Church and State
PREVIOUS 157 NEXT

Title
Contents
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C



Site Search:

powered by
FreeFind

Copyright & Credit

The two examples of the exercise of Civil authority mentioned in the concluding clauses of the original Article (and repeated in substance by Dr. Moss) are much debated today, namely, capital punishment and the Christian attitude to war.  With regard to the former, our Lord’s words recorded in St. Matthew 5:38-39 against resisting evil refer to private revenge, and are inapplicable to the law of the State; He in fact employed force in expelling the traffickers from the Temple courts.[1]  St. Paul regarded the Civil power, when administering punishment for evil‑doing, as the minister of God for good.[2]  It will be noted that the Article goes no further than to say that capital punishment is permissible (‘may’);[3]  it does not say that it ‘should’ be imposed.

John the Baptist’s advice to the soldiers, recorded in St. Luke 3:14, influenced later Christian thought on the Church member’s attitude to military service; it was noted that while he told them to do their duty honourably, he did not invite or urge them to change their profession.[4]  Different opinions were expressed among the Church Fathers; some, like Tertullian, considered a military career unbefitting for a Christian, but it was not something held against a man in the official view of the Church.  There were certainly many Christians in the Imperial forces (as in our Forces today), and it has been suggested that the Gospel was introduced into Britain by the witness of unknown legionaries.  A valid distinction may be drawn between acts of aggression, and the use of force to preserve human rights and liberties; the latter would be ‘just wars’ within the meaning of the Article.

 

Article  XXXVIII

OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS WHICH ARE NOT COMMON[5]

The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast.  Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

Two leading Anabaptists, Thomas Munzer and John Bockhold taught that with “true baptism” went a renunciation of all worldly possessions; genuine acceptance of the Gospel dissolved every claim and right to hold property of any kind.  But such ‘communism’ was very different from the modern atheistic communism of Marxist theory, which gives to the individual a right to a share in material things by virtue of his contribution to the general economy; in Anabaptist ‘communism’ a person’s needs made him dependent on brotherly charity.


 



[1]Jn. 2:15.

[2]Rom. 13:3-4.

[3]Gen. 9:6; Acts 25:11; Rom. 12:4.

[4]Cf. also Acts 10:22, 47.

[5]The Article dates from 1553, and was written to dissociate the Anglican Reformers from fanatical sects who advocated a policy of ‘communism’.

PREVIOUS 157 NEXT