Introduction

Very often, I (Jesse) will meet Christians, even ordained ministers, who will say “I don’t really like politics,” and I get what they mean. The world of modern politics is dirty—however wicked or vicious your political opponent seems to be, it’s easy enough to identify some unseemly characters or policies operating on the opposite side. In the past, I have felt a strong temptation to withdraw from the field altogether, where so many of the key players appear to be fundamentally compromised. This is the kind of posture that seems to assume that there is some “safe” or neutral place that a Christian can retreat to. I have found that there is no such place this side of heaven. I have also discovered within myself a strong sense of duty to the ones I would wish peace and safety for, to fight for that peace; with words, my prayers, and a judicious support of various flawed actors in American political life. As Christians, we are called to love and strive for peace, but we know that peace must be fought for in a fallen world, and that our greatest contending will only preserve a small, dim glimpse of the lasting peace that Christ has won for us in eternity. But we do work, strive, and fight for what God has to offer his faithful in this life, and we do our best to be faithful to God as we do it. There’s a lot of confusion today over what it means to be a faithful Christian and engage (as our various vocations allow) in the perplexing, political realities of our times, so we at The North American Anglican have endeavored to answer that question in the following statement.

Now, as Anglican Christians, it should be expected that we desire to offer Anglican answers. To this end, we have referred to the founding documents and greatest luminaries of our tradition. Some familiarity with the history of the Reformed Catholic tradition of the Church of England and its North American Anglican inheritors will be helpful, but not necessary. What’s important to keep in mind is that even when our greatest theologians are agreed, or rather a diversity of orthodox opinion is found, they remain self-consciously faithful to the Word of God, and to the Anglican formularies, which are themselves a product of the broader Magisterial Reformation effort to bring Christendom into full conformity with the demands of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. If any reader is surprised to find our Anglican forefathers have so much to say about the role of civil magistrates, laws and rulers, this is due to the poor state of the modern church’s political reasoning in general. It is my hope, and the hope of my fellow editors, that these statements drawn from the breadth of Anglican political thought will inspire further exploration and embolden a new generation of faithful thinkers to test and apply the best insights of our tradition, in the realm of politics and political theology as well.

Anglicanism is a pillar in the Magisterial Reformation, and understanding historic Anglican political thought best informs how Anglicans can pray and serve within the kingdoms, republics, and even authoritarian nation-states where they find themselves. Perhaps the genius of Anglicanism is its widespread catholicity amongst the nations of nearly “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” (Revelation 5:9, AV). Yea, though the nations rage, Anglicans shall “kiss the Son,” (Psalm 2:12) and lead by example. I encourage our readers to challenge and to be challenged by this statement, to dig into this material without fear, and to participate in this project with your own talents and share your thoughts on how best to apply this wisdom today.

The Civil and Spiritual Realms

The Anglican tradition has historically held that God governs the world in a two-fold manner, with respect to both temporal and spiritual realms (or “kingdoms”):

1. Through one, he upholds and sustains the created order which, even in its fallen state, reflects God’s glory and offers a fitting habitat for his image-bearers.

2. Through the other, he redeems his people from their state of alienation and spiritual death, and transforms them into emissaries of his rule, able to act within the temporal kingdom in ways that more nearly reflect God’s original will for creation.^[1]

The civil realm is governed by natural law, defined as “the basic moral order inscribed upon human nature by creation, and inscribed on human hearts through the testimony of conscience,”^[2] with the substance of the natural law being summarized in both tables of the Ten Commandments. The spiritual realm is governed by Scripture, which includes “teaching regarding the sacraments, guidance in how to pray, and how to conduct the spiritual life of the church.”^[3]

It should not be supposed, as some have argued, that the church belongs solely to the spiritual realm, while the state alone lies within the purview of the civil realm. Rather, the church simultaneously inhabits both the civil and spiritual realms, as “many of its activities are temporal in their means and ends—helpful for ordering the outward life of the church, but not essential to its salvific task.”^[4] One implication of the church being part of the civil realm is that those earthly ministers who govern the civil realm—also known as “magistrates”—have some role to play in governing the church specifically. Certainly not being limited in scope to only those things relating to nature, as the American version of Article XXXVII puts it, “The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal.”^[5] In short,

God governs the world in distinct ways with respect to both the civil and spiritual aspects of human existence, and the institution of the church falls within both the civil and spiritual realms.^[6] Consequently, magistrates have authority over the church in temporal matters.^[7]

The Role of Magistrates with Regard to the Church

Broadly speaking, magistrates—both local and national—should support and promote the true religion, which is Christianity. The precise nature of magisterial support for the Christian religion is a matter of prudence that can vary according to time and place. This belief in magisterial support for Christianity has not historically been confined to England, but has been sustained within American Anglicanism as well, a fact that the Preface to the American Prayer Book makes clear:

The attention of this Church was in the first place drawn to those alterations in the Liturgy which became necessary in the prayers for our Civil Rulers, in consequence of the Revolution. And the principal care herein was to make them conformable to what ought to be the proper end of all such prayers, namely, that “Rulers may have grace, wisdom, and understanding to execute justice, and to maintain truth”; and that the people “may lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty.”^[8]

To this end, the American Prayer Book directs us to pray that magistrates would, at a minimum, “truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion and virtue.”^[9] Another way of saying this is that magistrates should uphold the natural law as encapsulated by the Ten Commandments, promoting and defending the church as the God-ordained organ of true religion on earth. In America, this has historically taken the form of blasphemy laws and Sabbath laws, to name just a couple of examples that pertain to the first table (i.e., the first five) of the Ten Commandments. Additionally, American Anglicans are directed to pray for the president and “all in authority,” that God would “fill them with the love of truth and righteousness; and make them ever mindful of their calling to serve this people in thy fear,”^[10] as well as for state legislatures, that they would “ordain for our governance only such things as please thee.”^[11] In short,

Magistrates in their governance should favor Christianity as the true religion,^[12] with both tables of the Ten Commandments functioning as the appropriate foundation for civil governance.^[13]

The Possibility of a Christian Nation

The Anglican formularies do not provide an explicit definition of what constitutes a nation. Even so, the American Prayer Book, in speaking of “this nation,”^[14] takes for granted that America is a nation. As for the term’s precise meaning, a “nation” can be defined as “a people organized under one civil polity, established upon a definite territory, and possessed of sovereign powers.”^[15] Importantly, on this definition a nation is constituted by “a” people rather than multiple peoples. That is to say, in order for a polity to be a nation in the truest sense of the word, there must be a minimal degree of cohesion and unity among its citizens. For this reason, the American Prayer Book calls us to pray that God “would fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.”^[16] The reference to “tongues” indicates that the unity aspired to is in some measure cultural.

The unified American identity to which we aspire should also include religious character—Anglicans are to pray that not only magistrates, but all the people in the nation, would be Christian, as we see in the Bidding Prayer from the American Prayer Book: “Ye shall pray for all the people of these United States, that they may live in the true faith and fear of God, and in brotherly charity one towards another.”^[17] More than this, we are to pray that God would bring all “the nations into thy fold.”^[18] Put differently, we are to pray that all the nations in the world would be Christian nations,^[19] not in the expectation that every person in all countries would be truly Christian (for it has never been so in any nation), but in the recognition that Christianity ought to be the norm, with any other religious influence being permitted only under sufferance.

Every nation has a duty to safeguard its citizens’ interests so that they may be “fashion[ed] into one united people.” In so doing, the government serves the people of a nation by exercising the prudential command and limits of both; the honors of hospitality, and the rights of expulsion to any and all foreign persons who threaten the effort of that precious unity, whether they be making the claims of a guest or petitioning for full membership. In short,

All nations, the United States of America among them, should each be their own “united people,” Christian in character, and it is right to pray for this outcome, as the Prayer Book bids us.

The allowance of immigrants into a country should be premised upon their assimilation to the cultural and Christian character of the host nation, as the Prayer Book suggests. Any immigration policy that produces “violence, discord, and confusion”^[20] among a nation’s people, or fails to safeguard them from the same, should be opposed.

The Relationship between Church and State

Magisterial support for Christianity may include, but does not require, privileging a particular denomination or juridical body as the official, state-endorsed church. The Church of England has historically enjoyed such privilege and continues to do so today. When America became independent from England, this change in political circumstances necessitated a change in the nation’s church-state relations, as the Preface to the American Prayer Book recognizes:

When in the course of Divine Providence, these American States became independent with respect to civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included; and the different religious denominations of Christians in these States were left at full and equal liberty to model and organize their respective Churches, and forms of worship, and discipline, in such a manner as they might judge most convenient for their future prosperity; consistently with the constitution and laws of their country.^[21]

Although the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a Congressional establishment of religion, historically, the Amendment was interpreted as leaving the states free to maintain their own religious establishments, which a number of states did for several years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. It was only in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education that the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment’s prohibition of an establishment of religion applies to the states as well. However, the Court’s ruling on this matter is neither final nor irreversible. In short,

Denominational church establishment is a matter of prudence, and as such, the Christian religion can be promoted by magistrates with or without such an establishment. Moreover, denominational church establishment has precedent in American history.^[22]

The Form of National Government

As the Church of England arose within a monarchy, its formularies treat monarchy as a given state of affairs. Unsurprisingly, numerous English divines have argued that monarchy is, if not the only legitimate form of government, at least the best form of government. Others, however, have acknowledged that the form of government is, like the substance of magisterial support for Christianity and the issue of church establishment, a matter of prudence. Although the Church of England came into being in a monarchical state, monarchy is not required for Anglicanism to exist, as evidenced by the fact that Anglicanism was successfully adapted to America’s republican form of government. At the same time, it can be argued that some forms of government are more conducive to flourishing than others. In short,

A nation’s form of government is a matter of prudence, and as such, support for monarchy, democracy, republicanism, or any other particular form of government is not required by the Christian faith.^[23]

The Question of Revolution

Much of the Anglican tradition strongly condemns rebellion against the civil authorities,^[24] only going so far as to enjoin civil disobedience when the magistrate commands that which is contrary to God’s law.^[25] The two sermons in the Books of Homilies titled “An Exhortation Concerning Good Order and Obedience to Rulers and Magistrates” and “An Homily against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion” are representative and authoritative examples of this outlook.^[26] However, as early as the reign of Queen Mary I, arguments in favor of revolution found expression among English divines. Such arguments became more common following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Furthermore, although the bulk of colonial Anglican clergymen were Loyalists, there were some who argued at length in favor of the American Revolution. In short,

Multiple figures in the Anglican tradition have defended revolution as permissible in certain circumstances, making the defense of revolution insufficient to place one outside of the Anglican tradition.^[27][28]*

Concluding Remarks

As the reader peruses the above statements, some claims may appear more relevant to modern applications than others. Some may seem almost archaic in their forthright appeal to Biblical or ecclesiastical ideas, terms, and concepts. Keep in mind, political order is never without a religious element. Whereas our forefathers may have openly proclaimed that their rule of law comes from God above, if you look closely, there always emerges some object of worship at the center of the supposedly “secular” order. We know that Christ is King of the universe, that he shall reign forever and ever, and that every non-believing expression of morality and order is merely a clumsy grasping at the created order that our Lord has lovingly woven into His handiwork. As you ponder the above statement, I encourage you to imagine how best the light and truth of God can be manifest in our present age for the good and peace of our nations.

Many thanks go to James Clark, who took on the momentous task of excavating the wide breadth of sources that give this statement so much weight. The task of exploring these themes of Anglican political thought has been undertaken by several gifted thinkers of our day, writing in a variety of forums, not least of which being our own journal. Below are listed some of our favorite examples of this kind of writing to grace our pages. We’re committed to hosting a faithful, gracious conversation about orthodox Anglican political thought. If you’re interested in our statement, take a look at these articles from our archives, and consider joining the conversation.

All Primary Sources for Anglican Political Thought Cited in this Statement

Further Reading

Anglican Political Theology

Exchanging Two Swords for Two Kingdoms

Give the King Thy Judgments, O Lord (Part 1)

Give the King Thy Judgments, O Lord (Part 2)

The Reformers on Civil Government

National Apostasy: What Does Keble’s Assize Sermon Teach Us Almost 200 Years Later?

Civics, Civility, and the Church

Bishop William White: Anglican Patriot

We Cannot Live Without Sunday: When Can the Church Tell the State, No?

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Notes

1. Brad Littlejohn, “Two Kingdoms, One King: What Two Kingdoms Theology Really Is,” Logos, 17 October 2024, https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-two-kingdom-theology/. ↑
2. Littlejohn, “Two Kingdoms,” https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-two-kingdom-theology/. ↑
3. Littlejohn, “Two Kingdoms,” https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-two-kingdom-theology/. ↑
4. Littlejohn, “Two Kingdoms,” https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-two-kingdom-theology/. ↑
5. Protestant Episcopal Church, The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1928), 610. ↑
6. See, e.g., Hugh Latimer, Sermons, “Seven Sermons preached before King Edward the Sixth, 1549,” Sermon the First, 85–86; John Hooper, Later Writings, “A brief and clear Confession of the Christian Faith,” 53; George Hickes, Two Treatises on the Christian Priesthood, vol. I, 206; and Hickes, Two Treatises, vol. III, 122, 124. ↑
7. See, e.g., John Jewel, Works, vol. III, “An Apology of the Church of England,” 97–98; Hooper, “Confession of the Christian Faith,” 54; John Whitgift, Works, vol. I, “Cartwright’s Reply unto the Answer of the Preface,” Tract I, 153; Whitgift, Works, vol. III, “Of the Additions, Detractions, and Alterations, made by the Admonitors in both parts of the Admonition,” 485; Richard Hooker, Works, vol. II, “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,” Bk. VIII, 414–15; and William Beveridge, Works, vol. VII, On the Thirty-Nine Articles, 559–60. ↑
8. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, vi. ↑
9. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 74. ↑
10. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 18. ↑
11. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 35. Lest any object that these prayers do not reflect the contemporary American Anglican outlook, it should be noted that they are retained (in a lightly modified form) in the Anglican Church of North America’s 2019 Book of Common Prayer, 657. ↑
12. See, e.g., Thomas Cranmer, Works, vol. II, “The Archbishop’s Speech at the Coronation of Edward VI., Feb. 20, 1547,” 127; Henry Bullinger, Decades, vol. I, Second Decade, The Seventh Sermon, 323–24; Thomas Becon, Catechism, 303; Jewel, “Apology,” 99–100; Matthew Parker, Correspondence, “Archbishop Parker to Sir William Cecil,” 157; Beveridge, Works, vol. I, Sermon XXIV, “The Obligations of Superiors to Promote Religion,” 455, 457; John Cosin, Works, vol. I, Sermon I, 19; and Herbert Thorndike, Works, vol. V, “The Reformation of the Church of England Better than that of the Council of Trent,” 495. ↑
13. See, e.g., Bullinger, Second Decade, The First Sermon, 214–15; Becon, Catechism, 303; Jewel, Works, vol. IV, “The Defence of the Apology,” Part VI, 974; Hooker, Works, vol. II, “Laws,” Bk. VIII, 408; and Beveridge, On the Thirty-Nine Articles, 559. ↑
14. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 18. ↑
15. William Reed Huntington, A National Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 4. ↑
16. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 36. ↑
17. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 48. ↑
18. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 38. This prayer is retained (in a lightly modified form) in the 2019 Book of Common Prayer, 24. In a similar vein, the 2019 Prayer Book also contains an optional Collect for Midday Prayer that “all nations may come and worship you” (38). ↑
19. The concept of a “Christian nation” is often challenged today as ambiguous or even impossible to realize, yet we find multiple divines using the term with the assumption that both its meaning and its real existence as instantiated by various nations (not least England itself) are apparent. See, e.g., Jewel, “Apology,” 88; Parker, Correspondence, “Archbishop Parker and Bishop Sandys to some other Bishop,” 434–35; Whitgift, Works, vol. II, “Defence of the Answer to the Admonition,” 348; John Bramhall, Works, vol. I, “A Just Vindication of the Church of England from the Unjust Aspersion of Criminal Schism,” 246; Henry Hammond, Works, vol. II, “Of Schism,” 253; William Laud, Works, vol. IV, “History of Troubles and Trial (continued),” 311; and Thorndike, Works, vol. V, “The Due Way of Composing the Differences on Foot, Preserving the Church,” 36. ↑
20. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 36. ↑
21. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, vi. ↑
22. See, e.g., Maryland Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, Art. XXXIII, XXXV, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ma02.asp; New Jersey Constitution of 1776, Art. 19, https://www.nj.gov/state/archives/docconst76.html; North Carolina Constitution of 1776, Art. XXXII, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nc07.asp; New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, Bill of Rights, Art. VI, and Part II, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federal_and_State_Constitutions/Constitution_of_New_Hampshire%E2%80%941784; Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790, Art. IX, sect. IV, https://www.paconstitution.org/texts-of-the-constitution/1790-2/; Delaware Constitution of 1792, Art. I, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federal_and_State_Constitutions/Constitution_of_Delaware%E2%80%941792; and Connecticut Constitution of 1818, Art. VII, sect. 1, https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/Content/constitutions/1818_Constitution.pdf. ↑
23. See, e.g., Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 309–312; Hooper, Later Writings, “Annotations on Romans XIII,” 101; Bramhall, Works, vol. II, “Schism Guarded and beaten back upon the Right Owners,” 551; and Laud, Works, vol. I, Sermon III, 85. ↑
24. See, e.g., William Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, “The Obedience of a Christian Man, 1527—8,” 332; Latimer, Sermons, “Sermons preached in Lincolnshire, 1552, On the Gospel for the Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity,” 496; Hooper, “Annotations,” 104; Alexander Nowell, Nowell’s Catechism, 132–33; Edwin Sandys, Sermons, “A Sermon Made at York,” 200; Beveridge, Works, vol. VIII, “Private Thoughts Upon Religion,” 266–67; and Bramhall, Works, vol. I, “Answer to M. De La Milletierre,” 37. ↑
25. See, e.g., Cranmer, Works, vol. II, “The Archbishop’s Notes for a Homily Against Rebellion,” 188; Latimer, Sermons, “Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer, 1552,” Sermon the Fourth, 371; Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 316; Becon, Catechism, 90; Hooper, “Annotations,” 102–103; Lancelot Andrewes, A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, 183; and Beveridge, Works, vol. V, Sermons CXXVIII, “Obedience to Governors,” 450–51. ↑
26. Notably, the American Prayer Book retains Article XXXV’s affirmation of the Homilies as containing “a godly and wholesome Doctrine,” although it is added that “all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church.” This statement, in conjunction with the qualification in Article XXXVII that all should obey “the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted” (Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 610, italics added), could be taken to suggest that following the American Revolution, the Homilies’ apparent blanket condemnation of rebellion was not accepted by American Anglicans, but the matter is ambiguous. ↑
27. See, e.g., John Ponet, Treatise of Politike Power, 74, 79; Peter Martyr Vermigli, Common Places, 324; Benjamin Hoadly, Measures of Submission to the Civil Magistrate Consider’d, 8, 148–49, 163; Richard Watson, Sermons on Public Occasions, “The Principles of the Revolution Vindicated,” 71–72; Watson, Sermons, “A Sermon Preached before the University of Cambridge, on the Anniversary of his Majesty’s Accession to the Throne, October 25, 1776,” 87; Watson, Sermons, “A Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge, on the Day appointed for a General Fast, on Account of the American War, Fe. 4, 1780,” 124; Samuel Horsley, “Thoughts on Civil Government,” in From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany, ed. Stephen Taylor, 209–210; and Thomas Gisborne, An Enquiry into the Duties of Men, vol. I, 79–80. ↑
28. ^* It may seem unfitting for a synopsis of Anglican political thought to cite authorities who are primarily associated with the Continental Reformed tradition, namely Bullinger and Vermigli. However, given the considerable influence these men exercised over the English Reformation, they could both be described as adoptive Anglicans. Bullinger’s Decades became so popular in England that Archbishop Whitgift ordered “every Minister having cure…and not licenced to be a public preacher” to obtain a copy of “Bullinger’s Decads” for the purpose of private study (John Strype, The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, vol. III, [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1822], 194). Centuries later, the same work was selected for publication by the Parker Society, whose mission was to republish the greatest works and luminaries of the English Reformation. If the Parker Society deemed Bullinger to be worthy of inclusion in their collection, it is hard to say on what grounds we should spurn him. Meanwhile, Vermigli served as the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University for almost the entire reign of Edward VI (from 1548 to 1553), departing England only after the accession of Mary I. Once Elizabeth I came to power in 1558, he was “formally invited to return to his post as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1561, but excused himself for reasons of health and his obligations to the Senate of Zurich” (Torrance Kirby, “Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Political Theology and the Elizabethan Church,” in The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain, ed. Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson [New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], 86n11). As with Bullinger, given that Vermigli was sought after by two different monarchs to teach at one of England’s chief institutions of theological education, it is not inappropriate to acknowledge his influence on Anglican thought by citing him here. ↑