diocese. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in the third century, expressly says, "Nor hath any one of us set himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor by any tyrannical usage terrified his colleagues or fellowbishops into a necessity of stooping and cringing to him, being duly sensible that every bishop is at liberty to use his power according to his discretion, and is neither to judge nor to be judged by another." And upon another occasion he says, that "all the Apostles were equal in power, and that all bishops were also equal, since the whole office and episcopate was one entire thing, of which every bishop had a complete and equal share. a The next paragraph of the Article asserts the lawfulness of capital punishments. The law of Moses, derived from God himself, inflicted capital punishments for a variety of offences; and therefore we conclude, that they are not incompatible with the essential principles of justice and mercy. It is also certain, that the emperors of Rome, at the time of the first propagation of the Gospel, had the power of life and death, which has indeed been vested in almost all supreme governors, under greater or less limitations, in every period of the world. The New Testament does not condemn that power; and by enjoining obedience and submission to magistrates, without any restriction or exception of this kind, it gives a sanction to it. And we may further observe, that the passage just now quoted from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans a Concil. Carthag. b De Ecc. Unit. a seems to admit the power of sovereign princes over the lives of their subjects in case of heinous criminality: "He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The sword is always considered as the instrument of death; and therefore to say, that "the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain," is to acknowledge that he has a right to punish with death. St. Paul allowed the possibility of his having committed a crime for which he ought to die, and expressed his readiness in that case to submit to the law; "If I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die." Upon these grounds we may safely admit, that THE LAWS OF THE REALM MAY PUNISH CHRISTIAN MEN WITH DEATH FOR HEINOUS AND GRIEVOUS OFFENCES. The last paragraph relates to the lawfulness of Christians serving in the wars. When soldiers came to be baptized by John, he did not command them to relinquish their way of life, and consequently he did not consider it as incompatible with the engagements into which they were entering; but he ordered them "to do violence to no man, to accuse no man falsely, and to be content with their wages," which was in fact permitting them to remain soldiers; nor did St. Peter command Cornelius to give up his situation in the Roman army when he embraced Christianity." St. Paul speaks of sol diers without any censure upon their profession, but rather considers it as furnishing full employment for those who engaged in it: "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier;" and by this example of soldiers he exhorts Timothy to diligence in his calling. It may here again be observed, that the injunctions in the New Testament to obey the civil magistrate are general, and therefore they extend to the case of serving in the wars; and it is manifest that no nation could maintain its independence, if it did not resist by force the aggressions of its ambitious neighbours. We learn from Tertullian, that the primitive Christians served in war under heathen emperors; and Augustin calls soldiers, "non homicidas sed ministros legis-salutis publicæ defensores." Vegetius, a writer upon the art of war in the fourth century, gives this account of the oath taken by the Christian soldiers: "Jurant per Deum et per Christum, et per Spiritum Sanctum, et per majestatem imperatoris, quæ secundum Deum generi humano diligenda est et colenda."d But though these reasons and authorities may convince us that, in the present state of things, IT IS C LAWFUL FOR CHRISTIAN MEN, AT THE COMMANDMENT OF THE MAGISTRATE, TO WEAR WEAPONS AND SERVE IN THE WARS, yet every one will acknowledge, that if the mild and benevolent religion of Jesus had a a 2 Tim. ii. 4. c Const. Faust. xxii. 74. general and complete influence, not only private quarrels and dissensions, but public wars also, would cease throughout the world. ARTICLE THE THIRTY-EIGHTH. OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS, WHICH ARE NOT COMMON. 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. THIS Article consists of two parts; the former declares that private property is not inconsistent with the profession of the Gospel; and the latter asserts the Christian duty of charity to the poor. 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. The admonitions in the New Testament to the practice of charity; the particular precepts addressed to the high and to the low, to the rich and to the poor; and the commendation of those virtues, which can be displayed only in the lower ranks of life, all plainly prove that the Gospel was not designed to introduce a community of goods. It appears, that in the days of the Apostles several of the new converts delivered up all their wealth and possessions for the use of their Christian b brethren; but this was a voluntary act; a charitable contribution springing from their own zeal, and not commanded by their inspired teachers; on the contrary, St. Peter said to Ananias, "While it remained, was it not thine own? After it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" Thus St. Peter admitted the right of Ananias to have retained the whole of his property, although he reproved and punished him for his dissimulation and falsehood. It is evident that private property is essential to the very existence of civil society; and it is not to be believed that the Gospel, which "has the promise of this life as well as of that which is come"," would destroy, or in any respect weaken, a principle which is the foundation of every social comfort; and indeed none of the early sectaries ever thought of maintaining such an opinion. But in the beginning of the sixteenth century the Anabaptists of Germany, among other absurd and dangerous tenets, contended for the necessity of a community of goods among Christians. This doctrine was warmly and successfully opposed by the most enlightened part of the Reformers upon the Continent; it made but very little progress in this country; a Acts, iv. 32. [Neander has a long dissertation on this subject in his Geschichte der Christ. Kirche durch die Apostel. He contends strongly against the common literal interpretation of the history in Acts, iv. 32. But the case of Barnabas renders it difficult to doubt the completeness of the sacrifice made by some of the more devoted dis ciples. It is evident, however, that we can only argue from the spirit of the example then set us. Change of times and circumstances will often render the same course of conduct impossible or inexpedient, while a similar course, and the same spirit, will be as necessary as ever.-EDITOR.] b Acts, v. 4. |