed a supreme allegiance. All causes concerning them were referred to spiritual tribunals, and there was a final appeal to the jurisdiction of Rome itself. Bishops felt the grievance of such a power, when the Pope at his pleasure exempted monasteries from their control, and claimed all benefices, as of right vested in the supreme pontiff, and not held legally without his permission. But kings felt it still more; when a large portion of their subjects were withdrawn from their authority; when a large number of causes, under the name of ecclesiastical, were withdrawn from their courts; when taxes were levied in the name of Peter's pence upon their kingdoms; when their clergy and many of their people could be armed against them by a foreign influence; and, worst of all, when the right was asserted of putting their whole country under an interdict, nay, even of either granting to them new kingdoms, or of deposing them from their thrones, and releasing their people from their oaths of allegiance.

The Reformation was a reaction from this state of things, as well as a throwing off of internal corruption of faith. It was viewed indeed by different persons according to their respective feelings and interests. The prince desired it, for the sake of regaining his former, and more than his former authority. The nobles desired it, that they might fatten on the spoils of the Church. The reforming prelates and clergy desired it, that they might be freed from the power of Rome, and have liberty to order God's worship aright. The people desired it, that they might have freedom of conscience and purity of faith. As the fathers had hailed the conversion of an emperor, to free them from heathen tyranny; as clergy and people in the Middle Ages had sought a refuge at Rome from the exactions of their domestic oppressors; so now the reformers hoped that the throne would prove to them a protection from the tyranny of the Vatican. We must plead this in excuse for what is the foulest stain on the Reformation, namely, the undue servility of the ecclesiastical leaders of it to the vicious and tyrannical princes that sided with it.

In England, Henry, whose love for reformation was love only for his own power, passions, and interests, wished not to free religion from restraint, but to transfer to himself the power formerly wielded by the Pope. And we may partly account for the opposition to reform among the commonalty, who had originally sighed for it, by remembering that they discovered now a prospect for themselves of the same tyranny here in England which had heretofore been as distant as Rome. Their desire for a restoration to a simpler worship and a purer faith had been met by a rapacious seizing of those ecclesiastical revenues from which so much benefit had ever been derived to the poor and to the oppressed; and by a transference of a power over their consciences from one whom they did look up to as a Christian prelate, to an avaricious and blood-stained sovereign.

However, notwithstanding the difficulties of the case, and the evil passions of some, the problem was working itself out. The Pope's power was happily abolished. Appeals to Rome were no longer legal. Ecclesiastical as well as civil causes were heard in the king's name. The acts of Convocation in the reforming of the doctrines and formularies were sanctioned by the crown. The clergy were all made amenable to the civil tribunals, and became in fact subjects of the throne of England, not of the throne of St. Peter.

But in what sense had the king thus become the head or chief governor of the Church? The very principle of the Reformation may be said to have been, that there is no Supreme Head of Christ's Church but Christ Himself. Yet by the acts 26 Henry VIII. c. 1, and 35 Henry VIII. c. 3, the king is declared in express terms, "the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England." And in the following reign, the Article of 1552 is worded in accordance with such acts, "The King of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland."

Many thoughtful men, not disinclined to the Reformation, were much offended at this apparent assumption of spiritual authority over Christ's flock by a temporal sovereign. Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More went to the scaffold, rather than acknowledge it. But among those who submitted to the authority, there was a diversity of feeling as to the sense attached to it. Henry himself doubtless wished to be both pope and king. The Parliament probably accepted the title in no very definite signification; but rejoiced in any advance of the lay power to preëminence over the clergy. The Convocation thought it doubtfully consistent with their allegiance to God, and recognized the title only "so far as by the law of Christ they could."

What was the opinion of the leading divines of the Reformation on this subject, and especially of the Archbishop, must be an interesting question. I have been surprised to find so little about it in the writings of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. Cranmer had evidently, at one time, a very extravagant notion of the sacredness of kings, as he had a very low view of the office of the ministry; so that he even ventured a statement, that the royal power might make a priest. But this sentiment he afterwards entirely abandoned. We may remark then, that he ever constantly affirmed that in all countries the king's power is the highest power under God, to whom all men by God's laws owe most loyalty and obedience; and that he hath power and charge over all, as well bishops and priests as others. But the occasion on which he gave the fullest exposition of the meaning which he and his fellows attached to the supremacy, was in his examination before Brokes, just before his death. Then he declared, that "every king in his own realm is supreme head, and therefore that the king of England is supreme head of the Church of Christ in England." He admits that on this principle, "Nero was Peter's head," and "head of the Church;" and that "the Turk is the head of the Church in Turkey." "After this, Dr. Martin demanded of him, who was supreme head of the Church of England? Marry, quoth my Lord of Canterbury, Christ is head of this member, as He is of the whole body of the universal Church. Why, quoth Dr. Martin, you made King Henry the Eighth supreme head of the Church. Yea, said the Archbishop, of all the people of England, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. And not of the Church, said Martin. No, said He, for Christ is the only head of His Church, and of the faith and religion of the same. The king is head and governor of his people, which are the visible Church. What! quoth Martin, you never durst tell the king so. Yes, that I durst, quoth he, and did. In the publication of his style, wherein he was named supreme head of the Church, there was never other thing meant."

Whether Cranmer durst or durst not tell the king thus, the king probably took it differently; and indeed it is pretty clear, that something more than the power of Nero, or of "the Turk," over Christians in their dominions, was intended to be assigned to Christian kings over their Christian subjects. Whatever too was meant by the publication of the style, "Supreme head of the Church," it caused offence to many besides those who were sure to take offence. Accordingly, when the Acts of Henry VIII. and Edw. VI. had been repealed by the Statute 1 Philip and Mary, c. 8, the title, "Supreme head," was never revived by authority, but was rejected by Elizabeth, and "Supreme governor" substituted in its place. The Statute 1 Eliz. c. 1, is an "act for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same." In this act all foreign jurisdiction is abolished, and the power of visiting and correcting ecclesiastical abuses is, by the authority of Parliament, annexed to the imperial crown of the realm. But the acts conferring the title of "Head of the Church" (26 Henry VIII. c. 1, 35 Henry VIII. c. 3) are not revived, and thenceforward "government" is substituted for "headship."

In Elizabeth's reign, the authorized formularies explain, to a considerable extent, the meaning attached at that time to the authority in question. First comes this article, the words of which should be carefully considered. It excludes all foreign domination, assigns to the sovereign the only supreme authority over all sorts of men, whether civil or ecclesiastical, but especially denies that sovereigns have any ministerial function in the Church, whether as regards the Sacraments or the word of God; but the power which they have is such as godly princes in Scripture had,—"to rule all estates and degrees, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers."

The Injunctions of Elizabeth, to which the Article refers, enjoin all ecclesiastics to observe the laws made for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, and abolishing all foreign authority. The queen's power is declared to be "the highest under God, to whom all men within the same realms and dominions by God's law owe most loyalty and obedience."

In the reign of James I. the Convocation agreed on the Canons of 1603. The second canon expressly affirms, that the "king's majesty hath the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly kings had among the Jews, and Christian emperors of the Primitive Church;" and both the first and second canon speak of the laws, as having "restored to the crown of this kingdom the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical." The XXXVIth Canon contains three articles, which are subscribed by all ministers at their ordination. The first is, I. "That the king's majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preëminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within his majesty's said realms, dominions, and countries."

These documents, then, which at present form the charter of union between Church and State, evidently assign to the sovereign no new functions. The principle enunciated by them is, that the sovereign is entitled to those ancient privileges which belonged, 1, to devout princes in Scripture; 2, to Christian emperors in primitive times; 3, to the ancient sovereigns of England before the times of Papal domination. The very reference to Scriptural and primitive examples seems to be a demonstration of the justice of the claims; for, if nothing is claimed beyond what Scripture warrants and the Catholic fathers allowed, the claim should seem to be both Scriptural and Catholic. Yet some important objections may be urged, which we must not neglect to consider.

1. It is said that "godly princes in Scripture" must mean "godly kings among the Jews." Now the Jewish dispensation was utterly dissimilar from the Christian; for the Jewish Church was national, the Christian Church is not national, but Catholic. Hence naturally among the Jews the king, as head of the nation, was supreme over the Church. But the Catholic Church acknowledges no local distinctions; and to assign a national supremacy is to rend the Church of Christ into separate societies. Kings, as well as others, are but members of the one spiritual body, which meddles not with temporal distinctions, but holds all alike as subjects and servants of Christ.

To this we reply, that our kings, since at least the time of Elizabeth, have not an authority such as should separate one portion of the Church from the other. It is not our national distinctions, but our doctrinal differences, which divide us from our fellow-Christians. Our sovereigns claim only those powers which were exercised by their predecessors, in times which Romanists must acknowledge to have been Catholic, but before the full-grown authority of the see of Rome. Gregory VII. was the original founder of that great authority, and it culminated under Innocent III. But we see not that the Church was less Catholic in the days of Alfred and Edward the Confessor, than in the reigns of the Plantagenets. If then we concede to our princes the influence of the Saxon monarchs, we shall not have destroyed the Catholicity of the Church, more than it was destroyed centuries before the Reformation.

2. It is said again that the Jewish princes can be no examples for us, because, from the theocratic nature of the Jewish kingdom, there was a sacredness attaching to their office, as that of God's special vicegerents, which cannot attach to ordinary rulers. Israel, as a theocracy, was a type of the Church; and its kings were types of Christ. As the high priests foreshadowed His priestly office in His Church, so the kings foreshadowed His regal authority over His spiritual kingdom. But there is no vicegerent of Christ on earth; no type now of His spiritual sovereignty. Hence earthly kings now cannot claim the position and privileges of the ancient Jewish kings.

This is doubtless a very weighty argument, and is a just reply to some who would unduly magnify the royal authority in things ecclesiastical. But it has been observed in a former Article, that the Jewish state may be considered in some respects as a model republic; and that, notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances and special object of its institution, we may still derive lessons of political wisdom from the ordinances appointed by the All-wise for the government of His own chosen race. Now, in that government, He was pleased to conjoin the spiritual and secular elements, in such a manner that the king was to show a fatherly care for religion, yet not to intrude upon its sacred offices (see 1 Sam. xiii. 8–14; 2 Chron. xix. 11, &c.); and we may humbly conclude, that what was ordained by heavenly wisdom then, cannot be wholly evil now. Besides which, we see throughout Scripture that there is a sacredness in civil government. Kings are always said to hold their power of God, and to be especially under His protection and guidance. They are His ministers for good; and therefore to be esteemed by God's people, as exercising in some degree God's authority (see Prov. viii. 15; Dan. ii. 21, 37; Rom. xiii. 1–5; 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, &c.).

3. Another objection to the precedents claimed by the English monarchs is, that the influence of the Christian emperors, and the connection of religion with the state, which sprang up after the time of Constantine, were the very origin of evil and corruption in the Church. It was an unhallowed alliance between the Church and the world, and never had God's blessing on it.

It perhaps cannot be denied that the sunshine of worldly prosperity has never been the most favourable condition for the development of Christian graces. When the Church could no longer say, "Silver and gold have I none," it could no longer command the impotent man to "arise and walk." Yet we cannot thence conclude, that the Church is ever to seek persecution, or to refuse such vantage-ground as God's providence permits it to stand upon. To court or fawn upon the great is indeed most earnestly to be shunned. The minister of God must reason before the governor, of "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come;" and, if possible, make the ungodly ruler "tremble," as much as the meanest of the people. Yet St. Paul rejoiced to gain converts in Cæsar's household (Phil. i. 13; iv. 22). And, as there seems no more probable way to Christianize a people than to Christianize their rulers, it is obviously desirable that the government of a country should be induced to support religion in it. And again, on the other hand, it is the plain duty of sovereigns and constituted authorities to maintain true religion in the land. Nations and rulers are as much responsible to God's judgment as private individuals. Scripture condemns ungodly rulers and ungodly nations, as much as ungodly individuals; and praise is given to such sovereigns as fear God and honour His name. (See Psalm ii. 10. Jer. xviii. 7–10. Jonah passim.) National, as well as individual, mercies and judgments come from Him. Now, nations and their rulers can only show their piety to God in a public and national manner, by maintaining true religion and the public service of religion. Moreover, it was prophesied concerning the Christian Church, that "kings should be her nursing fathers and queens her nursing mothers" (Isai. xlix. 23); and it is difficult to know how they can be nurses to the Church, if it be forbidden her to have any connection with them.

If we once admit the propriety of a connection between the Church and the State, and at the same time deny the supremacy of the Pope, it seems almost to follow of necessity, that we should admit a supremacy of the sovereign. The sovereign must in that case hold some position in the Church; and it can only be the highest. It is not consistent with his sovereignty that he should have a superior in his own kingdom. But, in considering the sovereign as chief ruler over all persons in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, we must remember one or two particulars. "It may be, that two or three of our princes at the most (the greater part whereof were Roman Catholics) did style themselves, or gave others leave to style them, 'the Heads of the Church within their dominions.' But no man can be so simple as to conceive, that they intended a spiritual headship,—to infuse the life and motion of grace into the hearts of the faithful; such an Head is Christ alone; no, nor yet an ecclesiastical headship. We did never believe that our kings, in their own persons, could exercise any act pertaining either to order or jurisdiction; nothing can give that to another which it hath not itself. They meant only a civil or political head, as Saul is called 'the head of the tribes of Israel;' to see that public peace is preserved; to see that all subjects, as well ecclesiastics as others, do their duties in their several places; to see that all things be managed for that great and architectonical end, that is, the weal and benefit of the whole body politic, both for soul and body."

The sovereign "assumes not the office of teaching or of explaining the doubtful points of the law, nor of preaching or of ministering Sacraments, of consecrating persons or things, of exercising the power of the keys, or of ecclesiastical censures. In short, he undertakes not anything which belongs to the office of the ministers of Christ. But in matters of external polity he claims the right of legislating; and we gladly give it him. The care of religion is an affair of the sovereign and the nation, not merely of the clergy."

Again, the supremacy of the crown must not (according to our constitution in Church and state) be considered as an arbitrary and unlimited supremacy. Everything in England is limited by law; and nothing more than the power of the sovereign. In matters of state, the power of the crown is limited by the two houses of Parliament; in the affairs of the Church, it is limited also by the two houses of Convocation. Legally and constitutionally, the sovereign or the sovereign's government can do nothing concerning the state of the Church, her doctrine and discipline, without first consulting the clergy in Convocation, and the laity in Parliament; so that, when we acknowledge the supremacy of the crown, we do not put our consciences under the arbitrary guidance of the sovereign or the ministry; for we know, that legally nothing can be imposed upon us, but what has received the consent of our clergy and laity, as represented respectively.

Indeed, of late, no small difficulty has arisen. The supremacy of the crown is now wielded, not by the sovereign personally, but by the minister; that minister is the choice of the House of Commons: that House of Commons is elected by the three kingdoms; and, in two out of those three kingdoms, the vast majority of electors are not members of the Church of this kingdom of England. In short, the supremacy of the crown has insensibly passed, or at least is rapidly passing, into a virtual supremacy of Parliament. This unhappily is not a supremacy of the laity of the Church of England; because Parliament is composed of representatives from England, Ireland, and Scotland; and in the two last the majority are Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. This difficulty existed not at the period of the Reformation; but is steadily increasing on us at present. Up to the time of the Reformation, the whole nation was of one faith, and united as one Church. The Reformation did not introduce a new faith, but restored purity to the old, and removed the abuses which time had permitted. It was the work of prince, prelates, and people; and the Church, which had from the beginning been protected by the state, was protected by it still.

It has been reasonably thought, that the supremacy of the Pope, which was suffered before the Reformation, was (to use a term growing into use) the extreme expression for the superiority of the clergy and their dominance over the laity; whereas the supremacy of the crown was the counter expression for the independence and power of the laity.

The same principle only would be expressed by the supremacy of Parliament, and so of the minister, if Parliament represented only the laity of the English Church. But, as at present constituted, it in part represents, not only the laity, but the clergy also of other communions, which we must, alas! almost call hostile to us.

It is utterly vain to speculate on the future. We cannot question, that the relation between Church and state is now widely different from that which once existed, and that it is fraught with new dangers. Yet perhaps it may also bring new advantages. And the Rock of the Church still stands unshaken; and shall forever stand. There is our hope; not in the favour of princes, nor of multitudes of the people. Nor need our fear be of their frown. Our real danger is, lest the lukewarmness of the Church lead to Erastian indifference, or her zeal degenerate into impatience, faction, or intemperance.

[NOTE. A few words may be added, on a point which, it is believed, is not generally understood.

It is matter of history, that Cranmer and other Bishops took out commissions from Edward VI. for the exercise of their Episcopal functions. This has been insisted on, especially by the late Lord Macaulay, as proof positive that they regarded the Sovereign as the source of their spiritual authority. The truth however is, that the act was the natural result of a distinction which was made between spiritual power, and the right to exercise that power, after a coercive manner, in any country or state.

There is contemporaneous evidence, in the book called the Institution of a Christian man, published in 1537, that this distinction was made. It is therein asserted, that "God's law committed to bishops or priests the power of jurisdiction in excommunicating or absolving offenders, but without corporeal restraint or violence." This last is something which it clearly contemplates as coming from the State, and which, therefore, the State can revoke.

So too Bramhall, in his first Vindication, says, "It is true the habitual jurisdiction of bishops flows from their ordination; but the actual exercise of it, in public courts, after a coercive manner, is from the gracious concessions of Sovereign Princes." And again, "Habitual jurisdiction is derived only by ordination. Actual jurisdiction is a right to exercise that habit, arising from the lawful application of the matter or the subject." And yet again, "We must distinguish between the interior and the exterior courts,—between the court of conscience and the court of the Church. . . . The power which is exercised in the court of conscience is solely from ordination. But that power which is exercised in the court of the Church [i. e. as he explains it, coercive power imposing other than spiritual penalties] is partly from the Sovereign Magistrate."

The commissions, then, which Cranmer and his brethren in the Episcopate received from the Sovereign, were not considered to convey habitual jurisdiction. That had been received in ordination. But they gave them the right to exercise that habitual jurisdiction, in recognized courts, and after a coercive manner. The idea of course grows out of the union of Church and State; and however little it may approve itself to us, however undesirable it may seem to add temporal penalties to spiritual censures, it at least proves that no such theory was entertained as the taking out of the commissions has been supposed to indicate.—J. W.]

Section II. — The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

THIS is a most extensive subject, and of primary importance in the controversy between the Churches of Rome and England. For, if once the supreme authority of the Roman Patriarch is conceded, all other Roman doctrines seem to follow as of course. And so it will probably be found, that all converts to the Roman Church have been led to it from a conviction of the necessity of being in communion with the Supreme Pontiff, not from persuasion of the truth of particular dogmas.

The grounds on which the claim rests, are as follows: I. That St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the universal Church. II. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. III. That this supremacy is inherited by his successors; those successors being the Bishops of Rome.

I. It is said, that St. Peter had a supremacy given him over the rest of the Apostles, and over the universal Church.

1. We may readily admit that St. Peter had a certain priority among his brother Apostles assigned to him by our blessed Lord. It is constantly the case that, in a company of equals, one, from greater age, greater energy and zeal, greater ability, or greater moral goodness, takes a lead, and acquires a superiority. This may have been the case with St. Peter. Our Lord certainly appears to have honoured him and St. John, and St. James, with His peculiar love and favour. And, both during our Lord's ministry and after His resurrection, St. Peter appears to have been signally forward in the service of Christ. The fathers observe much this quickness, boldness, activity, and energy of St. Peter; which naturally brought him into the foremost position, and also qualified him to take the lead among the disciples.

Accordingly, a kind of priority of position or rank was apparently conceded by the other Apostles to St. Peter. This is what St. Augustine observes, that "St. Peter being the first in the order of the Apostles, the most forward in the love of Christ, often alone answers for the rest." The fathers account for this on the grounds: 1, that he was the first called of the Apostles; 2, that he was the eldest; for which cause St. Jerome supposed that he was preferred to St. John, lest a youth should take precedence of an elderly man; 3, that he outstripped his brethren in a ready confession of faith in Christ. So, St. Peter's name is ever first in the catalogue; and he seems to take the lead in speaking and writing.

2. But this priority of order involved not a primacy of power, or preëminence of jurisdiction.

(1) If it had done so, we should have found some commission of this kind given to him in Scripture. There is plain enough commission to the Apostleship; but none to a hyper-apostleship, nor any mention of the existence of such an office in the history of the Gospels and Acts, or in the Epistles of the Apostles. (2) There is no title of preëminence given to St. Peter, such as Vicar of Christ, Sovereign Pontiff, or Arch-apostle. (3) There was no office known to the Apostles or the primitive Church higher than that of Apostleship. This, St. Chrysostom tells us, is "the greatest authority, the very summit of authorities." (4) Our Lord distinctly declared against any such superiority; and said that if any of the Apostles coveted it, he should be counted least of all (Matt. xx. 27; xxiii. 8. Mark ix. 34, 35; x. 44. Luke ix. 46; xxii. 14, 24, 26). (5) St. Peter, in his Epistles, claims no peculiar authority (see 1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 2); and in the history, there is no appearance of his taking it. The appeal in Acts xv. is not to St. Peter, but to the Apostles and elders; and the decree runs in their names, ver. 22. If any one presided there, it was not he, but St. James. Nay! the other Apostles took upon themselves to send Peter and John into Samaria (Acts viii. 14); and "he that is sent is not greater than he that sends him" (John xiii. 16). (6) If St. Peter had been the visible head of the Church, those who were of Paul or of Apollos might indeed have been factious; but St. Paul as severely reproves for a schismatical spirit those who say, "I am of Cephas" (1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 21). (7) The complete independence of the Apostles in all their proceedings, in their missionary journeys, their founding of Churches, &c. shows the same thing (see 1 Cor. iv. 14, 15; ix. 2; Gal. iv. 19, &c.). (8) St. Paul's conduct especially proves that he owned no dependence on St. Peter, nor subjection to him. He declares himself, "in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles" (2 Cor. xii. 11). On his conversion, he took no counsel with men, not even with the Apostles (Gal. i. 16, 17); but acted on his independent commission derived direct from Christ (Gal. i. 1). James, Cephas, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship, as their equal and co-Apostle (Gal. ii. 9). He hesitated not to "withstand St. Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. ii. 11). And St. Chrysostom observes, that thus St. Paul showed himself equal to St. Peter, St. John, and St. James, and that by comparing himself, not to the others, but to their leader, he proved that each enjoyed equal dignity and importance."

Lastly, all these arguments from Scripture, against a supreme authority of St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles, are fully borne out by the statements of the fathers, who, though they speak much of the high honour of the former, yet declare that the other Apostles were all equal and coördinate with him in power and authority. Thus St. Cyprian: "The other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church might be shown to be one." "His was," says St. Ambrose, "a precedence of confession, not of honour; of faith, not of order." St. Jerome says that, though the Church were founded on St. Peter, yet it was equally on the other Apostles. So Isidore: "The other Apostles received equal share of honour and power with St. Peter, and dispersed throughout the world preached the Gospel; to whom, on their departure, succeeded the bishops, who are constituted through the world in the sees of the Apostles."

Let us now, on the other side, consider those passages of Scripture, on which it is contended that a distinct supremacy over the universal Church was granted to St. Peter.

1. The first is Matt. xvi. 18: "I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Here, say the Roman divines, St. Peter is called the foundation of the Church; and foundation implies government and superiority.

It is observable, that our Lord called St. Peter Πέτρος, in the masculine, which properly signifies a stone, or fragment of a rock; and that He said He would build His Church, ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ ("upon this rock"), using the feminine noun, which more expressly denotes an entire rock. This has led many commentators, ancient and modern, to believe that the Rock on which the Church should be built, was not St. Peter; since in that case, the Lord would have used the masculine word πέτρῳ.

Accordingly, a large number of the fathers were of opinion that the Rock, on which the Church was to be built, was either Christ Himself, or, which is much the same thing, the faith of Christ thus confessed by St. Peter. Thus, St. Chrysostom interprets "On this Rock," by "On the faith of this confession." So St. Augustine says that our Lord meant, "On this Rock, which thou hast confessed, will I build My Church." And, in his Retractations, he tells us that he had formerly interpreted the passage of St. Peter, but that he afterwards thought it more correct to understand it of Him whom St. Peter confessed. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es Petra, sed Tu es Petrus. Petra enim est Christus, quem confessus Simon, sicut tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. ("For it was not said to him, Thou art Petra, but Thou art Petrus. For Petra is Christ, whom Simon confessed, and as the whole Church confesses, was called Petrus.") Yet he leaves to the reader to choose which is the more probable interpretation. In like manner St. Ambrose had said, that not Peter, but the faith of Peter, was the foundation of the Church; and in another place the same father writes, that "The Rock is Christ, who granted to His disciple that he should be called Petrus, as having from the Rock the solidity of constancy and firmness of faith."

To the same effect write Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Seleucia, Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, Theophylact, and others.

On the other hand, no doubt, a great many of the ancients understood Peter himself to be the rock. Tertullian is the first who so applies the passage; but we shall see hereafter, that he understood no supremacy to be implied in it, and certainly did not consider it to be transmitted to the Bishop of Rome. Origen too applies it to St. Peter, but evidently understood all the other Apostles to have a similar promise. Nay! he declares that every disciple of Christ is a rock, as having drunk from the Spiritual Rock; and on every such rock as this the word of the Church is founded. Next comes St. Cyprian, who also calls St. Peter the rock; and he says: "Though He committed an equal power to all the Apostles, saying, As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost; Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might manifest unity, He disposed by His authority the origin of that unity, so that it might take its rise from one. The rest of the Apostles indeed were what Peter was; endowed with an equal share of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church may be shown to be but one."

So Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, and others understand, that St. Peter was the rock.

But supposing this latter to be the true interpretation; does it follow thence, that St. Peter had a supreme government over the other Apostles? Foundation does not, of necessity, imply government. Our Lord may have promised to St. Peter, that he should be the first to found His Church; which was fulfilled on the great day of Pentecost, when St. Peter's noted sermon brought the first-fruits of the Church of Christ. But the fathers say, that the other Apostles were rocks as well as St. Peter, and that the Church was built on them also. The Fathers, in no instance, suppose the other Apostles to have any dependence on, or subjection to St. Peter; and Dr. Barrow justly observes, that the Apostleship itself could not be built on St. Peter, for that had been founded by Christ Himself before this promise was given; and hence the Apostles were all clearly independent of St. Peter, and therefore their successors, the bishops, must be independent of his successors. A passage so doubtful in its interpretation can never be sufficient to the purpose for which it is adduced; especially seeing that none of the most ancient fathers, however they may interpret it, have discovered in it that supremacy of St. Peter which has since been asserted. If St. Peter be called a rock and a foundation, still all the Apostles were foundations, as well as he. "In the twelve foundations of the city are the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. xxi. 14). It is "built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets" (Ephes. ii. 20). In the highest sense, which indeed points out supremacy, "other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. iii. 11). And, as St. Ambrose says that the Apostle was a rock, as deriving firmness from the Rock; so the Apostles were foundations, as themselves built on the One Foundation; and their qualification, as rocks or as foundations, they received, not from Peter, but from Christ.

2. The next argument for St. Peter's supremacy is the verse immediately following the last; namely, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19). Here it is said that the power of the keys was given to St. Peter alone, and that the rest of the Church therefore derives that power through him.

We may admit, that the promise being first given to St. Peter was a mark of special honour to him. But the same power was conferred upon the Church as a body; to which our Lord said, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven" (Matt. xviii. 18). And again, after the resurrection, the same power was given to all the Apostles, when the risen Saviour "breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John xx. 22). It is evident therefore, that neither the Church nor the Apostles received this power through St. Peter, but directly from Christ Himself; and though the promise was first to St. Peter, yet the gift appears to have been simultaneous to all. So then, though St. Peter is honoured by a priority, the whole College of the Apostles is endowed with an equality of power.

The fathers unanimously consent to this view of the case. "Are the keys of the kingdom of Heaven given to St. Peter alone, and shall not all the saints receive them? And if this be common, how are not all the things common which were spoken to St. Peter?" So writes Origen. And St. Cyprian, "Christ, after His resurrection, gave an equal power to all His Apostles, and said, As the Father hath sent Me, so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." "On all," says St. Jerome, "the strength of the Church is equally founded. You will say, the Church is founded on Peter; but in another place this is said to be on all the Apostles; and all receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." St. Ambrose, "What is said to Peter, is said to all." St. Augustine, "Did Peter receive the keys, and not Paul? Peter, and not John and James and the rest of the Apostles?" Theophylact, "Though it be spoken to Peter alone, I will give thee, yet it is given to all the Apostles. When? Why, when He said, Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted." And so St. Leo, himself a famous Bishop of Rome, says, that "This power of the keys is translated to all Apostles and bishops. It was commended singly to St. Peter, because the example of St. Peter was propounded to all pastors of the Church."

Some indeed considered, that the whole Church received the keys with St. Peter. St. Peter they esteemed as a kind of figure of the Church, and an emblem of its unity; and so that all received the power, even when it was ostensibly given to but one.

And if, notwithstanding this testimony of the fathers, we still esteem some special authority to be implied in the promise, we can only understand it of his being appointed to be the first, who, by preaching of the word and admitting converts to baptism, should unlock the gates of the kingdom, and open them to believers. "So," says Tertullian, "the event teaches. The Church was built on him, i. e. by him. He first put in the key, when he said, Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, &c. Acts ii. 22. He first opened the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven by baptism, whereby the sins were loosed by which they had been bound; and he too bound Ananias with the bond of death," &c.

3. The last argument of any weight, for St. Peter's supremacy, is the command, "Feed My sheep" (John xxi. 16).

This, however, is an injunction and command, not the bestowal of a privilege. Dr. Barrow has observed, that, as well might the elders of Ephesus, whom St. Paul exhorts to "feed the Church of God" (Acts xx. 28), have esteemed, that St. Paul thereby constituted each of them an universal governor of the Church, as St. Peter, that he was made by this command an universal bishop. And so the fathers understood, that what was here enjoined on St. Peter was equally enjoined on all pastors. "When it is said to Peter, it is said to all," says St. Augustine. "These sheep and this flock," says St. Ambrose, "not only St. Peter did then receive, but all we pastors received with him." And so St. Cyprian, "All of them were shepherds; but the flock was shown to be one, which was fed by all the Apostles, with unanimous consent." The command, too, is to feed the flock, not to feed the shepherds. Hence, whatever authority may be supposed to be given over the people by these words, plainly none is given over the other Apostles. Every pastor is, in some sense, a pastor of the whole flock of Christ; the Church of God is committed unto him. But every pastor has not therefore authority over his brethren, neither can it be shown, that, in thus committing a duty to St. Peter as regards the laity, our blessed Lord assigned him a supremacy over the clergy.

The most then that can be fairly made of the case is, that St. Peter had a priority of honour among the Apostles; that he was primus inter pares. More than this our Lord did not bestow on him; more the Apostles did not concede to him; more the earliest fathers never assigned to him; and especially, more he never claimed or exercised himself. Eusebius quotes, from Clement of Alexandria, a passage markedly illustrative of all these statements. "Peter and James and John," says he, "after the ascension of the Saviour, contended not for glory, as having been most highly honoured by the Lord, but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem." The writer of this passage could not have believed that St. Peter had, or claimed a supremacy over his brethren; nor, we may observe by the way, could he have thought any bishopric in the Church more honourable than that of Jerusalem.

II. The next position of the Roman Church is, that St. Peter was bishop of Rome.

It is not to be doubted, that a tradition did exist in early times that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. But, if that tradition be submitted, like others of the same kind, to the test of historical investigation, it will be found to rest on very slender foundation. In the first place, Scripture is silent about his having been at Rome,—a remarkable silence, if his having been Bishop there was a fact of such vital importance to the Church, as the Roman divines have made it to be. Then, the first tradition of his having been at Rome at all does not appear for more than a century after his death. It is nearly two centuries after that event that we meet with anything like the opinion that the Roman bishops were his successors. It is three centuries before we find him spoken of as Bishop of Rome. But when we reach three centuries and a half, we are told, that he not only was Bishop of Rome, but that he resided five and twenty years at Rome; a statement utterly irreconcilable with the history of the New Testament.

To begin with the new Testament, the only evidence that can be thence adduced for St. Peter's having been at Rome, is that he seems to have written his first Epistle from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13). Eusebius says this meant Rome. He appears to say it on the authority of Papias; though some learned men deny, that he ascribes the tradition to Papias. Jerome follows Eusebius in this statement. The Roman divines generally adopt it. Yet a learned writer of their communion truly observes, that the use of such a metonymy may be very proper in a symbolical book, like the Apocalypse, "but would only be credible in the subscription of an epistle, if arcana nomina Ecclesiarum ("secret names of the Churches") had existed among Christians." If the tradition be due to Papias, he is doubtless a very early authority (A. D. circ. 110); but Eusebius himself has given us to understand, that he was a person whose judgment was not to be depended on, and particularly that he was an enthusiast about the Apocalypse. Hence his interpreting St. Peter by the language of the Apocalypse is not of much weight.

Farther than this, the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul's four Epistles written from Rome, St. Peter's two Epistles, are all profoundly silent about St. Peter ever having been at Rome. Indeed, it seems almost certain that, when St. Paul went to Rome, St. Peter had not been there. Not only is there no mention of such a thing, but St. Paul, when writing to the Romans, writes much as if no Apostle had ever been amongst them. (Comp. Rom. i. 10–15; xv. 15–24). And, when he was at Rome, it seems clear from the narrative, that the Jews of Rome had had no communication with any chief teacher among the Christians, at least with any who had been converted from Judaism; they were therefore desirous to hear of him what he thought, knowing only that the sect of Christians was everywhere spoken against (Acts xxviii. 22). Now how is this compatible with the alleged fact, that St. Peter, the Apostle of the circumcision, to whom the conversion of the Jews had been peculiarly intrusted, had been the founder of the Church of Rome, and had been resident there for some time? Again, if St. Peter had been at Rome, when St. Paul wrote to the Romans, St. Paul would surely have saluted him. If he had been there when St. Paul was there, it would surely have been mentioned in the Acts. If he had previously been there, and had been established as bishop of the city, it is utterly incredible that St. Paul should have assumed such authority over St. Peter's flock, as he does assume over the Romans, and that the Jews of Rome should have been utterly uninstructed in the Gospel.

Of the fathers, the first who speaks to the purpose is Irenæus. He says, that the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, founded and established the Church of Rome, and delivered the bishopric to Linus, to whom succeeded Anacletus, and to him Clement. Clement of Alexandria says that St. Peter preached at Rome, and that St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of St. Peter's hearers. Tertullian says, Clement was ordained by St. Peter to be Bishop of Rome. Origen tells us, that St. Peter, having preached to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, at last (ἐπὶ τέλει, "at the end") came to Rome, and was crucified with his head downwards. The Apostolical Constitutions say, that Linus was made first Bishop of Rome by St. Paul, and that after his death Clement was ordained to the same office, by St. Peter. Lactantius tells us that the time of St. Peter's going to Rome was the reign of Nero. Eusebius speaks of Linus as the first Bishop of Rome, after St. Paul and St. Peter; and elsewhere, that Linus was first Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, and that Clement was the third. Also he assigns the date of St. Peter's first going to Rome to the reign of Claudius.

Now here we have a collection of the earliest and best authorities, concerning St. Peter's connection with Rome, and concerning the bishops that first presided there. Origen says, he went there at last; Lactantius says, in the reign of Nero. Eusebius, later than either of them, and much later than Origen, assigns as a date the reign of Claudius. None of them say, that he was Bishop of Rome. On the contrary, all agree in saying that the first bishop of that see was Linus. All place Linus there during the Apostles' lifetime. Some say that St. Paul, others that St. Peter and St. Paul, ordained him; whilst some say that Clement, the third bishop, was ordained by St. Peter. The inference is plainly this. At whatever time St. Peter came to Rome, (which most probably was in Nero's reign, and very shortly before that tyrant put him to death,) there was some one else Bishop of Rome then, and therefore St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome. Linus was bishop first, then Anacletus, then Clement. Very probably all three, one after the other, were bishops before St. Peter's death. But, whether one or three, some one else, not St. Peter, was Bishop of Rome, in St. Peter's lifetime. Two bishops were never permitted to preside over one see; and therefore it is quite clear that St. Peter was not Bishop of the see of Rome.

It is very true that St. Cyprian and Firmilian, in the middle of the third century, speak of Stephen, Bishop of Rome, as claiming to be successor to St. Peter; and, though not submitting to his authority, they still appear to acknowledge his claim. Yet they never said that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; but they acknowledged Stephen's succession from him, because they considered that St. Peter founded the Church of Rome, ordained the first bishop there, and that therefore the apostolical succession came, through the Bishops of Rome, from that Apostle.

The circumstances of the Roman Church were very remarkable. It was the only Church in the West that could certainly trace its origin to Apostles. The Apostles who were at Rome, were the greatest of all; for there St. Paul undoubtedly taught, there probably both St. Paul and St. Peter ordered the Church, ordained its first bishops, and finally watered it with their blood. There, if the tradition speak truly, St. John too was thrown into boiling oil, and escaped unhurt. The three greatest Apostles then had probably taught and suffered at Rome. St. Peter and St. Paul had ordered the Church, and ordained very probably the first three bishops. No Church but Jerusalem could claim such privileges as this. No wonder then, that throughout the West the Church of Rome and her bishop should be had in high honour. No wonder that St. Cyprian, himself a Western bishop, should have looked up to the see of Rome as the centre of Christian unity, and the depository of sound doctrine. But all this does not make St. Peter the first diocesan bishop there, nor does it prove that Cyprian thought him so.

The explanation of Rufinus is evidently the true, namely, that Linus, Cletus, and Clement were the Bishops of Rome; but that St. Peter, whilst he was there, exercised apostolical authority, which was above every episcopate, and therefore not interfering with it.

And so it is observed, that many churches took their names from the Apostles, and were called Apostolical sees; not because Apostles were Bishops in them, but because Apostles taught and appointed bishops there. Thus Ephesus was so called, because St. Paul founded it, and St. John resided and ordained there. Smyrna, because Polycarp was placed there by St. John or other Apostles. Alexandria, because St. Mark was placed there by St. Peter. Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, because founded by St. Paul. Antioch, because St. Peter is said to have resided there, and to have constituted its first bishops.

It is true that, when we get to the later fathers, we find that the story of St. Peter's Roman episcopate (a fiction eagerly cherished by the prelates of that see) was gaining ground and attracting credit. Epiphanius therefore speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul as the first Apostles, and also bishops of Rome; no very definite statement after all. But Jerome (A. D. circ. 400) positively asserts, that St. Peter, after having been Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, where he was bishop for five and twenty years. He says this, both in his treatise De Viris Illustribus, and also in his Latin translation of Eusebius's Chronical Canon; which, however, contains many things not said by Eusebius, and this amongst the rest. The fact, thus stated by Jerome, is simply impossible; and the origin of it is probably to be attributed to a perversion of the account of Lactantius; which account is, that, after preaching five and twenty years in divers provinces, Peter came, in Nero's reign, to Rome. Thus the tradition was like Homer's Ἦρις:—

Ἥ τ' ὀλίγη μὲν πρῶτα κορύσσεται, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα

Οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε κάρη, καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ βαίνει.

("Strife, who at first rears her head but little, but afterwards has fixed her head in heaven, and walks upon the earth.")

At first, it was but that St. Peter and St. Paul had constituted the Church in Rome, ordained Linus as its bishop, and there suffered for their testimony. Then they are spoken of as if they might have been bishops themselves; the Roman bishops are then said to be St. Peter's successors; and lastly, it is roundly asserted that St. Peter was actually Bishop of Rome for five and twenty years. That to fan the spark into a flame was the interest and the wish of such prelates as Victor and Stephen, even charity cannot make us doubt. But, after such a plain history of the rise and progress of the tradition, it is impossible not to see that it has no firm foundation.

There is indeed no good reason to doubt, that St. Peter was at Rome; that he assisted St. Paul to order and establish the Church there; that, in conjunction with St. Paul, he ordained one or more of its earliest bishops, and that there he suffered death for the sake of Christ. But there is no reason to believe, that he was ever, in any proper or local sense, Bishop of Rome; or indeed that, in that sense, any one of the Apostles had a fixed episcopate; with the single exception of St. James (if he were an Apostle), who was appointed to preside over Jerusalem, lest that city, where Jesus died, and rose from the dead, and from whence the Church first took its origin, and thence spread through the world, should lack an Apostle, and witness of the resurrection, to be constantly present there, and to form a kind of centre and home for the first preachers of the faith. All the other Apostles had the world for their diocese; and wheresoever they came, they, as a thing of course, exercised supreme and hyper-episcopal control, discipline, and government. Indeed, if any Apostle could be called Bishop of Rome, St. Paul has more claim to that title than St. Peter. For St. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles; whereas St. Peter's mission was to the Jews. St. Paul wrote an Epistle to the Romans, which St. Peter did not. St. Paul lived two years at Rome, before there is any good ground for believing that St. Peter had been there at all. St. Paul is said to have constituted the first bishop there. Moreover, St. Paul himself speaks of having "the care of all the Churches," i. e. the Gentile Churches (2 Cor. xi. 28). All this will constitute a better case for St. Paul's Roman episcopacy, and for his supremacy over the Gentile Churches, than can possibly be made out for St. Peter's.

III. The third position of the Roman divines is, that St. Peter's supremacy is inherited by his successors, the Bishops of Rome.

If we have seen that St. Peter had no proper supremacy, and that he was not Bishop of Rome; then, the premises being gone, the consequence must fall with them. If St. Peter had no supremacy, it could not be inherited. If he was not Bishop of Rome, the Popes could not inherit from him.

But farther, whatever priority St. Peter had among his brother Apostles was personal, not official. He held no office, which they did not hold equally. There is no mention of an Arch-Apostle; and though St. Paul speaks of the chiefest Apostles (οἱ ὑπὲρ λίαν ἀπόστολοι, "they who are more than apostles"), he speaks of them in the plural, not as if there were but one of supreme authority; and he says that he himself was "not a whit behind them" (2 Cor. xi. 5). As then St. Peter's priority was personal, not official, it could not be inherited. It was grounded on personal acts, especially his faithful confession of Christ. It contained some personal privileges; e. g. the first founding of the Church, which, being that on which much stress is laid, is yet incommunicable to his successors, who cannot now be the first founders of the Christian temple or commonwealth. And so Tertullian observes, that the manifest intention of the Lord was to confer this privilege personally on St. Peter, and that the presuming to derive that power to the bishop of a particular see was a subverting of that intention.

Again, we can trace the rise and progress of this supremacy of Rome, and easily perceive the grounds of it. It was not admitted at the first, but crept in by degrees, till it reached its perfect stature. St. Clement, who was Bishop of Rome, writes to the Corinthians in a brotherly tone, and with less appearance of authority than St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, seems to assume when writing to the Romans. St. Polycarp knew nothing of the supremacy of Anicetus, when he went to consult with him about the keeping of Easter. He yielded in no degree to the Roman Bishop's authority; but both determined to retain their own customs and sentiments, yet not on that account to divide the Catholic Church. Not very long after this, we find Polycrates, a successor to Polycarp in the see of Smyrna, again at issue with Victor, Bishop of Rome, on the Easter controversy. Victor indeed showed much of the spirit which has since prevailed at the Vatican, and excommunicated Polycrates. But Polycrates and the Synod of Asiatic bishops refused to acknowledge the authority of that prelate. Several bishops, though agreeing in Victor's opinion, were much displeased at his violence; and letters were written by them severely reproving him for such conduct. Especially St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, in the name of the Christians of Gaul, over whom he presided, wrote a dignified remonstrance, warning Victor not to break the unity of the Catholic Church.

At the end of the second century, we find from Tertullian that the Bishop of Rome claimed that he, and all other Churches founded by St. Peter, derived through St. Peter the power to bind and to loose. This claim Tertullian disallows; but it is a claim very different from that of universal dominion; for it must have admitted the Bishops of Antioch and others to the like privilege.

In the third century, we have the famous controversy about heretical baptism, dividing the Western Church. It had first begun amongst the Asiatics. Afterwards, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, being consulted by the Numidian bishops, called several councils at Carthage, A. D. 255, which were attended by large numbers of African bishops. They unanimously decreed the rebaptizing of heretics. This brought them into collision with Stephen, Bishop of Rome; as the Roman Church took the opposite view. Stephen refused to listen to the deputies from the Council, and renounced communion with the African Churches. They, on the other hand, maintained their own views, and expressed their disapproval of Stephen's attempt to make himself a "bishop of bishops." A correspondence took place between Cyprian and Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; in which both express extreme disapprobation of Stephen's conduct, and accuse him of schismatically introducing differences throughout the Church. Firmilian says, the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ to the Apostles and the bishops who succeeded them; and blames the manifest folly of Stephen, who gloried in the place of his episcopate, and contended that he was a successor of St. Peter, on whom the Church's foundation was laid, and yet himself introduced new rocks and new foundations. Again on another occasion, the bishops of Africa, among whom was St. Augustine, not only submitted not, in the case of Apiarius, to the authority of the Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, but in the Council of Africa, A. D. 424, wrote strongly to Pope Celestinus, denying his right to interfere with their jurisdiction, complaining that he violated the canon of the Council of Nice, which directed, that causes of the bishops and clergy should be heard by their own metropolitan, and not carried elsewhere. They had even in a previous Council at Milevis, A. D. 416, forbidden appeals to be carried beyond the seas, on pain of separation from all communion with the African Churches.

But above all, Pope Gregory the Great, himself an illustrious Bishop of Rome, so vehemently protested against John Nesteuta, the Bishop of Constantinople, for desiring to have the name of universal bishop, that he pronounced such an assumption a proof that he who made it was the forerunner of Antichrist. "None," says he, "of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane a word; because if one patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch is taken away from the rest."

If we look to the canons of the general councils, we find that they acknowledge the great Patriarchs; that they give them authority according to ancient custom within their own patriarchates; that they put Rome first, not because of St. Peter's primacy, but because Rome is the imperial city; Constantinople next, because it is new Rome; and afterwards elevate Constantinople to an equality with Rome; and that they specially forbid bishops to interfere with the dioceses of other bishops. Thus, the VIIIth Canon of the Council of Nice says: "Let those ancient customs be in force which concerned Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority over them, since the like is customary with the Bishop of Rome. So also in Antioch, and the other provinces, let the dignities be preserved to the Churches." Balsamon's gloss on this is, that they confirmed the authority of the four Patriarchs, namely, of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, over their respective patriarchates. So that this great Council placed the Roman Bishop only on a level with those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; and this too, as a matter of ancient custom, not of divine right.

The second canon of the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) especially forbids that bishops should go beyond their dioceses, restrains the Bishop of Alexandria to Egypt, the eastern bishops to the East, and so on; and forbids, that any bishop should go out of his own diocese for ordination, or any other ecclesiastical ministrations. The third canon of the same council decrees, that the Bishop of Constantinople shall take rank immediately after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome.

The eighth canon of the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) forbids any bishop to invade another province, which has not from the beginning been under his own authority.

The twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon declares, that the fathers of the Council of Constantinople gave privileges to the see of Rome, because that city was the seat of empire. Wherefore also, moved by the same reason, the fathers assigned the like privileges to the see of new Rome, i. e. Constantinople, seeing that Constantinople was now honoured with the empire and the senate. These decrees of the Council of Constantinople the Council of Chalcedon accordingly confirms.

From all this we plainly learn, that the Roman Patriarch had no more authority given him than the other Patriarchs, of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria; that the first place was assigned to Rome, because Rome was the imperial city, not because her bishop had a divine right to preëminence; that, however, the Bishop of Constantinople had a like honour bestowed upon him, when his city rose to the like position with that of his brother Patriarch; and, above all, that no bishop was ever to invade any diocese, which had not from old times been subject to him or to his predecessors. How any of these considerations will agree with the later claims of the Roman Pontiff, it is hard to say.

The first great step towards supremacy was given to the Pope by the Council of Sardica (A. D. 347). Before this time, when bishops had been deposed and had reason to complain, they appealed to the Emperors to summon a larger synod to review their cause. The great Athanasius had thus appealed to the Emperor, and had been restored, after he was deposed by the Tyrian Synod. The XIIIth Canon of the Council of Antioch, supposed to be directed against him, forbade such an appeal. Subsequently Athanasius, ill-used by the Eastern bishops and by Constantius the Arian Emperor, had fled for assistance and support to the Western bishops, especially to the Patriarch of Rome. As there was an Arian Emperor, and there had at all times been a difficulty connected with the imperial interference in doctrinal questions, it was not unnatural for the orthodox bishops to look for some other centre, where appeals might be made; and the see of Rome most naturally presented itself. The bishop there was the most important on every account. Rome was the head of the world, the centre of civilization, the centre of orthodoxy; and the greatest number of bishops and clergy looked up to its Patriarch as their leader and chief. Accordingly, in an unhappy moment, the Synod of Sardica, in its third canon, gave to Julius, Bishop of Rome, "honouring the memory of St. Peter," the power, if he thought fit, "to appoint the neighbouring bishops of a province to hear" an appeal, "and to send assessors," such as the emperor used to send. It is added, by the fourth canon, that if a deposed bishop appeal to Rome, his place shall not be filled till the Bishop of Rome has heard the case. And by the fifth canon it is decreed, that, when an appeal has been made to the Bishop of Rome, he may appoint the provincial bishops to try the case, or send legates himself. The whole wording of the canons shows that all this was new. Moreover, the council was not general. But the effect of its decrees was very evil. Pope Zosimus afterwards quoted them as decrees of the Council of Nice, in the case of Apiarius mentioned above; and the African bishops were obliged to investigate the question, as to whether they did really issue from that great synod; and finding that they did not, they utterly rejected their authority. Yet these canons laid the foundation of appeal to Rome, and so of Roman supremacy. And Dr. Barrow calls them "the most unhappy ever made in the Church."

From this time, the power of the see of Rome rapidly gained ground. It would be long to trace its progress, and the opposition which was raised to it by wise and far-seeing men, as it advanced towards its zenith. Such a survey of history would indeed be instructive, as showing how different were the pretensions of Gregory VII. and Innocent III. from those of such prelates as even Victor or Stephen; though the latter were amongst the most imperious of the early "successors of the fisherman." Suffice it to have given some proof, that St. Peter had no proper supremacy; that he was never Bishop of Rome; and that the Roman Patriarchs had not jure divino, nor from the earliest ages, a jurisdiction over the universal Church.

IV. There is one other ground, besides that of universal Primacy, on which the Pope claims jurisdiction in England; namely, that England was in the Patriarchate of Rome.

When patriarchates first arose is uncertain. The name is first used by Socrates (about A. D. 440). But the office was evidently more ancient. It probably arose from the gradually apparent usefulness of such an order in the government of the Church. Their authority was confirmed, as we have seen, to the great patriarchs, by the Council of Constantinople, and afterwards by those of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All bishops indeed were esteemed equal, as bishops, by the primitive fathers; i. e. they were of equal authority, jure divino; but, for the sake of a more orderly Church-government, metropolitans were placed over provinces, and patriarchs over those still larger divisions which were then called dioceses, corresponding with the civil divisions of the Empire.

As to the limits of the Roman Patriarchate, much depends on what is meant by the term Suburbicary Churches. Rufinus, in his translation of the Nicene Canons, gives us the sixth of these in the words: "The custom of Alexandria and of Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care of the Egyptian, the other of the suburbicarian Churches." The very word suburbicarian clearly points to churches not far distant from Rome; and it has been proved, that the suburbicarian Churches meant those within the district, which belonged to the Vicarius Urbis; i. e. the greater part of middle Italy, all lower Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. It has been shown that the Bishop of Rome did not in early ages exercise authority in Spain, or Gaul, or Africa, nor even over the Bishops of Milan and Aquileia. Far less could he have had patriarchal rights in the more distant isles of Britain. And, though the Synod of Arles, A. D. 314, speaks of the Bishop of Rome as "holding the larger dioceses," which Roman divines have construed to mean all the great divisions of the Western Empire, yet there is good proof, that the word diocese had before this time been assigned to the ordinary provinces of the empire, and that it was even used of single episcopal Churches; so that it must by no means be inferred that the Synod of Arles meant to speak of the Roman patriarchate as including all the West.

Again, it has been proved, beyond a question, that the British Church was of very early origin: founded as early as, perhaps earlier than, the Church of Rome. It clearly acknowledged no obedience to the Pope; for, when Augustine met the British bishops, and pleaded with them for subjection to Rome, they replied, "that they owed no obedience to the Bishop of Rome, but were under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who was their overseer under God." They refused too to alter their time for keeping Easter, to suit the Roman custom; and show no intention whatever of submitting to papal authority. Indeed, the only reasonable claim which the Roman Pontiff can put in, to a superiority over our English bishops, is derived from the mission of Augustine, A. D. 599. But it is to be observed that, as there was already a Church and several bishops in Britain, so there were Christians, before his arrival, even among the Saxons; that he converted only a small portion of England, namely, Kent, and a few adjacent counties; other parts being converted by Irish and Scots missionaries, not sent from Rome; that he did not receive his appointment to the see of Canterbury from Gregory the Pope, but from Ethelbert the King. Besides all this, the benefit conferred, of converting a nation, does not necessarily involve a supreme jurisdiction over it. Such a jurisdiction was not conceded by the earlier Saxon kings; and if it had been so, a power, which did not originate till the seventh century, whereas there had been a Church in Great Britain in the first century, cannot be a power of that inviolable character, that to throw it off is to separate from Christ, and from the communion of Christ's holy Church. We maintain, that Britain and British Churches were not within the patriarchal rule of Rome in the earliest ages, nor at the times of the four great general Councils. And we deny that, by right of conquest, the Bishop of Rome could obtain authority over them, since it was to Christ, and not to Gregory, that Augustine was sent to conquer the Saxons. We assert therefore that, by claiming patriarchal jurisdiction in England, the Roman Patriarch violates the eighth Canon of the third general Council, which forbids a bishop to intrude into any province which was not under his authority from the very beginning (ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, "from above and from the beginning").

If the Pope had been contented to exercise jurisdiction within his own patriarchate, and to take precedence of rank over all the other bishops of Christendom, without attempting to exercise an unwarranted control over bishops and Churches not within the limits of his own lawful government; it is probable that his privileges would never have been objected against, nor his precedence denied him. But when he wishes to be sole Vicar of Christ on earth, the head of the whole Church, and to be above all earthly power and dominion, we believe that he arrogates to himself a title which belongs not to any human being, and claims a power which is only Christ's.

Section III. — The Concluding Paragraphs of the Article

IT will be necessary to give but a small space to the concluding paragraphs of this Article. The first is,—

I. "The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences."

The chief arguments against capital punishments in a Christian state, must be drawn from general considerations of benevolence, and from the evil of taking away from the sinner the time for repentance. To these may be added our Lord's cautions against revenging ourselves, and His injunctions that we should not resist evil (Matt. v. 38, 45, &c.).

On the other side, it is truly said, that punishments inflicted by public authority are not for revenge, but for the suppression of evil. More benevolence is shown in punishing violence, and so repressing it, than in suffering it to prevail. We may not indeed altogether reason from Jewish precedent; because the character of the Jewish commonwealth was peculiar: and some crimes were then visited with capital punishment, which in any other commonwealth must be left almost without public condemnation. But, before the Law, God gave to Noah a command, which seems applicable to the whole human race: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man" (Gen. ix. 6). And under the Gospel, St. Paul maintains the authority of the civil sword. He speaks of the higher powers as ordinances of God, forbids Christians to resist them, and, speaking of the magistrate, says: "He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God; a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. xiii. 1–4).

So then in the patriarchal ages, and under the Gospel, we have authority for capital punishments. Whether such sentence should be pronounced on any but murderers, or virtual murderers, is another question. But for murder, at least, there seems full Scripture authority, that nations should inflict the punishment of death.

II. The last paragraph in the Article is: "It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars."

Tertullian, in his treatise, De Corona Militis, argues against the lawfulness of a Christian's engaging in the military profession. But in his Apology, he says, that Christians were in the habit of enlisting both in the Roman armies and the Roman navies. The well-known story of "The Thundering Legion" proves, that, in the year 174, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, there were many Christians among the imperial troops, even if we hesitate to believe that there was a whole Christian legion, or that their prayers brought down thunder and rain.

When we come to Scripture, we find one or two passages in the new Testament which seem to some persons decisive against the lawfulness of war altogether, and therefore against the lawfulness of serving in war. They are especially, Matt. v. 38–41, where our Lord forbids us to "resist evil," bidding us turn the left cheek to one who smites us on the right; and Matt. xxvi. 52, "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." What applies to individuals may be thought equally applicable to societies of individuals, and therefore to whole nations. Indeed we may justly apply the argument, so far as to say that no Christian nation or governor is justified in making war upon a principle of revenge. Revenge is an unchristian feeling, and therefore forbidden to nations as well as to individuals. Therefore, not only are wars for mere glory unquestionably wholesale murder, but wars for any end save necessary preservation, and protection of life, liberties, and independence, are clearly against the will of God, and the spirit of the Gospel of Christ. Yet we may press doctrines and passages of Scripture so far as to overturn the whole fabric of society. If Christian nations may never resist aggression, or defend the weak, civilization and religion would be hourly exposed to destruction from the invasion of barbarians and unbelievers. In such a case, the Gospel would have established the supremacy of the violent and the ungodly.

But He, who in the old Testament repeatedly calls Himself "the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel," can hardly have altogether forbidden just war. John the Baptist, when the soldiers inquired of him what they should do to prepare for the kingdom of Christ, did not bid them give up serving in the armies, but required them to do no violence, and to be content with their wages (Luke iii. 14). Nowhere in the new Testament is there any injunction against the military profession, although our blessed Lord and His Apostles are frequently brought into contact with soldiers, and are led to speak of war. Thus the centurion, whose servant our Lord healed, received high commendation for his faith, but no rebuke for his vocation (Matt. viii. 5–13). Cornelius, another centurion, has visions and miracles vouchsafed to him, and an Apostle is sent to instruct and baptize him; but no hint is given, that he ought to give up serving in the Roman armies after his baptism and adoption of the faith (Acts x.). Our Lord and St. Paul both refer to the customs of war, as illustrations of the Christian's warfare, and commend the prudence and wisdom of the worldly warrior to the imitation of the soldier of the Cross, without any reservation or intimation that this world's warrior is to be condemned for following his calling. (See Luke xiv. 31, 32. 2 Tim. ii. 4.) The rebuke to St. Peter, "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword," was evidently directed against an individual's voluntarily taking on himself to fight; and also against using carnal weapons in a spiritual cause. It is not therefore applicable to serving as a soldier, in defence of our country, and at the command of the magistrate, who, by God's own ordinance "beareth the sword," and "is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. xiii. 4).

Editorial Notes

---

Source: Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Historical and Doctrinal (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1883), edited, with notes, by the Rev. J. Williams, Bishop of Connecticut. Text proofread against the 1883 edition; spelling and substance as in the original.