# A Catechism on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England/Part V

PART V.
What is the subject of the Articles contained in the fifth division?
The civil duties of the members of the Church.
What Articles does it contain?
The thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth.
Article XXXVII.
What is the subject of the thirty-seventh Article?
"The Civil Magistrates."
What is the meaning of that expression?
The rulers or governors pertaining to this world?
[Who is the chief of these?
The king or queen.
What power has he in consequence?
He has "the chief government of all estates in the realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil."
What is meant by "all estates in the realm?"
All ranks and classes of persons in the kingdom.
What is meant by "ecclesiastical estates?"
Classes of persons in the ministry of the Church.
What is the effect of the king's having the chief government of all classes? ​1. That the government of the kingdom "is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction."
2. That the sovereigns of England "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."
What is meant by saying that the kingdom [country] is not subject to any foreign jurisdiction?
That no ruler in any foreign country has any power or authority over the government of the kingdom [country] either in Church or State.
What is meant by the expression, "is not nor ought to be subject?"
That it is not so by right at present, and ought not to be made so at any future time.
What occasion was there for making this declaration?
Because the bishop of Rome claimed chief jurisdiction both ecclesiastical and civil.
On what grounds do the bishops of Rome claim chief ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this kingdom [country]?
They assert that St. Peter had chief ecclesiastical jurisdiction given him by Christ over the whole ​Church, and that they are successors of St. Peter and consequently have the same jurisdiction.
What grounds have they for this assertion?
Two texts of Scripture; viz., "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;" 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, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Show that the first of these texts does not prove that for which it is adduced.
Many eminent fathers of the Church consider the rock there mentioned to be not St. Peter himself, but the truth he then confessed.
But supposing it to mean St. Peter, how is it to be interpreted?
The other Apostles are foundation stones of the Church equally with St. Peter; and he is only the first of them. See Rev. xxi. 14.
Show that the second passage does not prove the supremacy of St. Peter.
Because the same power was afterwards given to the other Apostles. St. Matt, xviii. 18.
What was that power?
The power of admitting members into the Church, of ruling them in it, of excluding them from it, and of restoring them to it.
Show that St. Peter had no power over the other Apostles ​There is no recorded instance, either in Holy Scripture, or in the history of the primitive Church, of St. Peter's exercising any authority or jurisdiction more than the other Apostles.
Show that, supposing he possessed such authority, the bishops of Rome do not possess it.
Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, shows that up to his time it was an established principle in the Church of Christ, that there was no universal bishop.
How does that appear?
Because he himself said, "whosoever calls himself or desires to be called a universal priest or bishop, is in his pride the forerunner of Anti-christ."
How came the bishops of Rome to have any spiritual authority in the kingdom of England?
Because by the instrumentality of a bishop of Rome the first bishops were appointed for our forefathers the Anglo-Saxons; and because the bishops of Rome were highest in rank in western Christendom; and thus were constantly appealed to for the purpose of settling disputes.
How did they lose this authority?
By stretching it too far and claiming it as a right.
Why ought they not to have it restored to them again?
Because there is fear of the recurrence of similar abuses, and because the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the country are fully competent to provide for its temporal and spiritual government. ​On what ground have the bishops of Rome claimed chief civil jurisdiction in England?
Partly on the ground of their claim of chief ecclesiastical jurisdiction, partly on the ground of a cession made to them by a former king of England.
How do they build a claim of civil jurisdiction on that of spiritual jurisdiction?
They assert that civil rulers being Christians, are subject to censure and punishment, if they use their power to the detriment of the Church.
In what way has this taken effect?
They have claimed the power to absolve subjects from their obligation of allegiance, and to give them authority to depose and murder their princes.
Prove that they have no right to any such power.
It was never heard of in the Church for more than 600 years; and St. Peter and St. Paul require all Christians to be subject to the king, or chief civil ruler. Rom. xiii. 1; 1 St. Pet. ii. 13.
What other peculiar ground of claim had the bishops of Rome to the chief civil power in England?
Because John, king of England, surrendered the kingdom to the Pope on behalf of himself and his successors.
Show that this constitutes no rightful claim.
King John had no authority to do such an act without the consent of parliament; and no such act could bind his successors.
When it is said that " the bishop of Rome hath no ​jurisdiction in this realm of England," what do you understand?
That he has no rightful authority of any kind in that kingdom, whether ecclesiastical or temporal. What is this second doctrine taught in this [English] Article?
That the kings of England have " authority to rule all conditions of persons both ecclesiastical and temporal, and to restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers."
How have they this authority?
Because it pertains to all chief rulers to rule their subjects of every class.
Show that this is the case.
1 St. Pet. ii. 13; Rom. xiii. 1. St. Peter and St. Paul both declare it.
In what way have they power to exercise this authority?
By requiring all of every class to observe the laws.
Does this give them power in ecclesiastical matters?
In England it does, because the laws of the Church are the laws of the land; but not in the United States.
Was this power ever " given to godly princes in Holy Scripture by God Himself?"
Yes; David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah, ​either exercised this power over priests and people under Divine direction, or were commended by Him for exercising it.
What particular conclusion does the [English] Article draw from this general authority of the sovereign?
That "it is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons, and to serve in the wars."
How does this appear to be true?
Because there is not any thing in the New Testament to the contrary; and because otherwise the chief governor could not defend his people from foreign invasion.
Why was it necessary to make this declaration?
Because there were some who declared war absolutely unlawful.
In what manner must the chief magistrate maintain his authority over those whom he is commissioned to govern?
He may "restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.
What is meant by restraining them with the civil sword?
Punishing them with temporal punishments. Why is the expression, "the sword," used?
1. Because "the laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences." ​2. Because God Himself ordained death as the punishment for certain offences; and St. Paul informs us that the civil ruler is authorized by God to "bear the sword" and to "execute" with it "wrath upon him that doeth evil." Rom. xiii. 4.]
What does the Church in the United States assert of " the power of the civil magistrate?"
That it " extendeth to all men, as well clergy as laity, in all things temporal."
Has he any authority beyond this?
The civil magistrate " hath no authority in things purely spiritual."
What is asserted to be the duty of all Christian men?
"To pay respectful obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legitimately constituted."
Article XXXVIII.
What is the subject of the thirty-eighth Article?
"Christian Men's Goods."
What does the Article teach in regard to them?
That they " are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same."
What do you understand by this?
That Christians have not a common or general right and title to the goods which they severally occupy; nor ought they to claim the common possession of each other's goods. ​Why was it necessary to declare this?
Because "certain Anabaptists" taught the contrary.
What ground had they for this doctrine?
The fact that the Christians in Jerusalem, in the first years of the Church, had for the most part all things in common.
How do you know that we are not required to do the same?
Because St. Peter, in reproving Ananias and Sapphira, expressly recognised their right and title to keep possession of their property, if they thought fit. See Acts v. 4.
Is this right of ours unlimited?
No: "every man ought, of such things as he possessed, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability."
What is meant by giving alms?
Giving money, food, or clothing to those who need.
Prove that this is our duty.
1 Tim. vi. 18.
Article XXXIX.
What is the subject of the thirty-ninth Article?
"A Christian Man's Oath."
What kind of swearing is "forbidden Christian men?"
"Vain and rash Swearing."
By whom is it forbidden?
​St Matt. v. 34; St. James v. 12. "By our Lord Jesus Christ and James His Apostle."
Under what circumstances "doth not Christian Religion prohibit, but that a man may swear?"
"When the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity."
What do you understand by the expression, "when the Magistrate requireth?"
Whence are required so to do by any lawful authority of the civil ruler, or administrator of the laws.
Prove that it is lawful to take an oath when required by the magistrate.
St. Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. Our Lord Himself answered on oath to the chief-priest, who was in that case a lawful magistrate.
What do you understand by "a cause of faith and charity?"
A cause in which faith between man and man, and charity towards those who might otherwise suffer wrong, require that we should give a solemn testimony before the magistrate.
What caution must we use in giving our testimony upon oath?
To do it "in justice, judgment, and truth."
What prophet gives this direction?
Jeremiah says, (ch. iv. 2,) "And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in righteousness, and in judgment."
​Why was this Article necessary?
Because some persons have declared all oaths unlawful.
On what ground?
Because our Lord has said, "Swear not at all."
How must we understand this passage?
The context shows that Christ is speaking only of oaths in common conversation, or vain and rash swearing, and not of oaths taken before a magistrate. How is this confirmed by the known customs of the Jews?
The oaths which our Lord mentions in that passage are such as were used only in common conversation.
* ↑ Much of this Article differs, as set forth by the Church of England, from that form given it by the P. E. Church in the United States. But the explanation of the English Article is retained, on account of its important statements concerning the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome.
* ↑ In the United States, the President of the United States and the Governor of each state
* ↑ Through the choice of the people, in the United States.
* ↑ In the United States the civil authority—the president and governors of states, chosen to exercise such power, by the people, but only in things temporal.