ART. V.-THE BEARING OF ARMS BY CLERGYMEN.

The Constitutions and Canons of the Holy Apostles, &c. New York: 1849. 8vo. pp. 496.

By the uninterrupted legislation of the country, down to the 24th of Feb., 1864, both by the States and by General Congress, the Clergy of all denominations have been exempt from bearing arms.

Under a supposed emergency during the late War, we find the following, (Sec. 17,) in the Militia Bill, approved Feb. 24, 1864:

"That members of Religious Denominations who shall, by oath or affirmation, declare that they are conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms, and who are prohibited from doing so by the Rules, Articles of Faith and practice of said Religious Denominations, shall, when drafted into the Military Service, be considered non-combatants."

The old Law, under which the Clergy were exempt, was that of Feb. 28, 1795. Under this, they were exempt unconditionally, but under the new Law of 1864, two conditions are imposed-1st, that the Cleric drafted be "conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms;" and 2dly, that he be "prohibited from doing so, by the Rules, Articles of Faith and practice" of his Communion.

The former of these conditions of exemption, being purely personal, can be met only by the individual by and for himself, and therefore is not proposed for discussion here; although, at the same time, it is intimately connected with the one in hand; for the question will arise, whether, if it can be established that Clergymen are "prohibited by the Rules, Articles of Faith and practice" of their Denominations, they can be otherwise than "conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms,” in face of those "Rules, Articles of Faith and practices." If a Clergyman's Communion prohibit so and so, is he not to be "conscientious" about heeding the prohibition? If that prohibition be against bearing arms, does not that settle his conscience

(so long as he remains in his present Communion) on the question of arms-bearing? Is there any way of avoiding the dilemma, but to sever his official connection with the body? Further than these incidental remarks, we have nothing to do with the first of the conditions mentioned in the Act, and therefore leave it.

In England, both by Civil and Common Law, Clerics are free from military service :

*

nor any

"And be it enacted, that no peer of this realm Clergyman shall be compelled to serve, personally, or provide a substitute to serve in the Militia." [An Act to explain, amend and reduce into one Act of Parliament, the several laws now in being relating to the raising and training the Militia, within that part of Great Britain called England: 2d Geo. III., ch. 43. Pickering's Statutes, Vol. xxv. p. 118.]

This Act, expiring by its own limitation in seven years, was made perpetual, by 9th Geo. III., ch. 42.

And so by Common Law. One clause of Magna Charta reads:

"We have granted to God, and have, by this present Charter, confirmed for us and our heirs forever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole rights and liberties inviolable."

Lord Coke, commenting on this passage, expressly says, that exemption from military duty was among the "rights and liberties" enjoyed immemorially by the Church of England. Says he :

"It appeareth that this was the ancient Common Law and custom of England, and had a sure foundation, Nemo militans Deo, implicet se negotiis secularibus, ut ei placeat cui se probavit. Ecclesiastical persons have this privilege, that they ought not in person to serve in War." [Inst. Vol. I., cap. i., p. 3.] Bishop Gibson is authority to the same point:-"Rules of Common Law: a Clergyman may not be compelled to serve in the wars in person." [Codex, p. 14.]

Before the Norman Conquest, the Clergy were free from all military service; and after it, there was but one case in which the liability of a Cleric to bear arms could occur. In case the tenure of a feudal tenant was that of military attendance in the wars, then, even in case the tenant were a Clergyman, he

was bound to furnish or sustain the prescribed number of troops for his superior. Says Robertson :

"When the feudal relations were fully established, a Bishop was bound, as a part of his duty towards his suzerain, to lead his contingent to the field in person, and it was only as a matter of special favor that a dispensation from this duty could be obtained. The circumstances of the time, indeed, appeared, in some measure, to excuse the warlike propensities of Bishops, who might think themselves justified in encouraging their flocks, even by their own examples, to resist such determined and pitiless enemies of Christendom as the Saracens, the Northmen, and the Hungarians. Some prelates distinguished themselves by deeds of prowess, as Michael of Ratisbon, who, after losing an ear, and receiving other wounds in a battle with the Hungarians, was left for dead on the field. While he lay in this condition, a Magyar fell on him, with the intention of despatching him, but the Bishop, being strengthened in the Lord,' grappled with his assailant, and, after a long struggle, succeeded in killing him. He then, with great difficulty, made his way to the camp of his own nation, where he was hailed with acclamations, both as a priest and a warrior, and his mutilation was henceforth regarded as an honorable distinction." Vol. II., ch. viii., Ch. His.]

So, also, the same in a note, p. 473 :

"The Saxon Chronicle, and Florence of Worcester, under A. D. 1056, give an account of a warlike Bishop of Hereford, Athelstan, who was slain in battle by the Welsh, with some of his Clergy."

Instances might be multiplied, both of service rendered under feudal compulsion, and also voluntarily. But multiply them as we may, the question of the sense of the Church is not touched thereby, in face both of her express legislation upon the subject, (as we shall see further on,) and of the exercise of severe discipline, (as we shall also see,) to which she felt it her duty, in certain cases, to resort.

In France, the same respect has been shown to the Spiritual Office of the Clergy. In 803, at the Parliament of Worms, in answer to a petition from the people, that their Clergy, who, it seems, had come to be so forced, might not continue to be forced to render military service, the emperor, Charlemagne,, gave them this assurance :

"We do ordain, that no Ecclesiastic shall join the army, except two or three Bishops, chosen by the others, to give the benediction, preach and conciliate with them some chosen Priests *** but these shall carry no arms, neither shall they go to battle, nor shed any blood." [Ham. Ch. His., p. 150.]

This not only not compels, but forbids. Elsewhere we find the same regard to their Spiritual Office.

Even among the heathen, we find traces of this same respect for their priests. We read in Plutarch, (Life of Camillus,) that there was an ancient Law among the Romans, "that their Priests should be exempt from military service, except in case of invasion from the Gauls." This exception, in the case of a Gallic invasion, arose, we know, from their well-founded dread of that fierce people. This exemption from military duty was founded upon two grounds:-1st, the manifest inconsistency between the shedding of blood, and their high spiritual calling, as Ministers of God and Stewards of the mysteries of Christ; and 2dly, the interference, which the discharge of any laborious secular office would have with the duties for which they were especially set aside,—Cleric, Kλnpos, lot, portion, God's portion, chosen for His especial service. Accordingly, we find Ecclesiastics excused from various other secular callings, besides that of bearing arms. Says Gibbon, speaking of a very early period of the Church's life, "the whole body of the Clergy ** was exempted from all service, private or public, all municipal offices, and all personal taxes and contributions."*

But, it was mainly for the first of the above reasons, that the Clergy were not compelled by Civil Law, and as we shall see, were forbidden by Ecclesiastical, to bear arms. Says Riddle [Manual Christian Antiq., p. 299.]:

"The maxim, Ecclesia non sitit sanguinem, was always recognized by the State."

Let us now come more immediately to the question in hand. Are the Clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the United States of America, "prohibited" by her "Rules, Articles of Faith and practice" from bearing arms? For, by the decision of the Provost Marshal General, to whom was referred the question by the Secretary of War, during the late war, whether or not the phrase "religious denominations," in the Act of Congress, included the Episcopal Church in the United

* Vide Hallam's Middle Ages, for the height to which this privilege rose in the 12th century, and the centuries just before and after it.

States, the Clergy of the Church are officially brought within the meaning and scope of the Statute. He says:

"I understand the term, religious denominations, used in Sec. 17 of the Act approved Feb. 24, 1864, to include the Episcopal denomi nation, and to exempt the members of that denomination who shall by oath or affirmation declare that they are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, and who shall establish the fact that they are prohibited from doing so, by the Rules, Articles of Faith and practice of the Episcopal denomination."

Happily the question is practically at rest, and we hope forever, by the cessation of the recent War; still the sense of the Church may be stated all the same as if the question was yet an open one, and as the law which tenders her Ministers only conditional exemption is upon the Statute book, and likely to remain there, it may again be, and how soon we know not, a practical question.

It may be to be regretted that the branch of the Church Universal to which we belong has no express Canon on the point; though the less so, when we reflect that her silence is scarcely less significant than her words would be, since it arises, beyond all doubt, from her belief that express words are not needed in a matter, in which her sense is so strongly shown in indirect and collateral ways, and in which the sense of the Universal Church, whose rules and Canons, where not actually modified or abrogated by her, she recognizes as binding upon. herself, is shown by clear and distinct legislation. So greatly was this want felt, that, at the General Convention of 1862, a Canon was actually provided to meet it, but failed in the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, under an attempt to amend.. And we presume that the want of action by the last General Convention, in the same direction, was the result of its noble conservatism, and thoughtful and commendable caution.

To the law, then, and to the testimony.

I. In the first place, the prohibition to bear arms may be established by the common opinion, notoriously existing, publicly taught, and clearly authorized, of the Church. For this we must turn, (a) to the best Church writers of established reputation and received authority among us, and (b) to her public Liturgical Service.