The Magistrate and Religion [Commentary on Browne: Article XXXVII (1)]

Compared to many other commentators on the Articles, Browne takes a special interest in affirming what has traditionally been known as the magisterial cura religionis, or care of religion:

It has been observed in a former Article, that the Jewish state may be considered in some respects as a model republic; and that, notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances and special object of its institution, we may still derive lessons of political wisdom from the ordinances appointed by the All-wise for the government of His own chosen race. Now, in that government, He was pleased to conjoin the spiritual and secular elements, in such a manner that the king was to show a fatherly care for religion, yet not to intrude upon its sacred offices (see 1 Sam. xiii. 8‒14; 2 Chron. xix. 11, &c.); and we may humbly conclude, that what was ordained by heavenly wisdom then, cannot be wholly evil now.^[1]

What is meant by “care for religion,” in so many words, is “the plain duty of sovereigns and constituted authorities to maintain true religion in the land.” On Browne’s account, this duty has existed throughout human history—when Constantine converted, for example, Christians “naturally recognized the duty of Christian princes to protect the faith of the Gospel.” Browne does not specify exactly how a magistrate should maintain the Christian faith, as the details will vary according to time and place. He does, however, make clear that the magistrate’s purview over religion has limits:

Legally and constitutionally, the sovereign or the sovereign’s government can do nothing concerning the state of the Church, her doctrine and discipline, without first consulting the clergy in Convocation, and the laity in Parliament; so that, when we acknowledge the supremacy of the crown, we do not put our consciences under the arbitrary guidance of the sovereign or the ministry.^[2]

Thus, to affirm magisterial care of religion is not to affirm Erastianism, understood in its most extreme sense as “the absolute right of the state to determine religious policy, regardless of the theological orthodoxy of the magistrate.”^[3] It is, rather, to acknowledge the fact that “Scripture condemns ungodly rulers and ungodly nations, as much as ungodly individuals”:

Nations and their rulers can only show their piety to God in a public and national manner, by maintaining true religion and the public service of religion. Moreover, it was prophesied concerning the Christian Church, that “kings should be her nursing fathers and queens her nursing mothers” (Isai. xlix. 23); and it is difficult to know how they can be nurses to the Church, if it be forbidden her to have any connection with them.

In keeping with the affirmation that “godly Princes” should “rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal,” the 1662 Book of Common Prayer contains multiple prayers to this end. For Morning and Evening Prayer, the people are to pray that the monarch would “alway incline to thy [i.e., God’s] will, and walk in thy way.”^[4] As one commentator on the Prayer Book observes, this is done in part because “Christian kings…are fathers of their country, and nursing fathers to the church; who execute justice and defend religion.”^[5] Likewise, in the Litany the people are to beseech God “to keep and strengthen” the monarch “in the true worshipping of thee,”^[6] on the supposition that the monarch “is Christian, and a Defender of the true Faith.”^[7] Such prayers are not confined to the monarch alone, for in the Service of Holy Communion it is prayed that all in government under the monarch’s authority would “truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.”^[8] Parliament, in particular, has a prayer dedicated to it in the Prayers and Thanksgivings, that God

Wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and her Dominions; that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations.^[9]

Such a prayer is appropriate because “it is an evil thing for any members of this Honourable Assembly, to act and speak merely for applause, to move or comply with things, which will make them most grateful, without considering, whether they be pleasing to God, or agreeable to his Laws, whether they will bring honour to the divine Majesty or no.”^[10] As it is for Parliament, so it is for everyone in government.

Now it might be objected that all of the above considerations as to the magisterial care of religion are exclusive to England, a nation in which the Church of England is the established church. In America, there is no established church, Anglican or otherwise. Consequently, the text of this Article is markedly different in its American version, and we are not bound by the English Prayer Book, having a distinctly American Prayer Book of our own. In reply, it should be said that while the text of the American version of the Article is appreciably different from its English counterpart, it does not follow that it presents a different teaching. As a matter of fact, on the subject of magistracy the American version of Article XXXVII is a summary paraphrase of the English version, omitting only references to England and monarchy while leaving the underlying principles of magisterial authority and oversight intact. This is evidenced by the fact that the 1928 Book of Common Prayer not only retains the prayers from the 1662 Prayer Book quoted above—with minor adjustments for the American context, such as referring to the president rather than the king or queen, and Congress rather than Parliament^[11]—but also contains additional prayers that further demonstrate the American commitment to magisterial care of religion. For state legislatures, we are to pray that they “may ordain for our governance only such things as please thee, to the glory of thy Name and the welfare of the people.”^[12] Just as the prayer for Congress “teaches us that only when government is founded upon and directed towards right policies—namely, the glory of God, the good of His Church, and the welfare of the people—can there ensue secure blessings,”^[13] so, too, the prayer for state legislatures “states the same truth…in a more direct and less rhetorical way.”^[14] Moreover, for courts of justice we pray to God that judges would “impartially administer the law in the fear of thee alone.”^[15] These and other such prayers are offered in full awareness that the president, Congress, and all other manner of government officials might not be Christian.^[16] Nevertheless, that they, and all the American people, would be Christian is undoubtedly the aspiration of the Prayer Book, as seen in the Bidding Prayer:

Ye shall pray for the President of these United States, and for the Governor of this State, and for all that are in authority; that all, and every one of them, may serve truly in their several callings to the glory of God, and the edifying and well-governing of the people, remembering the account they shall be called upon to give at the last great day.

…

And ye shall pray for a due supply of persons fitted to serve God in the Ministry and in the State…that whatsoever tends to the advancement of true religion and useful learning may for ever flourish and abound.

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]

Therefore, if the old expression lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”) is true, Anglicans have good reason to support the magisterial care of religion, even if current American jurisprudence (per Everson v. Board of Education)^[18] all but precludes it. The status quo notwithstanding, we may hope that one day conditions for the magisterial cura religionis will be as favorable in America as they once were.

Notes

1. See also Welchman, Articles, 82; Rogers, Articles, 339–40, 342; Baker, Articles, 203–204; and Gibson, Articles, 767–68. ↑
2. See also Waite, Articles, 534, 536; Baker, Articles, 202; Maclear and Williams, Articles, 409–10; and Gibson, Articles, 767. ↑
3. Charles D. Gunnoe, Jr., Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Boston: Brill, 2011), 136. ↑
4. Church of England, The Book of Common Prayer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 14, 25. ↑
5. Thomas Comber, A Companion to the Temple, vol. I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1841), 366. See also Comber, Temple, vol. I, 371–72. ↑
6. Church of England, Book of Common Prayer, 32. ↑
7. Thomas Comber, A Companion to the Temple, vol. II (London: 1676), 105. ↑
8. Church of England, Book of Common Prayer, 245. ↑
9. Church of England, Book of Common Prayer, 41–42. ↑
10. Comber, Temple, vol. II, 388–89. ↑
11. See Protestant Episcopal Church, The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Oxford University Pres, 1928), 17–18, 35, 74. ↑
12. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 35. ↑
13. Massey Hamilton Shepherd, Jr., The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953), 35–36. ↑
14. Shepherd, Jr., American Prayer Book, 36. ↑
15. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 36. ↑
16. See Shepherd, Jr., American Prayer Book, 17, 55–57. ↑
17. Protestant Episcopal Church, Book of Common Prayer, 47–48. ↑
18. For more on Everson v. Board of Education, see Timon Cline, Josh Hammer and Yoram Hazony, “Everson Must Fall,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 48, no. 2 (Summer 2025): 1–58. ↑