the Church then the present Church is made up of the same numerical members that it was constituted of in the days of his flesh What change you suppose in the Church the body the same you suppose and assert in the head thereof And as that change excludes those former members from being present members so this excludes the former Head from being the present Head Of old the Head of the Church was the humane nature of Christ delegate under God now that is removed and another person in the same nature is so delegated unto the same office Now this is not an Head under Christ but in distinction from him in the same place wherein he was and so exclusive of him which must needs be Antichrist one pretending to be in his room and place to his exclusion that is one set up against him And thus also what you seek to avoid doth inevitably follow upon your discourse namely that you would have the Church for the preservation of its oneness and sameness to have the same head she had which is not the same unless you will say that the Pope is Christ these are the Principles that you proceed upon First you tell us that the humane nature of Christ delegate under God was the visible Head of the Church Secondly That this nature is now removed from us and ceaseth so to be that is not only to be visible but the visible Head of the Church and is no more so then the present Church is made up of the same individual members as it was in the dayes of his flesh which as you well observe it is not Thirdly That a nature of the same kind in another Person is now delegate under God to the same office of a Visible Head with that power of external Government which Christ had whilest he was that head And is it not plain from hence that you exclude the Lord Christ from being that head of his Church which he was in former dayes and substituting another in his room and place you at once depose him and assign another head unto the Church and that in your attempt to prove that her head must still be the same or she cannot be so Farther the humane nature of Christ was personally united unto the Son of God and if that Head which you now fancy the Church to have be not so united it is not the same Head that that was and so whilest you seek to establish not indeed a sameness in the Head of the Church but a likeness in several Heads of it as to visibility you evidently assert a change in the nature of that Head of the Church which we enquire after In a word Christ and the Pope are not the same and therefore if it be necessary to maintain that the Church hath the same Head that she had to assert that in the room of Christ she hath the Pope you prove that she hath the same head that she had because she hath one that is not the same she had and so qui habet aures audiat 4. You vainly imagine the whole Catholick Church any otherwise visible then with the eyes of faith and understanding It was never so no not when Christ conversed with it in the earth no not if you should suppose only his blessed Mother his twelve Apostles and some few more only to belong unto it For though all the members of it might be seen and that at once by the bodily eyes of men as might also the humane nature of him who was the head of it yet as he was Head of the Church and in that his whole Person wherein he was so and is so he was never visible unto any for no man hath seen God at any time And therefore you substituting an Head in his room who in his whole person is visible seeing he was not so do change the Head of the Church as to its visibility also for one that is in his whole person visible and another that is not so are not alike visible wherein you would principally place the identity of the Church 5. Let us see whether your Logick be any better then your Divinity The best Argument that can be formed out of your discourse is this If the Church hath not an head visibly present with her as she had when Christ in his humane nature was on the earth she is not the same that she was but according to their Principles she hath not an head now so visibly present with her therefore she is not the same according unto them I desire to know how you prove your inference It is built on this supposition that the sameness of the Church depends upon the visibility of its Head and not on the sameness of the Head its self which is a fond conceit and contrary to express Scripture Ephes. 4. 3 4 5 6 7. and not capable of the least countenance from Reason It may be you will say that though your Argument do not conclude that on our supposition the Church is not the same absolutely as it was yet it doth that it is not the same as to visibility Whereunto I answer 1. That there is no necessity that the Church should be alwayes the same as to visibility or alwayes visible in the same manner or alwayes equally visible as to all concernments of it 2. You mistake the whole nature of the visibility of the Church supposing it to consist in its being seen with the bodily eyes of men whereas it is only an affection of its publick profession of the Truth whereunto it s being seen in part or in whole by the eyes of any or all men doth no way belong 3. That the Church as I said before was indeed never absolutely visible in its Head and members He who was the Head of it being never in his whole person visible unto the the eyes of men and he is yet as he was of old visible to the eyes of faith whereby we see him that is invisible So that to be visible to the bodily eyes of men in its head and members was never a property of the Church much less such an one as that thereon its sameness in all Ages should depend 6. You fail also in supposing that the numerical sameness of the Church as a body depends absolutely on the sameness of its members For whilest in succession it hath all things the same that concur unto its Constitution order and existence it may be still the same body corporate though it consist not of the same individual persons or bodies natural As the Kingdom of England is the same Kingdom that it was two hundred years ago though there be not now one person living that then it was made up of For though the matter be the same only specifically yet the form being the same numerically that denominates the body to be so But that I may the better represent unto you the proper genius and design of your Discourse I shall
Principles whereby you attempt the confirmation of that absurd position are of that nature that they exclude the Headship of Christ and inâ—er no less change or alteration in the Church then that which must needs ensue thereon and the substitution of another in his room which destroyes the very essence and being of it Let us now consider what you further reply unto that which was offered in the Animadversions unto the purpose now discoursed of Your ensuing words are And here by the way we may take notice what a fierce English Protestant you are who labour so stoutly to evacuate my argument for Episcopacy and leave none of your own behind you nor acquaint the world with any though you know far better but would make us believe notwith tanding those far better reasons for Prelacy that Christ himself as he is the immediate Head of invisible influence so is he likewise the only and immediate Head of visible direction and government amongst us without the interposition of any Person delegate in his stead to oversee and rule under him in his Church on earth which is against the tenor both of sacred Gospel and St. Pauls Epistles and all Antiquity and the present Ecclesiastical Polity of England and is the Doctrine not of any English Protestant but of the Presbyterian Independent and Quaker How little cause you have to attempt an impeachment of my Protestancy I hope I have in some measure evidenced unto you and shall yet farther make it manifest as you give me occasion so to do In the mean time as I told you before that I would not plead the particular concernment of any party amongst Protestants no more then you do that of any party among your selves so I am sure enough that I have delivered nothing prejudicial unto any of them because I have kept my self unto the defence of their Protestancy wherein they all agree Nor have I given you an answer unto any Argument that tends in the least to the confirmation of such a Prelacy as by any sort of Protestants is admitted but only shewed the emptiness and pernicious Consequences of your Sophism wherewith you plead in pretence for Prelacy indeed for a Papal Supremacy and that on such Principles as are absolutely destructive of that Protestant Prelacy which you would be thought to give countenance unto And your ensuing Discourse wherein you labour to justifie your reflection on me is a pittiful piece of falsehood and Sophistry For first this double Head of the Catholick Church one of influence the other of direction and government which you fancy some Protestants to admit of is a thing that they declare against as injurious to the Lord Christ and that which would render the Church biceps monstrum horrid and deformed It is Christ himself who as by his Spirit he exercises the office of an head by invisible influence so by his Word that of visible direction and rule He is I say the only Head of visible direction to his Church though he be not a visible Head to that purpose which that he should be is to no purpose at all 2. If by the interposition of any person under Christ delegate in his stead you understand any one single Person delegated in his stead to oversee and rule the whole Catholick Church such an one as you now plead for in your Epistle it is intolerable arrogancy to intimate that he is designed either in the Gospel or St. Pauls Epistles or Antiquity whereas you are not able to assign any place or text or word in them directly or by fair Consequence to justifie what you assert And for the present Ecclesiastical policy of the Church of England if you yet know it not let me inform you that the very foundations of it are laid in a direct contrary supposition namely that there is no such single Person delegated under Christ for the Rule of the whole Catholick Church which gives us a new evidence of your Conscientious â—are in what you say and write 3. If you intend that which is not at all to your purpose Persons to rule under Christ in the Church presiding according to his direction and institution in and over the Particular Churches whereunto they do relate governing them in his name by his Authority and according to his Word I desire you to inform me wherein I have said or written or intimated any thing that may give you the least countenance in your affirming that by me it is denied or where it was ever denied by any Protestant whatever Prelatical Presbyterian or Independent neither doth this concession of theirs in the least impeach the sole Soveraign Monarchy of Christ and single Headship over his Church to all ends and purposes A Monarch may be and is the sole supream Governour and Political Head of his Kingdom though he appoint others to execute his Laws by virtue of Authority derived from him in the several Provinces Shires and Parishes of it And Christ is the only head of his Church though he have appointed others to preside and rule in his name in those distributions of his Disciples whereinto they are cast by his appoinment But you proceed Christ in their way is immediatâ— head not only of subministration and influence but of exterior derivation also and government to his Church Ans. He is so the supream and only Head of the Church Catholick in the one way and other though the means of conveying influences of Grace and of exterior Rule be various Then say you is he such an Head to all Belivers or no to all the whole body in general and every individual member thereof in particular if he be so to all you say then no man is to be governed in Affairs of Religion by any other man But why so I pray can no man govern in any sense or place but he must be a supream Head The King is immediate Head unto all his subjects he is King not only to the whole Kingdom but to every individual person in his Kingdom doth it thence follow that they may not be governed by officers subordinate delegated under him to rule them by his Authority according to his Laws or that if they may be so that he is not the only immediate King and supream Head unto them all The Apostle tells us expresly that the Head of every man is Christ 1 Cor. 11. 3. And that an head of Rule as the husband is the head of the wife Ephes. 5. 23. as well as he is an head of influence unto the whole body and every member of it in particular 1 Cor. 12. 12. Col. 2. 19. And it is a senseless thing to imagine that this should in the least impeach his appointment of men to rule under him in his Church according to his Law who are thereupon not heads but in respect of him servants and in respect to the particular Churches wherein they serve him Rulers or guides yea their servants for his sake not Lords
of Episcopacy under a pretence of establishing it and which insteed of asserting them to be Bishops in the Church would have rendred them all Curates to the Pope You would have us believe that Christ hath appointed one Episcopal Monarch in his Church with plenitude of power to represent his own Person which is the Pope and from him all other Bishops to derive their power being substituted by him and unto him unto their work And must not this needs be an acceptable defensative or Plea unto Prelate Protestants which if it be admitted they can be no longer supposed to be made Overseers of their flocks by the Holy Ghost but by the Pope which forfeits their Prelacy and besides asserts his Supremacy which destroyes their Protestancy Upon this occasion you proceed to touch upon somewhat of great importance concerning the Head of the Church wherein you know a great part of the difference between your self and those whom you oppose to consist In your passage you mention the use of true Logick but I fear we shall find that in your Discourse laudatur alget I should have been glad to have found you making what use you were able of that which you commend It would I suppose have directed you to have stated plainly and clearly what is it that you assert and what it is that you oppose and to have given your Arguments Catasceuastical of the one and Anasceuastical of the other but either you know not that way of proceedure or you considered how little advantage unto your end you were like to obtain thereby And therefore you make use only of that part of Logick which teacheth the nature and kinds of Sophisms in particular that of confounding things which ought to be distinguished However your Discourse such as it is shall be examined and that by the rules of that Logick which your self commend You say pag. 51. The Church says I must have a Bishop or otherwise she will not have such a visible Head as she had at first This that you may enervate you tell me that the Church hath still the same Head she had which is Christ who is present with his Church by his Spirit and his Laws and is man God still as much as ever he was and ever the same will be and if I would have any other visible Bishop to be head then it seems I would not have the same head and so would have the same and not the same This is but one part of my answer and that very lamely and imperfectly reported The Reader if he please may see the whole of it Ch. 10. p. 223 c. and therewithall take a specimen of your ingenuity in this Controversie It were very sufficient to render your following exceptions against it useless unto your purpose meerly to repeat what you seek to oppose but because you shall not have any pretence that any thing you have sayd is passed over undiscussed I shall consider what you offer in way of exception to so much of my answer as you are pleased your self to express and as may be supposed thought your self qualified to deal withal Thus then you proceed I cannot in Reason be thought to speak otherwise if we would use true Logick of the Identity of the head then I do of the Identity of the body of the Church This body is not numerically the same for the men of the first age are long ago gone out of the world and another generation come who yet are a body of Christians of the same kind though not numerically the same So do I require that since Jesus Christ as man the head immediate of other believing men is departed hence to the glory of his father that the Church should still have an Head of the same kind as visibly now present as she had in the beginning or else say I she cannot be compleatly the same body or a body of the same kind visible as she was But this she hath not this she is not except she have a visible Bishop as she had in the beginning present with her guiding and ruling under God Christ our Lord is indeed still Man God but his manhood is now separate nor is he visibly present as man which immediately headed his believers under God on whose influence their nature depended His Godhead is still the same in all things not only in its self but in order to his Church also as it was before equally invisible and in the like manner believed but the nature delegate under God and once ruling visibly amongst us by words nnd examples is now utterly withdrawn And if a nature of the same kind be not now delegate with a power of exterior Government as at the first then was then hath not the Church the same head now which she had then qui habet aures andiendi audiat How you have secured your Logick in this Dicourse shall afterwards be considered your Divinity seems at the first view lyable unto just exceptâ—ons For 1. You suppose Christ in his humane nature only to have been the Head of his Church and therefore the absence of that to necessitate the constitution of another Now this supposition is openly false and dangerous to the whole being of Christianity It is the Son of God who is the Head of the Church who as he is man so also is he over all God blessed for ever And as God and man in one person is that Head and ever was since his incarnation and ever will be to the end of the world To deny this is to overthrow the foundation of the Churches faith preservation and consolation it being founded and built on this that he was the Son of the living God Matth. 16. and yet into this supposition alone is your imaginary necessity of the Substitution of another Head in his room resolved 2. You plainly confess that the present Church hath not the same head that the Church had when our Lord Christ conversed with them in the dayes of his flesh That you say was his humane nature delegate under God which being now removed and separate another Person so delegate under God is substituted in his place Which not only deprives the Church of its first Head but also deposeth the humane nature of Christ from that office of headship to his Church which you confess that for a while it enjoyed leaving him nothing but what belongs unto him as God wherein alone you will allow him to be that unto his Church which formerly he was Confessing I say the humane nature of Christ to have been the head of the Church and now denying it so to be you do what lyes in you to depose him from his Office and Throne allowing his humane nature as far as I can perceieve to be of little other use then to be eaten by you in the Mass. 3. You make your intention yet more evident by intimating that the Humane Nature of Christ is now no more Head of
briefly mind you of the principles which you oppose in it and seek to evert by it as also of those which you intend to compass your purpose by Of the first sort are these 1. That the Lord Christ God and Man in one person is and ever continuâ—s to be the only absolute Monarchical Head of his own Church I suppose it needless for me to confirm this Principle by Testimonies of Scripture which it being a matter of pure Revelation is the only way of confirmation that it is capable of That he is the Head of his Church is so frequently averred that every one who hath but read the New Testament will assent unto it upon the bare repetition of the words with the same faith whereby he assents unto the writing its self whatever it be and we shall afterwards see that the notion of an Head is absolutely exclusive of competition in the matter denoted by it An Head properly is singly and absolutely so and therefore the substitution of another head unto the Châ—rch in the room of Christ or with him is perfectly exclusive of him from being so 2. That Christ as God-man in his whole person was never visible to the fleshly eyes of men and whereas as such he was Head of the Church as the Head of the Church he was never absolutely visible His humane nature was seen of old which was but something of him as he was and is the Head of the Church otherwise then by faith no man hath seen him at any time and it changeth the condition of the Church to suppose that now it hath a Head who being a meer man is in his whole person visible so far as a man may be seen 3. That the visibility of the Church consisteth in its publick profession of the Truth and not in its being objected to the bodily eyes of men It is a thing that faith may believe it is a thing that Reason may take notice of consider and comprehend the eyes of the body being of no use in this matter When a Church professeth the Truth it is the ground and pillar of it a City on a hill that is visible though no man see it yea though no man observe or contemplate on any thing about it It s own Profession not other mens observation constitutes it visible Nor is there any thing more required to a Churches visibility but its Profession of the Truth unto which all the outward advantages which it hath or may have of appearing conspicuously or gloriously to the consideration of men are purely accidental which may be separated from it without any prejudice unto its visibility 4. That the sameness of the Church in all Ages doth not depend on its sameness in respect of degrees of visibility That the Church be the same that it was is required that it profess the same Truth it did whereby it becomes absolutely visible but the degrees of this visibility as to conspicuousness and notoriety depending on things accidental unto the being and consequently visibility of Church do no way affect as unto any change Now from hence it follows 1. That the presence or absence of the Humane nature of Christ with or from his Church on earth doth not belong unto the visibility of it so that the absence of it doth no way inferr a necessity of substituting another visible head in his stead Nor was the presence of his humane Nature with his Church any way necessary to the visibility of it his conversation on the earth being wholly for other ends and purposes 2. That the presence or absence of the humane nature of Christ not varying his headship which under both considerations is still the same the supposition of another Head is perfectly destructive of the whole Headship of Christ there being no vacancy possible to be imagined for that supply but by the removal of Christ out of his place For he being the Head of his Church as God and man in his whole person invisible and the visibility of the Church consisting solely in its own profession of the Truth the absence of his humane nature from the earth neither changeth his own Headship nor prejudiceth the Churches visibility so that either the one or the other of them should induce a necessity of the supply of another Head Consider now what it is that you oppose unto these things You tell us â— That Christ was the Head of the Church in his humane nature delegated by and under Gâ—d to that purpâ—se You mean he was so absolutely and as man exclusively to his divine nature This your whole Discourse with the Inferences that you draw from this supposition abundantly manifests If you can make this good you may conclude what you please I know no man that hath any great cause to oppose himself unto you for you have taken away the very foundation of the being and 〈◊〉 of the Church in your supposition 2. You inform us That Christ by his Ascension into heaven ceased to be that Head that he was so that of necessity another must be substituted in his place and room and this we must think to be the Pope He is I confess absent from his Church here on earth as to his bodily appearance amongst us which as it was not necessary as to his Headship so he promised to supply the inconvenience which 〈◊〉 Disciples apprehended would ensue thereupon so that they should have great cause to rejoyce at it as that wherein their great advantage would lye John 16. 7. That this should be by giving us a Pope at Rome in his stead he hath no way intimated And unto those who know what your Pope is and what he hath done in the world you will hardly make it evident that the great advantage which the Lord Christ promised unto his Disciples upon his absence is made good unto them by his Supervisorship 3. You would have the visibility of the Church depend on the visibility of its Head as also its sameness in all ages And no one you are secure who is now visible pretends to be the Head of the Church but the Pope alone and therefore of necessity he it must be But Sir if the Lord Jesus Christ had had no other nature then that wherein he was visible to the eyes of men he could never have been a meet Head for a Church dispersed throughout the whole world nor have been able to discharge the Duty annexed by God unto that office And if so I hope you will not take it amiss if on that supposition I deem your Pope of whom millions of Christians know nothing but by uncertain rumors nor he of then to be very unmeet for the discharge of it And for the visibility of the Church I have before declared wherein it doth consist Upon the whole matter you do not only come short of proving the Indentity and Oneness of the Church to depend upon one visible Bishop as its Monarchical Head but also the