Rejecting the Papal Supremacy, the Article asserts the Royal Supremacy, allowing to the Monarch ‘the chief government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil.’  Our Lord emphasized that we have a duty to Caesar (the State) as well as to God.^[1]  St. Paul urged that ‘Every subject must obey the government authorities, for no authority exists apart from God’.^[2]  Loyalty and obedience to the civil power is a Christian duty.^[3]  In 1534 King Henry, in order to secure the submission of the clergy, claimed the title ‘Supreme Head of the English Church and Clergy’.  The title was used by Edward and by Mary until she married Philip in 1554.  Queen Elizabeth claimed only to be ‘Supreme Governor’ and made it clear that she only claimed the authority ‘of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her realms, dominions and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them’.  The Article makes it clear that the Ministry of Word and Sacrament is no part of the Monarch’s function.

Since the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America is entirely independent of the English Monarch, this Article has been replaced in that part of the Anglican Communion by one entitled ‘Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates’.  It affirms thus:

‘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 arid legitimately constituted.’

In view of recent and impending political changes in other parts of the Anglican Communion, it may be deemed desirable (if legally possible) to replace the present Article with ‘a statement of principles applicable under any government’.  If so, Dr. C. B. Moss’s suggested alternative has certain merits which warrant consideration and justify its inclusion in our treatment of the relationship between Church and State.  The text of his proposal is as follows:

                                             Of Church and State 

‘The Church and the State are two distinct societies, and we are members of both: of the State by birth or legal admission; of the Church by Baptism and by Confirmation, which is the completion of Baptism.

The authority of the State is enforced on all who live in its territory: the authority of the Church is voluntary, for no adult person can be compelled by civil law to accept the authority of the Church.  The State has to obey the will of the people: the Church is bound to obey the revealed will of God, and the rules which it has made in agreement therewith.  The purpose of the State is the welfare of mankind, especially its own members, in this world: the purpose of the Church is the eternal salvation of the souls of all men.  The authority of both Church and State is from God, for there is no power but of God (Rom. 13:1): and we are bound to obey the laws of both, by Divine command and by natural justice.  The Church ought not to impose on its members any particular political or economic system: and the State ought not to enforce any direction contrary to the faith, worship, or morals of the Church, nor ought it to be obeyed if it does (Dan. 3:18, 6:10; St. Mark 12:17; Acts 5:28).  The law of the land may punish any man with death, if he is justly found guilty of grievous offences.

Christian men may wear weapons and serve in lawful wars, if they are required to do so by the lay of the land.  But war is a grave sin against God, both in itself and for its consequences, and no state ought to undertake it, except in extreme necessity, and to avoid worse evils.’^[4]