On the Articles: Article XXXVII

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy household the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his 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 King’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 estates 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.

Article XXII is historically interesting in that it articulates a particular vision of the separation of Church and state which is commonly supported among Western democracies today. In this version, it spelled out the Church’s proclamation that it was independent in religious affairs of the authority of civil offers.

The first paragraph actually again affirms the independence of the Church of England and the English Crown from foreign religious powers, namely the authority of the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of England had never declared itself out of communion with Rome, it had always claimed since the time of the English Reformation under Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer that the Catholic Church in the Realm of England was free from the jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome, just as the Christian East had managed to maintain its independence from his jurisdictional claims to authority. This Article thus affirms that this claim to independence applies to secular authorities as well. By the time of Elizabeth II, this Article had become necessary as the Bishop of Rome, in addition to breaking communion with the Church of England had excommunicated all people of England who followed the temporal authority of the Queen. This Article countered that excommunication saying that he had no authority to require such as it was an invalid assertion of authority over the Crown in addition to invalid assertion of religious authority over local bishops.

The Article continues by then expressing the limits of the Crown’s authority over the Church. Unlike modern principles of the separation of Church and State, which tend to be established to limit religious involvement in public areas of government, this Article sought to place limits on the ability of secular officials to involve themselves in the affairs of the Church. This was essential because the Crown also held the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Article states, “we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments,” meaning that civil authorities were not authorized to preach or administer the Sacraments, or otherwise regulate them. These were affairs reserved for the ordained ministers of the Church. The Article then continues to note that civil authorities are not so much under the authority of the Church as they are under God’s authority, “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 evil doers.”

The final three paragraphs clarify particular controversies.

The first again asserts that the Bishop of Rome has no authority of jurisdiction, whether civil of religious, in the Realm of England. He may not choose bishops, as he sought to do with the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 leading to the Great Schism when he excommunicated the entire Christian East for refusing his demand that they submit to his claim of jurisdictional authority, and neither does he have the right to choose the King, as he sought to do before excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and the entire population of England that refused to accede to his demand for a Roman Catholic monarch that would follow his authority. One point that should be remembered about the historical context of this Article is that at the time of the English Reformation, the Bishop of Rome was not just a religious authority, he did also have political and temporary power as a prince, controlling territory and armies. The assertion that he had no authority in England did have significant political ramifications.

The penultimate paragraph deals with an issue of Christian morality and whether or not the state has authority to exercise the death penalty in the case of “heinous and grievous” offences. This largely was in response to Reformers rather than any claims of the Roman Church.

The final paragraph again responds to a controversy of the Radical Reformation, namely those who argued in favour of pacifism as a Christian imperative. The Article clarifies that if conscripted, a Christian man could not claim it was a Christian right not to fight. Given the political situation of the time, and the wars of religion on the continent, not to mention the fact that England itself had undergone a period of severe turmoil and civil war, was an essential point to make for any civil authority that needed men-at-arms, not to mention to simply clarify the position for priests so they would know what to teach given the tumultuous back and forth and the attempts of various governments of the day to enforce different rules.