376 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
church as that which they contended about, being Hke to the sove- reignty exercised by and in the nations of the earth : from which he that can show a difference in your papal rule, " erit mihi magnus Apollo." (2.) He tells them that his Father had equally provided a kingdom, — that is, heavenly and eternal, — for all them that believed ; Avhich was the only greatness that they ought to look or inquire after. (3.) That as to their privilege in his kingdom, it should be equal unto them all ; for they " should all sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel:" so ascribing equal power, authority, and dig- nity unto them all; which utterly overthrows the figment of the supremacy of any one of them over the rest, Luke xxii. 30, Matt, xix. 28. x^nd, (4.) Yet farther to prevent any such conceit as that Avhich you suppose them to have had concerning the prelation of any one of them, he tells them that " one was their Master, even Christ, and that all they were brethren," Matt, xxiii, 8 ; so giving them to understand that he had designed them to be perfectly and every way equal among themselves. So ill have you laid the foundation of your plea, as that it guides us to a full determination of the contrary to your pretence, and that given by our Saviour himself, with many reasons persuading his disciples of the equity of it and unto an ac- quiescency in it. And what you add, that he presently appointed one to the pre-eminency you imagine, is altogether inconsistent with what you would conclude from the strife about it; for the appoint- ment you fancy preceded this contention, and had it been real, and to any such purpose, would certainly have prevented it. Thus you do neither prove from the gospel what you pretend unto, namely, that bishops are above ministers, — so well do you plead your cause ! nor what you intend, namely, that the pope is appointed over them all. Only 5^ou wisely add a caution about what a bishop ought to be and do " de jure," and what any one of them may do or be " de facto;" because it is impossible for any man to find the least differ- ence between the domination which our Saviour expressly condemns and that which your poj)e doth exercise, although I know not whether you would think meet to have him divested of that authority on the pretence whereof he so domineers in the world.
Finding yourself destitute of any countenance from the gospel, you proceed to the laws of the land. To what purpose ? — to prove that Christ appointed " one amongst his apostles to preside with plenitude of power over all the rest of them," and consequently over the whole catholic church succeeding him in his care ? Certainly you will find little countenance in our laws to this purpose. But let us hear your own words again. " As for the laws of the land," say you, " it is there most strongly decreed, by the consent and authority of the whole kingdom, not only that bishops are our ministers, but that the king's
CUEIST THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 377
majesty is head of the bishops also in the line of hierarchy, from whose hand they receive both their places and jurisdiction. This was established not only by one, but by several parliament acts, both in the reign of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth." What will hence follow ? — that there is one universal bishop ajopointed to succeed Christ in his care over the church catholic, the thing you attempted to prove in the w'ords immediately foregoing ? Do not the same law^s which assert the order you mention exclude that which you would introduce ? Or would you prove that bishops by the law of this land have a jurisdiction superior unto ministers ? Who ever went about to deny it ? or what will the remembrance of it advance your pre- tensions ? And yet neither is this fairly expressed by you. For as no Protestants assert the king to be in his power and office interposed between Christ and bishops or ministers, as to their ministerial office, which is purely spiritual; so the power of supreme jurisdiction which they ascribe unto him is not, as you falsely insinuate, granted unto him by the laws of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth, but is an inseparable privilege of his imperial crown, exercised by his royal predecessors, and asserted by them against the intrusions and usurpa- tions of the pope of Rome, only declared by those and other laws. But I perceive you have another design in hand. You are entering upon a discourse wherein you compare yourselves not only with Pres- bj'terians and Independents, but prelate Protestants also, in what you ascribe unto kings in ecclesiastical affairs, pi'eferring yourselves before and above them all. What just cause you have so to do, we shall afterward consider. Your confidence in it at first view presents itself unto us. For whereas there was not in the " Animadversions" any occasion of it administered unto you, and yourself confess that yoiir whole discourse about it is beside your purpose, p. 6'6; yet, waiving almost every thing that was incumbent upon you to have in- sisted on, if you would not plainly have appeared " vadimonium deseruisse," and to have given up your " Fiat " as indefensible, you divert into a long harangue about it. The thesis you would by various flourishes give countenance unto is this. That Papists in their deference unto kings, even in ecclesiastical matters, and in their prin- ciples of their obedience unto them, do excel Protestants of all sorts. That this is not to our present purpose, yourself cannot but see and acknowledge. However, your discourse, such as it is, relating to one special head of difference between us, shall be ajmrt considered by itself in our next chapter.