Paragraphs 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, 37.4, 37.5

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 ministring 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 Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evildoers.

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.

This Article was much shorter, as it was published in King Edward’s time, and did run thus: The King of England is Supreme Head in Earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland. Then followed the Paragraph against the Pope’s Jurisdiction, worded as it is now; To which these Words were subjoined, The Civil Magistrate is ordained and allowed of God; wherefore we must obey him, not only for fear of Punishment, but also for Conscience sake. In Queen Elizabeth’s time it was thought fitting to take away those Prejudices that the Papists were generally infusing into the minds of the People against the term Head; which seemed to be the more incongruous, because a Woman did then reign; therefore that was left out, and instead of it the words chief Power and chief Government were made use of, which do signify the same thing.

The Queen did also by her Injunctions offer an Explanation of this matter: for whereas it was given out by those who had complied with every thing that had been done both in her Father and in her Brother’s time, but that resolved now to set themselves in opposition to her, That she was assuming a much greater Authority than they had pretended to; She upon that ordered that Explanation which is referred to in the Article, and is in these words: For certainly Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority, other than that was challenged and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous Memory, King Henry the Eighth, and King Edward the Sixth, which is and was of antient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over ail manner of Persons born within these her Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what Estate, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal, soever they be; so as no other Foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them. And if any Person that hath conceived any other sense of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation, Sense, or Meaning, Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient Subjects; and shall acquit them of all manner of Penalties contained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath.

Thus this matter is opened as it is both in the Article and in the Injunctions. In order to the treating regularly of this Article, it is, First, To be proved, That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction in these Kingdoms. 2dly, That our Kings or Queens have it. And 3dly, The Nature and Measures of this Power and Government are to be stated.

As for the Pope’s Authority, though it is now connected with the Infallibility, yet it was pretended to, and was advanced for many Ages before Infallibility was so much as thought on. Nor was the Doctrine of their Infallibility ever so universally received and submitted to in these Western Parts, as was that of their Universal Jurisdiction. They were in possession of it: Appeals were made to them: They sent Legates and Bulls every where: They granted Exemptions from the ordinary Jurisdiction; and took Bishops bound to them by Oaths that were penned in the Form of Oaths of Fealty or Homage. This was the first Point that our Reformers did begin with both here and every where else; that so they might remove that which was an insuperable Obstruction till it was first taken out of the way, to every step that could be made toward a Reformation. They laid down therefore this for their Foundation, That all Bishops were by their Office and Character equal; and that every one of them had the same Authority that any other had, over that Flock which was committed to his Care: And therefore they said that the Bishops of Rome had no Authority, according to the Constitution in which the Churches were settled by the Apostles, but over the City of Rome: And that any further Jurisdiction that any Antient Popes might have had, did arise from the Dignity of the City, and the Customs and Laws of the Empire. As for their deriving that Authority from St. Peter, it is very plain that the Apostles were all made equal to him; and that they never understood our Saviour’s Words to him as importing any Authority that was given to him over the rest; since they continued to the last, while our Saviour was among them, disputing which of them should be the greatest. The Proposition that the Mother of James and John made,¹ in which it was evident that they likewise concurred with her, shews that they did not apprehend that Christ had made any Declaration in favour of St. Peter, as by our Saviour’s Answer it appears that he had not done; otherwise he would have referred them to what he had already said upon that occasion. By the whole History of the Acts of the Apostles it appears that the Apostles acted and consulted in common, without considering St. Peter as having any Superiority over them. He was called to give an account of his Baptizing Cornelius; and he delivered his Opinion in the Council of Jerusalem, without any strain of Authority over the rest.² St. Paul does expresly deny that the other Apostles had any Superiority or Jurisdiction over him; and he says in plain words, that he was the Apostle of the Vncircumcision, as St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision; and in that does rather claim an advantage over him, since his was certainly the much wider Province. He withstood St. Peter to his Face, when he thought that he deserved to be blamed; and he speaks of his own line and share, as being subordinate in it to none: And by his saying that he did not stretch himself beyond his own Measure,³ he plainly insinuates that within his own Province he was only accountable to him that had called and sent him. This was also the Sense of the Primitive Church, That all Bishops were Brethren, Collegues, and Fellow-Bishops: And though the Dignity of that City, which was the Head of the Empire, and the Opinion of that Church’s being founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, created a great Respect to the Bishops of that See, which was supported and encreased by the eminent Worth, as well as the frequent Martyrdoms of their Bishops; yet St. Cyprian in his time, as he was against the suffering of any Causes to be carried in the way of a Complaint for Redress to Rome, so he does in plain words say, That all the Apostles were equal in Power;⁴ and that all Bishops were also equal; since the whole Office and Episcopate was one entire thing, of which every Bishop had a compleat and equal share. It is true, he speaks of the Vnity of the Roman Chureh, and of the Union of other Churches with it; but those words were occasioned by a Schism that Novatian had made then at Rome; he being elected in opposition to the Rightful Bishop: So that St. Cyprian does not insinuate any thing concerning an Authority of the See of Rome over other Sees, but speaks only of their Union under one Bishop; and of the other Churches holding a Brotherly Communion with that Bishop. Through his whole Epistles he treats the Bishops of Rome as his Equals, with the Titles of Brother and Collegue.

In the first General Council the Authority of the Bishops of the great Sees is stated as equal.⁵ The Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are declared to have, according to Custom, the same Authority over the Churches subordinate to them, that the Bishops of Rome had over those that lay about that City. This Authority is pretended to be derived only from Custom, and is considered as under the Limitations and Decisions of a General Council. Soon after that the Arian Heresy was so spread over the East, that those who adhered to the Nicene Faith, were not safe in their numbers;⁶ and the Western Churches being free from that Contagion (though St. Basil laments that they neither understood their matters, nor were much concerned about them, but were swelled up with Pride) Athanasius and other oppressed Bishops fled to the Bishops of Rome, as well as to the other Bishops of the West; it being natural for the oppressed to seek Protection wheresoever they can find it: And so a sort of Appeals was begun, and they were authorized by the Council of Sardica. But the ill effects of this,⁷ if it should become a Precedent, were apprehended by the Second General Council; in which it was decreed, That every Province should be governed by its own Synod; and that all Bishops should be at first judged by the Bishops of their own Province: and from them an Appeal was allowed to the Bishops of the Diocess; whereas by the Canons of Nice no Appeal lay from the Bishops of the Province. But though this Canon of Constantinople allows of an Appeal to the Bishops of every such Division of the Roman Empire as was known by the name of Diocess, yet there is an express Prohibition of any other or further Appeal; which is a plain repealing of the Canon at Sardica. And in that same Council it appears upon what the Dignity of the See of Rome was then believed to be founded: For Constantinople being made the Seat of the Empire, and called New Rome, the Bishops of that See had the same Privileges given them, that the Bishops of Old Rome had; except only the Point of Rank, which was preserved to Old Rome because of the Dignity of the City. This was also confirmed at Chalcedon in the middle of the Fifth Century.⁸ This shews that the Authority and Privileges of the Bishops of Rome, were then considered as arising out of the Dignity of that City, and that the Order of them was subject to the Authority of a General Council.

⁹The African Churches in that time knew nothing of any Superiority that the Bishops of Rome had over them: They condemned the making of Appeals to them, and appointed that such as made them should be excommunicated. The Popes who laid that matter much to heart, did not pretend to an Universal Jurisdiction as St. Peter’s Successors by a Divine Right, they only pleaded a Canon of the Council of Nice; but the Africans had heard of no such Canon, and so they justified their Independence on the See of Rome. Great Search was made after this Canon, and it was found to be an Imposture. So early did the See of Rome aspire to this Universal Authority, and did not stick at Forgery in order to the compassing of it. In the Sixth Century, when the Emperor Mauritius continued a Practice begun by some former Emperors to give the Bishop of Constantinople the Title of Universal Bishop;¹⁰ Pelage, and after him Gregory the Great, broke out into the most Pathetical Expressions that could be invented against it; he compared it to the Pride of Lucifer; and said, That he who assumed it, was the forerunner of Antichrist; and as he renounced all Claim to it, so he affirmed that none of his Predecessors had ever aspired to such a Power.

This is the more remarkable, because the Saxons being converted to the Christian Religion under this Pope’s direction, we have reason to believe that this Doctrine was infused into this Church at the first Conversion of the Saxons; yet Pope Gregory’s Successor made no exceptions to the giving himself that Title against which his Predecessor had declaimed so much: But then the Confusions of Italy gave the Popes great Advantages to make all new Invaders and Pretenders enlarge their Privileges; since it was a great accession of Strength to any party, to have them of their side. The Kings of the Lombards began to lye heavy on them; but they called in the Kings of a new conquering Family from France, who were ready enough to make new Conquests; and when the Nomination of the Popes was given to the Kings of that Race, it was natural for them to raise the Greatness of one who was to be their Creature: so they promoted their Authority; which was not a little confirmed by an Impudent Forgery at that time, of the Decretal Epistles of the first Popes; in which they were represented as governing the World with an Universal and Unbounded Authority. This Book was a little disputed at first, but was quickly submitted to, and the Popes went on upon that Foundation, still enlarging their Pretensions. Soon after that was submitted to, it quickly appeared that the Pretensions of that See were endless.

They went on to claim a Power over Princes and their Dominions, and that first with relation to Spiritual matters. They deposed them if they were either Hereticks themselves, or if they favoured Heresy, at least so far as not to extirpate it. From deposing they went to the disposing of their Dominions to others: And at last Boniface the Eighth compleated their Claim; for he decreed, That it was necessary to every man to be subject to the Pope’s Authority: And he asserted a direct Dominion over Princes as to their Temporals, That they were all subject to him, and held their Dominions under him, and at his Courtesy. As for the Jurisdiction that they claimed over the Spirituality, they exercised it with that Rigor, with such heavy Taxes and Impositions, such Exemptions and Dispensations, and such a Violation of all the Antient Canons, that as it grew insupportably grievous, so the management was grosly scandalous, for every thing was openly set to Sale. By these Practices they disposed the World to examine the Grounds of that Authority which was managed with so much Tyranny and Corruption. It was so ill founded, that it could not be defended but by Force and Artifices. Thus it appears that there is no Authority at all in the Scripture for this Extent of Jurisdiction that the Popes assumed: That it was not thought on in the first Ages: That a vigorous Opposition was made to every step of the Progress that it made: And that Forgery and Violence was used to bring the World under it. So that there is no reason now to submit to it.

As for the Patriarchal Authority which that See had over a great part of the Roman Empire, that was only a Regulation made conform to the Constitution of that Empire: So that the Empire being now dissolved into many different Sovereignties, the new Princes are under no sort of obligation to have any regard to the Roman Constitution. Nor does a Nation’s receiving the Faith by the Ministry of Men sent from any See, subject them to that See; for then all must be subject to Jerusalem, since the Gospel came to all the Churches from thence. There was a Decision made in the Third General Council in the case of the Cypriotick Churches, which pretended that they had been always compleat Churches within themselves, and Independent; therefore they stood upon this Privilege, Not to be subject to Appeals to any Patriarchal See: The Council judged in their favour. So since the Britannick Churches were converted long before they had any Commerce with Rome, they were originally Independent; which could not be lost by any thing that was afterwards done among the Saxons, by men sent over from Rome. This is enough to prove the First Point, That the Bishops of Rome have no Lawful Jurisdiction here among us.

The Second is, That Kings or Queens have an Authority over their Subjects in Matters Ecclesiastical. In the Old Testament the Kings of Israel intermeddled in all matters of Religion: Samuel acknowledged Saul’s Authority; and Abimelech, though the High-Priest, when called before Saul,¹¹ appeared and answered to some things that were objected to him, that related to the Worship of God. Samuel said in express words to Saul, That he was made the Head of all the Tribes; and one of these was the Tribe of Levi.¹² David made many Laws about Sacred Matters, such as the Orders of the Courses of the Priests, and the time of their Attendance at the Publick Service. When he died, and was informing Solomon of the Extent of his Authority, he told him that the Courses of the Priests and all the People were to be wholly at his Commandment. Pursuant to which,¹³ Solomon did appoint them their Charges in the Service of God; and both the Priests and Levites departed not from his Commandment in any matter. He turned out Abiathar from the High-Priests Office,¹⁴ and yet no Complaint was made upon it, as if he had assumed an Authority that did not belong to him. It is true, both David and Solomon were men that were particularly inspired as to some things; but it does not appear that they acted in those matters by virtue of any such Inspiration. They were Acts of Regal Power, and they did them in that Capacity. Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, gave many Directions and Orders in Sacred Matters:¹⁵ But though the Priests withstood Vzziah when he was going to offer Incense in the Holy Place, yet they did not pretend Privilege, or make opposition to those Orders that were issued out by their Kings. Mordecai appointed the Feast of Purim by virtue of the Authority that King Ahasuerus gave him: And both Ezra and Nehemiah by virtue of Commissions from the Kings of Persia, made many Reformations, and gave many Orders in Sacred Matters.

Under the New Testament, Christ by saying Render to Caesar the things which are Caesars, did plainly show that he did not intend that his Religion should in any sort lessen the Temporal Authority. The Apostles writ to the Churches to obey Magistrates,¹⁶ to submit to them, and to pay Taxes: They enjoined Obedience, whether to the King as supreme, or to others that were sent by him:¹⁷ Every Soul without exception is charged to be subject to the higher Powers. The Magistrate is ordained of God, and is his Minister to encourage them that do well, and to punish the evil doers. If these Passages of Scripture are to be interpreted according to the common consent of the Fathers, Churchmen are included within them, as well as other Persons. There was not indeed great occasion to consider this matter before Constantine’s coming to the Empire; for till then the Emperors did not consider the Christians otherwise than either as Enemies, ot at best as their Subjects at large: And therefore though the Christians made an Address to Aurelian in the matter of Samosatenus, and obtained a favourable and just Answer to it; yet in Constantine’s time the Protection that he gave to the Christian Religion, led him and his Successors to make many Laws in Ecclesiastical matters, concerning the Age, the Qualifications, and the Duties of the Clergy. Many of these are to be found in Theodosius and Justinian’s Code. Justinian added many more in his Novels. Appeals were made to the Emperors against the Injustice of Synods: They received them, and appointed such Bishops to hear and try those Causes, as happened to be then about their Courts. In the Council of Nice many Complaints were given to the Emperor by the Bishops against one another. The Emperors called General Councils by their Summons; they sate in them, and confirmed their Decrees. This was the constant Practice of the Roman Emperors both in the East and in the West: When the Church came to fall under many lesser Sovereignties, those Princes continued still to make Laws, to name Bishops, to give Investitures into Benefices, to call Synods, and to do every thing that appeared necessary to them, for the good Government of the Church in their Dominions.

When Charles the Great was restoring those things that had fallen under much disorder in a course of some ignorant and barbarous Ages, and was reviving both Learning and good Government, he published many Capitulars, a great part of them relating to Ecclesiastical matters; nor was any exception taken to that in those Ages: The Synods that were then held, were for the greatest part mixt Assemblies, in which the Temporalty and the Spiritualty sate together, and judged and decreed of all matters in common. And it is certain that such was the Sanhedrim among the Jews in our Saviour’s time; it was the Supreme Court both for Spirituals and Temporals.

In England our Princes began early, and continued long to maintain this part of their Authority. The Letters that are pretended to have passed between King Lucius and Pope Eleutherius, are very probably Forgeries; but they are antient ones, and did for many Ages pass for true. Now a Forgery is generally calculated to the Sense of the Age in which it is made. In the Pope’s Letter the King is called God’s Vicar in his Kingdoms; and it is said to belong to his Office to bring his Subjects to the holy Church, and to maintain, protect, and govern them in it. Both Saxon and Danish Kings made a great many Laws about Ecclesiastical matters; and after the Conquest, when the Nation grew into a more united Body, and came to a more settled Constitution, many Laws were made concerning these matters, particularly in opposition to those Practices that favoured the Authority that the Popes were then assuming; such as Appeals to Rome, or Bishops going out of the Kingdom without the King’s leave. King Alfred’s Laws were a sort of a Text for a great while; they contain many Laws about Sacred matters. The exempting of Monasteries from Episcopal Jurisdiction, was granted by some of our Kings at first. William the Conqueror, to perpetuate the Memory of his Victory over Harold, and to endear himself to the Clergy, founded an Abbey in the Field where the Battel was fought, called Battel-Abbey: And in the Charter of the Foundation, in imitation of what former Kings had done in their Endowments, this Clause was put; It shall be also free and quiet for ever from all subjection to Bishops, or the dominion of any other Persons. This is an Act that does as immediately relate to the Authority of the Church, as any one that we can imagine. The Constitutions of Clarendon were asserted by both King and Parliament, and by the whole Body of the Clergy, as the Antient Customs of the Kingdom. These relate to the Clergy, and were submitted to by them all, Becket himself not excepted, though he quickly went off from it.

It is true, the Papacy got generally the better of the Temporal Authority in a course of several Ages; but at last the Popes living long at Avignon, together with the great Schism that followed upon their return to Rome, did very much sink in their Credit, and that stopped the Progress they had made before that time; which had probably subdued all, if it had not been for those Accidents. Then the Councils began to take heart, and resolved to assert the Freedom of the Church from the Papal Tyranny. Pragmatick Sanctions were made in several Nations to assert their Liberty. That in France was made with great Solemnity: In these the Bishops did not only assert their own Jurisdiction, independent in a great measure of the Papacy, but they likewise carried it so far as to make themselves Independent on the Civil Authority, particularly in the point of Elections. This disposed Princes generally to enter into Agreements with the Popes; by which the matter was so transacted, that the Popes and they made a division between them of all the Rights and Pretensions of the Church. Princes yielded a great deal to the Popes, to be protected by them in that which they got to be reserved to themselves. Great Restraints were laid both on the Clergy, and likewise on the See of Rome, by the Appeals that were brought into the Secular Courts, from the Ordinary Judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts, or from the Bulls or Powers that Legates brought with them. A distinction was found that seemed to save the Ecclesiastical Authority, at the same time that the Secular Court was made the Judg of it. The Appeal did lye upon a pretence that the Ecclesiastical Judg had committed some Abuse in the way of proceeding, or in his Sentence. So the Appeal was from that Abuse, and the Secular Court was to examine the matter according to the Rules and Laws of the Church, and not according to the Principles or Rules of any other Law: But upon that they did either confirm or reverse the Sentence. And even those Princes that acknowledg the Papal Authority, have found out distinctions to put such Stops to it as they please; and so to make it an Engine to govern their People by, as far as they think fit to give way to it; and to damn such Bulls, or void such Powers as they are afraid of.

Thus it is evident, That both according to Scripture, and the Practice of all Ages and Countries, the Princes of Christendom have an Authority over their Subjects in matters Ecclesiastical. The reason of things makes also for this; for if any Rank of men are exempted from their Jurisdiction, they must thereby cease to be Subjects: And if any sort of Causes, Spiritual ones in particular, were put out of their Authority, it were an easy thing to reduce almost every thing to such a relation to Spirituals, that if this Principle were once received, their Authority would be very precarious and feeble. Nothing could give Princes stronger and juster Prejudices against the Christian Religion, than if they saw that the effect of their receiving it must be the withdrawing so great a part of their Subjects from their Authority; and the putting as many Checks upon it, as those that had the Management of this Religion should think fit to restrain it by. In a word, all mankind must be under one Obedience and one Authority. It remains that the Measures and the Extent of this Power be right stated.

It is certain, First, That this Power does not depend upon the Prince’s Religion; Whether he is a Christian, or not; or whether he is of a true or false Religion; or is a good or a bad man. By the same Tenure that he holds his Sovereignty, he holds this likewise. Artaxerxes 〈◊〉 it as well as either David or Solomon, when the Jews were once lawfully 〈◊〉 Subjects; and the Christians owed the same Duty to the Emperors 〈◊〉 Heathen, that they paid them when Christian. The Relations of Nature, such as that of a Parent and Child, Husband and Wife, continue the same that they were, whatsoever mens Persuasions in matters of Religion may be: So do also Civil Relations, Master and Servant, Prince and Subject; they are neither increased nor diminished by the Truth of their Sentiments concerning Religion. All Persons are subject to the Prince’s Authority, and liable to such Punishments as their Crimes fall under by Law. Every Soul is subject to the higher Powers. Neither is Treason less Treason, because spoke in a Pulpit or in a Sermon: It may be more Treason for that than otherwise it would be; because it is so publick and deliberate, and is delivered in the way in which it may probably have the worst effect. So that as to persons, no great difficulty can lye in this, since every Soul is declared to be subject to the higher powers.

As to Ecclesiastical Causes, it is certain, That as the Magistrate cannot make void the Laws of Nature, such as the Authority of Parents over their Children, or of Husbands over their Wives, so neither can he make void the Law of God: That is from a Superior Authority, and cannot be dissolved by him. Where a thing is positively commanded or forbid by God, the Magistrate has no other Authority but that of executing the Laws of God, of adding his Sanctions to them, and of using his utmost Industry to procure Obedience to them. He cannot alter any part of the Doctrine, and make it to be either truer or falser than it is in it self; nor can he either take away or alter the Sacraments, or break any of those Rules that are given in the New Testament about them; because in all these the Authority of God is express, and is certainly superior to his. The only question that can be made, is concerning Indifferent things: For instance, in the Canons or other Rules of the Church, How far they are in the Magistrate’s Power, and in what Cases the Body of Christians, and of the Pastors of the Church, may maintain their Union among themselves, and act in opposition to his Laws. It seems very clear, that in all matters that are indifferent, and are determined by no Law of God, the Magistrates Authority must take place, and is to be obeyed. The Church has no Authority that she can maintain in opposition to the Magistrate, but in the executing the Laws of God, and the Rules of the Gospel: In all other things, as she acts under his Protection, so it is by his Permission. But here a great distinction is to be made between two Cases that may happen: The one is, When the Magistrate acts like one that intends to preserve Religion, but commits Errors and Acts of Injustice in his Management: The other is, When he acts like one that intends to destroy Religion, and to divide and distract those that profess it. In the former case every thing that is not sinful of it self, is to be done in compliance with his Authority; not to give him Umbrage, nor provoke him to withdraw his Protection, and to become instead of a Nursing Father, a Persecutor of the Church. But on the other hand, when he declares, or it is visible that his design is to destroy the Faith, less regard is to be had to his Actions. The People may adhere to their Pastors, and to every Method that may fortify them in their Religion, even in opposition to his Invasion. Upon the whole matter, the Power of the King in Ecclesiastical Matters among us, is expressed in this Article under those Reserves, and with that Moderation, that no just Scruple can lye against it; and it is that which all the Kings even of the Roman Communion do assume, and in some Places with a much more unlimited Authority. The Methods of managing it may differ a little, yet the Power is the same, and is built upon the same Foundations. And though the Term Head is left out by the Article, yet even that is founded on an Expression of Samuel’s to Saul, as was formerly cited. It is a Figure, and all Figures may be used either more loosely or more strictly. In the strictest sense, as the Head communicates Vital Influences to the whole Body, Christ is the only Head of his Church; he only ought to be in all things obeyed, submitted to, and depended on; and from him all the Functions and Offices of the Church derive their Usefulness and Virtue. But as Head may in a Figure stand for the Fountain of Order and Government, of Protection and Conduct, the King or Queen may well be called, The Head of the Church.

The next Paragraph in this Article is concerning the Lawfulness of Capital Punishments in Christian Societies. It has an appearance of Compassion and Charity, to think that men ought not to be put to death for their Crimes, but to be kept alive that they may repent of them. Some both Antients and Moderns, have thought that there was a Cruelty in all Capital Punishments, that was inconsistent with the Gentleness of the Gospel. But when we consider that God in that Law which he himself delivered to the Jews by the hand of Moses, did appoint so many Capital Punishments, even for Offences against Positive Precepts, we cannot think that these are contrary to Justice or true Goodness; since they were dictated by God himself, who is eternally the same, unalterable in his Perfections. This shews that God, who knows most perfectly our Frame and Disposition, knows that the love of Life is planted so deep in our Natures, and that it has such a Root there, that nothing can work so powerfully on us, to govern and restrain us, as the fear of Death. And therefore since the main thing that is to be considered in Government, is the Good of the whole Body; and since a feeble Indulgence and Impunity may set mankind loose into great Disorders, from which the Terror of severer Laws, together with such Examples as are made on the Incorrigible, will naturally restrain them; it seems necessary for the preservation of Mankind and of Society, to have recourse sometimes to Capital Punishments.

The Precedent that God set in the Mosaical Law, seems a full Justification of such Punishments under the Gospel. The Charity which the Gospel prescribes, does not take away the Rules of Justice and Equity, by which we may maintain our Possessions, or recover them out of the hands of violent Aggressors: Only it obliges us to do that in a soft and gentle manner, without Rigor or Resentment. The same Charity, though it obliges us as Christians not to keep up Hatred or Anger in our Hearts, but to pardon as to our own parts, the Wrongs that are done us; yet it does not oblige us to throw up the Order and Peace of Mankind, and abandon it to the Injustice and Violence of Wicked men. We owe to Human Society, and to the Safety and Order of the World, our Endeavours to put a stop to the Wickedness of Men; which a good man may do with great inward Tenderness to the Souls of those whom he prosecutes. It is highly probable, that as nothing besides such a Method could stop the Progress of Injustice and Wickedness, so nothing is so likely a Mean to bring the Criminal to repent of his sins, and to fit him to dye as a Christian, as to condemn him to dye for his Crimes. If any thing can awaken his Conscience, and strike Terror in him, that will do it. Therefore as Capital Punishments are necessary to Human Society, so they are often real Blessings to those on whom they fall: And it may be affirmed very positively, That a man who can harden himself against the Terrors of Death, when they come upon him so solemnly, so slowly, and so certainly, he being in full Health, and well able to reflect on the Consequences of it, is not like to be wrought on by a longer continuance of Life, or by the Methods of a Natural Death.

It is not possible to fix Rules, to which Capital Punishments ought to be proportioned. It is certain, that in a full Equality, Life only can be set against Life: But there may be many other Crimes, that must end in the Ruin of Society, and in the Dissolution of all Order, and all the Commerce that ought to be among men, if they go unpunished. In this all Princes and States must judge, according to the real Exigencies and Necessities that appear to them. Nor can any general Rules be made, save only this, That since Man was made after the Image of God, and that the Life of Man is precious, and when once extinguished it ceases for evermore; therefore all due Care and Tenderness ought to be had in preserving it: and since the End of Government is the Preservation of Mankind, therefore the Lives of Men ought not to be too lightly taken, except as it appears to be necessary for the Preservation and Safety of the Society.

Under the Gospel, as well as under the Law, the Magistrate is the Minister of God, and has the Sword put in his hand; which he beareth not in vain,¹⁸ for he is appointed to be a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doth evil. The natural signification of his carrying the Sword, is, That he has an Authority for punishing Capitally; since it is upon those occasions only that he can be said to use the Sword as a Revenger. Nor can Christian Charity oblige a man whom the Law has made to be the Avenger of Blood, or of other Crimes, to refuse to comply with that obligation which is laid upon him by the Constitution under which he is born: He can only forgive that of which he is the Master, but the other is a Debt which he owes the Society; and his private forgiving of the wrong done himself, does not reach to that other obligation, which is not in his own power to give away.

The last Paragraph in this Article, is concerning the Lawfulness of Wars. Some have thought all Wars to be contrary to Christian Charity, to be inhuman and barbarous; and that therefore men ought, according to the Rule set us by our Saviour, Not to resist evil: But when one Injury is done, not only to bear it,¹⁹ but to shew a readiness rather to receive new ones; turning the other cheek to him that smites us on the one: going two miles with him that shall compel us to go one with him: And giving our Cloak to him that shall take away our Coat.²⁰ It seems just, that by a parity of reason Societies should be under the same Obligations to bear from other Societies, that single Persons are under to other single Persons. This must be acknowledged to be a very great difficulty: for as on the one hand the words of our Saviour seem to be very express and full; so on the other hand, if they are to be understood literally, they must cast the World loose, and expose it to the Injustice justice and Insolence of wicked persons, who would not fail to take advantages from such a compliance and submission. Therefore these words must be considered, first, as addressed to private persons; then, as relating to smaller Injuries, which can more easily be born; and finally, as Phrases and Forms of Speech, that are not to be carried to the utmost extent, but to be construed with that softning that is to be allowed to the use of a Phrase. So that the meaning of that Section of our Saviours Sermon is to be taken thus; That private Persons ought to be so far from pursuing Injuries, to the equal Retaliation of an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, that they ought in many cases to bear Injuries, without either resisting them, or making returns of evil for evil; shewing a Patience to bear even repeated Injuries, when the matter is small, and the wrong tolerable.

Under all this, secret conditions are to be understood, such as when by such our Patience we may hope to overcome evil with good; or at least to shew to the World the Power that Religion has over us, to check and subdue our Resentments. In this case certainly we ought to sacrifice our just Rights, either of defence, or of seeking reparation, to the Honour of Religion, and to the gaining of men by such an Heroical Instance of Virtue. But it cannot be supposed that our Saviour meant that good men should deliver themselves up to be a Prey to be devoured by bad men; or to oblige his Followers to renounce their Claims to the Protection and Reparations of Law and Justice.

In this St. Paul gives us a clear Commentary on our Saviour’s words: He reproves the Corinthians for going to Law with one another, and that before unbelievers;²¹ when it was so great a Scandal to the Christian Religion in its first Infancy. He says, Why do not ye take wrong? why do not ye suffer your selves to be defrauded? Yet he does not deny but that they might claim their Rights, and seek for redress; therefore he proposes their doing it by Arbitration among themselves, and only urges the Scandal of suing before Heathen Magistrates; so that his Reproof did not fall on their suing one another, but on the scandalous manner of doing it. Therefore men are not bound up by the Gospel from seeking Relief before a Christian Judge, and by consequence those words of our Saviour’s are not to be urged in the utmost extent of which they are capable. If private persons may seek Reparation of one another, they may also seek Reparations of the Wrongs that are done by those who are under another Obedience; and every Prince owes a Protection to his People in such cases; for he beareth not the Sword in vain; He is their Avenger. He may demand Reparation by such Forms as are agreed on among Nations; and when that is not granted, he may take such Reparation from any that are under that Obedience, as may oblige the whole Body to repair the Injury. Much more may he use the Sword to protect his Subjects, if any other comes to invade them. For this end chiefly he has both the Sword given him, and those Taxes paid him, that may enable him to support the Charge to which the use of it may put him. And as a private man owes by the Ties of Humanity, Assistance to a man whom he sees in the hands of Thieves and Murderers; so Princes may assist such other Princes as are unjustly fallen upon; both out of humanity to him who is so ill used, and to repress the Insolence of an unjust Aggressor, and also to secure the whole Neighbourhood from the effects of Success in such unlawful Conquests. Upon all these accounts we do not doubt but that Wars, which are thus originally as to the first occasion of them Defensive, though in the Progress of them they must be often offensive, may be lawful.

God allowed of Wars in that Policy which he himself constituted; in which we are to make a great difference between those things that were permitted by reason of the hardness of their hearts, and those things which were expresly commanded of God. These last can never be supposed to be immoral, since commanded by God, whose Precepts and Judgments are altogether righteous. When the Soldiers came to be baptized of St. John, he did not charge them to relinquish that course of Life,²² but only to do violence to no man, to accuse no man falsly, and to be content with their wages. Nor did St. Peter charge Cornelius to forsake his Post when he baptized him.²³ The Primitive Christians thought they might continue in Military Employments, in which they preserved the Purity of their Religion entire; as appears both from Tertullian’s Works, and from the History of Julian’s short Reign. But though Wars that are in their own nature only Defensive, are lawful, and a part of the Protection that Princes owe their People; yet unjust Wars designed for making Conquests, for the enlargement of Empire, and the raising the Glory of Princes, are certainly publick Robberies, and the highest Acts of Injustice and Violence possible; in which men sacrifice to their Pride or Humour, the Peace of the World, and the Lives of all those that dye in the Quarrel, whose Blood God will require at their hands. Such Princes become accountable to God in the highest degree imaginable, for all the Rapine and Bloodshed that is occasioned by their Pride and Injustice.

When it is visible that a War is unjust, certainly no man of Conscience can serve in it, unless it be in the Defensive part: For though no man can owe that to his Prince, to go and murder other persons at his command, yet he may owe it to his Country, to assist towards its Preservation, from being over-run even by those whom his Prince has provoked by making War on them unjustly. For even in such a War, though it is unlawful to serve in the Attacks that are made on others, it is still lawful for the People of every Nation to defend themselves against Foreigners.

There is no Cause of War more unjust, than the propagating the true Religion, or the destroying a false one. That is to be left to the Providence of God, who can change the hearts of men, and bring them to the knowledg of the Truth when he will. Ambition, and the desire of Empire must never pretend to carry on God’s work. The wrath of man worketh not out the righteousness of God. And it were better barefacedly to own, that men are set on by Carnal Motives, than to prophane Religion, and the Name of God, by making it the Pretence.

Footnotes

1. Mat. 20.21. ver. 24. ver. 26. ↩

2. Acts 11.2, 3. Acts 15.7. ver. 14, 19. Gal. 2, 7, 8. ver. 11. ↩

3. 2 Cor. 10.14. ↩

4. De Unit▪ Eccles. ↩

5. Conc. Nic. Can. 6. ↩

6. Ep. 10. ad Greg. ↩

7. Con. Sard. Can. 3, & 7▪ Con. Constant. Can. 3. ↩

8. Con. Chalced. Can. 28. ↩

9. Conc. Afric. cap. 101. & 105. Epist, ad Bonifac. & Celest. ↩

10. Greg. Ep. Lib. 4. Ep. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39. Lib. 6. Ep. 24, 28, 30, 31. Lib. 7. Ep. 70. ↩

11. 1 Sam. 15.30.22.14. ↩

12. 15.17. ↩

13. 1 Chron. 23.6.28.21. ↩

14. 2 Chron. 8.14, 15. ↩

15. 2 Chron. 17.8, 9. chap. 19.8, to the End. Chap. 26.16, 17, 18, 19. ↩

16. Rom. 13.6. ↩

17. Ver. 1. 1 Pet. 2.13. ↩

18. Rom. 13.4. ↩

19. Matth. 5.39. ↩

20. ↩

21. 1 Cor. 6.6, 7. ↩

22. Luk. 3.14. ↩

23. Acts 10. ↩