SGG A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX,
delegated unto the same office. Now, this is not a 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 saine 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 human 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 than the present church is made up of the same individual members as it was in the days of his flesh, which, as you well obseive, it is not. Thirdly, " That a nature of the same kind in another per- son is now delegate under God to the same office of a visible head, with that power of external government which Christ had Avhilst 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 days? 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 human nature of Christ was per- sonally 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, whilst 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 asserj: a change in the nature of that head of the cliurch which we inquire 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 catholic church any otherwise vi.sible than 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 suj)pose only his blessed mother, his twelve apostles, and some few more, only to belong unto it. For though all the membei's of it might be seen, and that at once, by the bodily eyes of men, as might also the human 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
cnrasT the head of the church. 367
time." And therefore you, substituting a Lead 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 per- son 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 logic be any better than your divinity. The best argument that can be formed out of your discourse is this: '•' If the church hath not a head visibly present with her, as she had^when Christ, in his human nature, was on the earth, she is not the same that she was : but according to their principles she hath not a head now so visibly present with her; therefore she is not the same, accord- ing unto them." I desire to know how you prove your inference. It is built on this supposition, — that the sameness of the church de- pends upon the visibility of its head, and not on the sameness of the head itself; which is a fond conceit, and contrary to express Scrip- ture, Eph. iv. 3-7, 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 abso- lutely 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 always the same as to visibility, or always visible in the same manner, or always equally visible as to all concernments of it. (2.) You mistake the whole nature of the visibility of the church, sup- posing it to consist in its being seen with the bodily eyes of men; whereas it is only an affection of its public profession of the truth, whereunto its being seen in part or in whole by the eyes of any or all men doth no vv^ay 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 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 pro- perty of the church, much less such a one as that thereon its same- ness 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 whilst 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 con- sist not of the same individual persons or bodies natural, — as the kingdom of England is the same kingdom that it was two hun- dred years ago, though there be not now one person living that then it w^as made up of : for though the matter be the same only specifically, yet the form being the same numerically, that deno- minates the body to be so. But that I may the better represent