Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Postscript
Postscript.
§ 1. I Perceive some cannot digest it, that a Christian Soveraign should be the Head, that is, the Forma informans, specifica & unifica of a National Church, and that it is not said to be a National Sacerdotal Head, either Monarchical in one primate or Aristocratical in several Metropolitanes or Diocesanes, as one College & Persona politica; Or as Mr. Hooker, Dr. Beveridge, and the Republicane Politicians, and most fanaticks think, in the Major part of the Body, ruling by their Representatives and chosen Proxies, which is called a Democracy; or mixt of these by natural right.
§ 2. And if any thing with these men were strange, it would seem strange, that the same men that subscribe to or approve the Canons of 1640 for the Divine making or institution of Kings and that fill Pulpits and Books with Invectives against Rebels Fanaticks and the Parliaments Wars, and many Writers of Politicks, for holding that the King is singulis Major & universis Minor, and that the Power of the Head is from the Majority of the Body, and that the Legislative Supremacy is in them radically as in the Majestas Realis derived to the King as the Majestas personalis, should come themselves to build their Church Power on so rotten a foundation; And that the poor Nonconformists long called Rebellious, must now become against such Churchmen the defenders of the Soveraigns Power. But such is the case of this blind, giddy, factious World.
§ 3. According to my usual (despised) method, I will distinguish the Controversie de re, from that de nomine: And I may say.
That de re all men are agreed of all these following things.
1. That Civil Power in genere is of Gods institution: and his Laws made their supreme Law, and his Will and Glory their ultimate end.
2. That as all are thus bound, so Christian Soveraigns are both bound and qualified as from God, and for God, and therefore are sacred persons.
3. That the forcing power of the Sword is only committed to Magistrates; to be exercised FOR and UNDER GOD, and by Christians for & under Jesus Christ; And therefore such Christian Princes are not to be called Civil, as exclusive of Religious or Spiritual work, but as exercising their power pro civibus, for the good of their Kingdoms, even religious.
4. That God is the Author or institutor also of the Sacerdotal Office; and hath specify'd it in his Word: And that the Magistrate or the sacred Ministry, can neither of them put down each other, nor alter any part of either Office which God hath instituted.
5. That it belongeth to the Sacerdotal Office (or Clergy) to be the official Preachers of the Gospel, and to judge by the Power of the Keys, who is fit, or unfit, for Church entrance by Baptism, and for Church Communion, and to Baptize, and administer the Lords Supper, admonish, suspend and excommunicate from their communion, such as deserve it, and to absolve the Penitent.
6. That the Priesthood (or Pastors) have no power to use the Sword, by force, (on Body or Estate, by Stripes or Mulcts) nor yet to force or require the Magistrate to do Execution by the meer Sentence of the Clergy, without trying and judging the Cause himself.
7. The Pastors that the Magistrate chuseth for the care of his Soul, may declare him unfit for Communion if by impenitency in gross scandal he deserve it; but may not disable him from Government, by a publick dishonouring Excommunication; much less send such a reproach abroad in the Land or World.
8. The Bishops, and all the National Clergy are Subjects to the Soveraign, as Physicions and Philosophers &c. are. And he is Governour over them in matters of Religion which belong to the determination of National Laws, as well as in worldly things. The Pastor as the Physicion is judge judicio privato personali how to use his own Art and Work, and when, and on whom: But the King is Judge judicio publico of all that is to be the common Rule: As that Physicions use no Poysonous Drugs, take not too great Fees, what Hospital he shall be over, &c. And so for the Ministry, that they preach not Heresie, or Schism, and Strife, that they neglect not their Work, that they use a fit Translation of the Bible, that they have due Maintenance, Place, &c.
9. The Soveraign is Judge whether his Christian Kingdom shall be divided into Provinces, Diocesses, and of what extent they shall be, or shall have one Primate, or all particular Churches shall be equal; or some Tolerated and Priviledged from the Diocesans.
10. The King may make publick Laws for Family Religion, that all Children be taught to read, and learn Catechisms, and Scripture, and use the Lords day in pious Exercises, and submit to their Teachers, and forbear profane contempt or abuse of Persons or Things.
I think the whole Matter is decided in these ten Particulars.
§ 4. II. Now de nomine the question is what is to be called the FORM, and what but the MATTER of the Church as National. For of a Church as Congregational, or as Diocesan, or a Provincial we have no controversie: No more than of a City or School.
And seeing every Politick Society consisteth of the Pars Imperans and Pars Subdita, all grant that the Pars Imperans as related to the Pars Subdita, is the Specifying or Unifying Form and Head; it is then clear that all the Clergy being but the Pars Subdita under the Government of the summa potestas (whether Kings alone, or King and Parliament, or an Aristocracy) they can be but the Matter of the Church as National, and not the Formal Head: For a Body Politick of one Species can have but one Head of that Species. So that to make a Primate, or two Metropolitans, or a Synod of Diocesans, or a Convocation representing all the Clergy, to be more than the Matter of a Church as National, is to make them the summa potestas or Soveraign, and to depose King and Parliament.
§ 5. Obj. But the Regiment being of two Species, duplicate page duplicate page so is the Policy, Society and Supremacy: Each is Supreme in sua specie.
Ans. 1. So then you would have two National Churches and Soveraigns: If you'll extend the Controversie but to the Name, it may be the better born: But then acknowledge the Equivocation, and give us the definition of each Church, and use not the Name of the Church of England for your own Form only.
2. But a Subject Policy is not the Supreme and denominating Policy: It's private and subordinate as to National. The Physicions, the Soldiers, the Marriners, &c. though they are in hoc fit to over-rule the King and Parliament, are not therefore the Soveraign Power of the National Body Politick.
§ 6. Obj. But theirs are matters of small moment, but the Clergy are Rulers in matters of Salvation.
Ans. Unhappy dividing Rulers they have been here and in most of the Churches. But, 1. I have proved that Kings are Rulers also in matters of Salvation as great as theirs, and over them: 2. Was not Moses, and David, and Solomon, and Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, and Josiah, &c. the Soveraign Rulers of Church and Priests, though an Vzziah might not offer Sacrifice or Incense? 3. The proper Governing power of Bishops is but over their own Flocks, and they may not Rule in other Mens Diocesses, much less over King, Parliament and Kingdom, further than the Soveraign giveth them Political Power.
§ 7. Obj. They may command Kings and Kingdoms in Christs Name to obey God and forbear Sin.
Ans. True; so did every Prophet; so may any one Minister: Yea a Foreigner, a Salvian, a Luther, &c. But this is Gods Government Nunciative, and not Political: And so if the Metropolitans, Diocesans, Convocation or a General Council command as in Christs Name, and prove their Commission as Messengers from him, we will obey Christ in them: But if one Man bring better proof from Scripture that he speaketh from Christ, he is to be obeyed before a Council that proveth no such thing. This sort of Divine Authority lyeth in Evidence (which most Bishops on Earth now have not) of the truth of their Message, and is but Nunciative, and worketh only on voluntary Believers and Consenters.
And if the Controversie de nomine be whether a Christian Kingdom as such may be called A CHURCH what pretence have the deniers? Not à notatione nominis: The Church in the Wilderness is a Scripture Name: And sure the Jews Church was not denominated from the Priests only: Moses is ofter named as its Head than Aaron.
§ 8. Obj. But are not Judges and Bishops a part of the Pars Imperans as well as the Soveraign.
Ans. Only subordinate in their Provinces: They are but as the Kings Hands and Tongue. They are Subjects themselves, and have no Political Power but what he giveth them.
2. If you might so far distinguish of them as Imperant under the King and as Subjects, as to say that Judges and Bishops are as the Wife in the Family that hath a Governing power over Children and Servants▪ that maketh her not the denominating Head of the Family, but a Subject of the highest Rank ▪
§ 9. Qu. What if a Christian Kingdom had no Pastors?
Ans. Then they were but an Embrio, or half Christian, and not materia disposita for a full formation. The Matter and Privation (that is, Dispositio receptiva) are Essential to the Body, though they be not the Form.
10. Qu. But what if under an Infidel King, a Christian Nation be confederate under Bishops.
Ans. They are no Christian Kingdoms, but a Christian Nation, and are many confederate Churches, and may be called One Church equivocally and secundum quid as confederate Kingdoms may be one Kingdom: But they are but materia disposita sine forma as to a National Church properly so called, and as such.
§ 11. Qu. Are those of the Church of England that are not Conformists?
Yes, if they conform to Christianity, and are Subjects of the same King.
§ 12. There is an odd Writer that hath lately published a book to prove that the Act of Toleration freeth not Nonconformists from the guilt of Schism. Doleful is the case of such a Church and Land, where the Learned men after near thirty years silencing, imprisoning, and ruining multitudes, know not to this day what they are, or what they hold, and who it is that they do all this against. How can such wink so hard as not to know that we took it for no Schism to assemble for Gods Worship before the Act of Toleration, while they have done all this against us for so doing? Could they think us so mad as to suffer Jails and Ruine and Scorn (and Death to many,) for known Schism? And if we took it for a duty before, how can we take the Act of Toleration to be it that must justifie us?
But such men Englan… suffers by, that cannot distinguish between Fo…m Divinum and Humanum: We believe that Go…s Command justifieth us in foro Divino, for obeying it: But the Law justifieth us in foro humano: G…ds Law and Judgment will keep us from Hell, a…d at last silence our silencers: But the Kings Laws bring us and keep us out of Jails, and from th… Jaws of them that envy our Liberty and Lives.
§ 13. It's a question considerable, whether England be a Protestant Church or not, if it have a Papist King? To which I say, we must distinguish between a profest Papist and a concealed one. 2. And between a King that hath the total Soveraignty and Legislative Power, and one that hath but part of it, and the Parliament another part. 3. And one whose Laws are for Popery (or his power above Laws used by Commission) and one who ruleth by Protestant Laws. And so
1. A Kingdom under a total Popish Soveraignty, ruling by Popish Laws or Mandates above Law, is no Political Protestant National Church, tho all the Clergy were Protestants: The form that denominateth is Papal: And yet it is not a Papal Church or Kingdom: Because the matter is essential, and its disposition without which non recipitur forma. It is a Christian Church, neither Protestant (save equivocally) nor Papist, but mixt.
But if Bishop Morley and those Conformists that give the total Legislation and Soveraignty to the King alone be not in the right, nor they that make it traiterous to suppose that the Kings Authority speaking by Law, may be set against his Personal Will, Word and Commission, then the Parliament and Laws remaining Protestant, the Kingdom duplicate page duplicate page and Church may ye be so called, though not in the fullest sence. Fo… then the Laws being the Kings publick voice, a…d the effect of a Power above his own alone, … them tho' he be a Papist he Ruleth as a Protes…ant. But it is otherwise if his Commissions (e. …. to the French or Irish to Invade the Land) be …bove Law, and may not be resisted on any pretence whatsoever: So great a stress lieth on this poi…t of Conformity.
§ 14. But I will leave another case to the consideration of others. …f Metropolitans, or Primates, if Diocesans or Convocations, be the summa Potestas, Ecclesiastica, and a Church be truly Societas Politica, or governed; Qu. Then what Religion was the Diocesan Church of Gloucester, while Godfrey Goodman was Bishop? Or the Diocesan Churches of Eli, of Norwich, of Oxford, &c. while Dr. Guning, Dr. Sparrow, Dr. Parker, &c. were Bishops? Or the Church of England and Ireland, while Dr. Laud, Dr. Neale were here the Metropolitans, and Dr. Bromhall Primate of Ireland.
§ 15. As to the Learned Dr. (now Bishop) Stillingfleet, that maketh the Church of England to have no visible Informing Constitutive Head or Soveraign, but to be Governed by meer Consent of men Agreeing in a Convocation representing the whole body, I am sorry I have said heretofore so much against it; as if the Consent of all Writers of Politicks regardable, had not been answer enough, who agree that all Politick bodies are essentiated by the Pars Imperans, or summa Potestas, and the Pars subdita, as the Materia disposita: And I so much honour the National Church of England, as that I shall not yet grant (till it is further deformed) That It is no Political Body, but a meer Confederating Community, lik… a Confederacy of Kingdoms.
But if ever it come to that, you may say, that when the same Land hath many sorts of Confederate Clergies, it hath as many Churches; and which is the best, I think is not known in France, or Spain, or Italy, or here by the Major Vote; nor hath Nature put a Ruling Authority in Major Votes of Lay or Clergy, as born with them, before Contract give it them by Political Constitution.
All's well in Heaven: The Lord fit us for it.
March 30. 1691.
Since the writing of all this I have read Bishop Stillingfleet's excellent Charge to his Clergy; which would give me hope not only of the continuance of the Protestant Reformation here, but also of such a further Reformation as may procure our Concord, or at last move the Law-makers, so far to amend the Act of Uniformity as may procure it; were it not that the deluge of the wickedness in City and Countrey, and the paucity of Men qualified for his described Work, and the Power and Number of the Enemies of it, maketh me fear that it will die as unpracticable singularity.
But I humbly recommend to the Clergy the regard especially of these passages in it. I. Pag. 12. Those that have the smallest Cures are called PASTORS, and Linwood notes that Parochialis Sacerdo… dicitur Pastor, and that not only by way of Allusion, but in respect to the Cure of Souls; but we need not go so far back: What are they admitted to? Is it not ad Curam Animarum?] Ask Dr. Fuller Dean of Lincoln, then, Whether it be Ministerial Truth to publish that Parochus was never called Pastor, till the delira…ion of this and the former Age.]
II. Pag. 25. [I hope th…y are now convinced that the Persecution w…ich they complained lately so much of, was carried on by other Men, and for other design…, than they would then seem to believe.]
I am glad that you are convinced of it. You are mistaken in us; we believed it ever since 1660. But we know that it was Sheldon, Morley, Guning, Hinchman, Sparrow, and many more such that were the great Agents of it, in Court, Convocation, and Parliament. I thank you for disowning it.
III. I rejoice to find it proved, Pag. 37. that The Bishop is judge of the fitness of any Clerk presented to a Benefice,] which as it puts us in some (faint) hopes for the future, so for the time past it tells the Bishops whose the guilt is of the Institution of all the uncapable Clergy.
IV. Pag. 40. He proveth that Visitations should be Parochial.
V. He comfortably purposeth to reduce Confirmation to its true use: And tells Ministers their Duty of Certifying the Receivers fitness.
VI. In a word, I intreat the Reader to compare this Charge, with the Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren, Pierce, and such others, and the Charge against them in Parliament, and observe the difference, and be thankful for so much.
April 3. 1691.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction (1691)