A26924:491
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Chapter 36: Point XXXIII. Of the Excommunication of the three last Canons.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
M. The 139th is [Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the Sacred Synod of this Nation in the Name of Christ, and by the King's Authority assembled, is not the true Church of England by Representation, let him be Excommunicate, and not restored till he repent and publicly revoke this his wicked Error.
M. The 139th is [Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the Sacred Synod of this Nation in the Name of Christ, and by the King's Authority assembled, is not the true Church of England by Representation, let him be Excommunicate, and not restored till he repent and publickly revoke this his wicked Error.
L. What fault can you find with this?
M. 1. No Man can tell what is the Church representative, till they know which is the Church real. And this they tell us not, either as to Matter or Form. 1. Whether the Church real be only the Clergy, or also the Laity? Whether the King and Parliament, Nobles, Gentry and Commons, be all Represented in the Convocation? If yea, by what Law or Power? And may we say that King and Parliament do what these do? What need they then after to confirm their Canons? And they that hold the Church Laws bind in Conscience as such before King and Parliament confirm them, will bring King and Parliament under their Obedience, if not Excommunication. But if they pretend not to represent the King and Laity, they falsely exclude them from being part of the Church. 2. They are utterly disagreed de Forma what the Church of England is: either it hath an Ecclesiastical constitutive Sovereign ⟨p. 124⟩Power, or not. If not, it is not an Ecclesiastic Body Politic. And of late their disputing Doctors, plainly confess that it hath no such specifying Summa Potestas, and so is formally no Political governed Church. The King's Government of it by the Sword, which none deny, they say, is but an Accident of it, and not Essential to the Church. And so in sum, it is but a mere Community, or a voluntary Confederacy of many Churches, that make no unifying Polity. And that is, to be a Church only in a loose and not proper sense, as the Assembly at Nijmegen was a Kingdom. 3. I doubt not but Thousands of Ly-Men, and many Dissenting Ministers, are true Parts of the Church of England; And therefore that the Convocation represented our part, only of that Church. 4. If they be but a Community, they can make no Laws; but only Contracts: Laws are only the Acts and Instruments of Rulers. Therefore we owe no Obedience to them as being no Commands of Rulers, till the Civil Power make them Laws: save as particular Pastors may make them Laws to their several Flocks. 5. If they make them obligatory Church-Laws as the Acts of the Convocation, then it seems the Representative Church governeth the Real; and the Presbyters in Convocation exercise a Legislative Power, which is the highest that Bishops can pretend to. 6. These being left thus in uncertainty in the dark, how comes that Man to deserve Excommunication, or be wickedly erroneous, that herein declareth his dissent.