Two-Kingdom theology radically sets apart the church from the secular realm. At best, R2K might be described as a reaction to today’s overwhelming pagan-ization of the secular. But when treated as command, as R2K is typically, it really stinks of anabaptist separatism, surrendering christian ethics to an encroaching pagan culture. The older view was the church bisected two realities: the militant church sharing an existence with the eternal. And while an unknown number of men were predestined to the eternal realm (saith Augustine and Jerome), the militant existed to help bring this final justification about in the course of the earthly life. The militant church was thus composed of all fleshly “bodies” that apparently confessed faith. These same “bodies” had were not spirits but had true secular articulations with respect to customs, laws, ethnicity, language, and whatever else accompanied physical or temporal life. And, so, Christ incarnation was given to fully reveal and fulfill (not abolish) such concrete relations—be it those belonging to gender, family, nationality, et al.
Anabaptism demanded a radical rejection of the militant church, basically wishing the earthly kingdom to be identical to the heavenly one. Naturally, anabaptism wished kings and secular governments to be utterly severed from the church. Likewise, Rome elevated the Papal office to divine ordinance, and so a similar overthrow of secular or ‘earthly’ authority transpired. In both systems the church, or organs of such (be it the congregation or the papacy) were radically equated to the heavenly and perfected spirit. Thus, neither system recognizes the rights of kings, nations, married clergy, or whatever else normally found in national and familiar societies. Cranmer describes this displacement of the secular as a violence as it sets the kingdom of Christ unnecessary against the temporal. King Henry VIII’s Christian Institution of Man, 1537, iterates the problem of such pretensions on Rome’s part, saying:
“Notwithstanding, if any bishop, of what estate or dignity soever he be, be he bishop of Rome, or of any other city, province, or diocese, do presume, or take upon him authority or jurisdiction, in causes or matters which appertain unto kings and the civil powers, and their courts, and will maintain or think that he may so do by the authority of Christ and his gospel, although the kings and princes would not permit any suffer him so to do; no doubt that bishop [or church] is not worthy to be called a bishop [or church], but rather a tyrant, and an usurper of other men’s rights” (Formularies, p. 119-120)
Because both the anabaptist congregation and office of Papacy are above the earthly, displacing and overthrowing it, the rights and existence of the temporal are consequently jettisoned for the freedom (or tyranny) of the former. Rather than the two ruling together (as does body and soul), the spiritual commits itself to violence against the secular. This error begins by conceiving the church (or organ thereof) as radically apart and superior to the temporal bodies of men. The older christian view was not greatly distinguishing between ecclesiastical and secular bodies but treating both as members of a single commonwealth with certain spheres of authority. When this common assembly or society is denied between church and state—either through papal claims to dominate the state or by anabaptist cries for a free church—peace between the body and soul no longer exists. Again, Christ did not come to destroy any articulation of the body (or any temporal sphere), but He came to properly rule, order, and sanctify the carnal for the sake of the spiritual. The 1537 catechism continues explaining the correct peace between spiritual and temporal, saying,
“For the kingdom of Christ in his church is a spiritual, and not a carnal kingdom of the world; that is to say, the very kingdom that Christ, by himself or by his apostles and disciples, sought here in this world, was to bring all nations from the carnal kingdom of the prince of darkness unto the light of his spiritual kingdom; and so to reign himself in the hearts of the people by grace, faith, hope, and charity. And therefore, sith Christ did never seek nor exercise any worldly kingdom or dominion in this world, but rather, refusing and fleeing from the same, did leave the said worldly governance of kingdoms, realms, and nations, to be governed by princes and potentates, (in like manner as he did find them,) and commanded also his apostles and disciples to do the sembable, as it was said before” (ibid)
This said “worldly governance of kingdoms, realms, and nations” for early Protestants included the Prince in externals of the church, namely, writing canons, setting forth injunctions, regulating courts, providing of finances, nominating and approving bishops, and calling convocations (see below). In these areas God gave man a certain liberty for order and peace, often set by custom, history, tradition, and, of course, practical wisdom. Yet, the secular couldn’t intrude upon the Keys since these were given to the apostles and therefore the ecclesiastical members of the people. But, unlike Papism and Anabaptism, both ecclesiastical and secular orders belonged and were subsumed to a common body, ruled by Christ through the vicarages of bishops and kings. The 1537 catechism describes these two spheres found within the single community:
“Moreover, the truth is, that God constituted and ordained the authority of Christian kings and princes and offices in the regiment and governance of his people; and committed unto them, as unto the chief heads of their commonwealths, the cure and oversight of all the people which be within their realms and dominions, without any exception. And unto them of right, and by god’s commandment, belongeth, not only to prohibit unlawful violence, to correct offenders by corporal death or other punishment, to conserve moral honesty among their subjects, according to the laws of their realms, to defend justice, and to procure the public weal, and the common peace and tranquility in outward and earthly things; but specially and principally to defend the faith of Christ, to conserve and maintain the true doctrine of Christ, and all such as be true preachers and setters forth thereof, and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and idolatries, which be brought in by heretics and evil preachers, and to punish with corporal pains such as of malice be occasioners of the same; and finally, to oversee and cause that the said priests and bishops do execute their said power, office, and jurisdiction truly, faithfully, and according in all points as it was given and committed unto them by Christ and his apostles: which notwithstanding, we may not think that it doth appertain unto the office of kings and princes to preach and teach, to administer the sacraments, to absolve, to excommunicate, and such other things belonging to the office and administration of bishops and priests” (ibid)
Finally, anabaptism and romanism both overthrow the God-ordained duties of the secular/carnal by the attacking liberty. Anabaptism was notorious for identifying kinds of iconoclastic worship and primitive polity for biblical command (e.g., RPW). Romanism divinization of Tradition and then backed this up with the infallibility of Pope. Both hedge out the range of externals in which the secular authority is pleased to order to the point it ultimately denies the church an area that is made in history, time, and place. Such is a necessary corollary wherever ethnicity, race, and culture are refused as legitimate externals for church order and ceremony, and these not merely ‘circumstance’ but regulated for peace and piety according the good. These are concepts difficult for both Papism and Puritanism because both reject carnal potentates as having any right in matters of law for clergy, discipline, or ritual.
