A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

Secondly, You pleasantly lead about your unwary Reader with the ambiguity of the other term, the Head. Hence p. 58. you fall into a great exclamation against Protestants, that acknowledging the King to be the Head of the Church, they do not supplicate unto him, and acquiesce in his judgement in Religious affairs, as if ever any Protestant acknowledged any King or any mortal man to be such an Head of the Church as you fancy to your selves, in whose determinations in Religion all men are bound spiritually and as to their eternal concernments to acquiesce; and that not because they are true according to the Scripture, but because they are his. Such an Head you make the Pope; such an one on earth all Protestants deny, which evacuates your whole Discourse to that purpose, p. 58, 59. It is true in opposition unto your Papal claim of Authority and Jurisdiction over the subjects of this Kingdom, Protestants do assert the King to be so Head of the Church within his own Realms and Dominions, as that he is by Gods appointment the sole fountain and spring amongst men of all Authority and Power to be exercised over the Persons of his subjects in matters of external cognizance and order; being no way obnoxious to the direction, supervisorship and superintendency of any other, in particular not of the Pope. He is not only the only striker as you phrase it, in his Kingdoms, but the only Protector under God of all his subjects, and the only Distributor of Justice in rewards and punishments unto them, not depending in the administration of the one or other on the determinations or orders of your Pope or Church. Not that any of them do use absolutely ⟨p. 404⟩that expression of Head of the Church, but that they ascribe unto him, all Authority that ought or can be exercised in his Dominions over any of his Subjects whither in things Civil or Ecclesiastical, that are not merely Spiritual, and to be ministerially ordered in obedience unto Christ Jesus: And that you may the better see what it is that Protestants ascribe unto the King, and to every King that is Absolutely supreme, as his Majesty is, in his own Dominions, and withal, how exceeding vain your unreasonable reproach is, which you cast upon them for not giving themselves up unto an absolute acquiescence in humane determinations as merely such, on pretence that they proceed from the Head of the Church;

Secondly, You pleasantly lead about your unwary Reader with the ambiguity of the other term, the Head. Hence p. 58. you fall into a great exclamation against Protestants, that acknowledging the King to be the Head of the Church, they do not supplicate unto him, and acquiesce in his judgement in Religious affairs, as if ever any Protestant acknowledged any King or any mortal man to be such an Head of the Church as you fancy to your selves, in whose determinations in Religion all men are bound spiritually and as to their eternal concernments to acquiesce; and that not because they are true according to the Scripture, but because they are his. Such an Head you make the Pope; such an one on earth all Procestants deny, which evacuates your whole Discourse to that purpose, p. 58, 59. It is true in opposition unto your Papal claim of Authority and Jurisdiction over the subjects of this Kingdom, Protestants do assert the King to be so Head of the Church within his own Realms and Dommions, as that he is by Gods appointment the sole fountain and spring amongst men of all Authority and Power to be exercised over the Persons of his subjects in matters of external cognizance and order; being no way obnoxious to the direction, supervisorship and superintendency of any other, in particular not of the Pope. He is not only the only striker as you phrase it, in his Kingdoms, but the only Protector under God of all his subjects, and the only Distributor of Justice in rewards and punishments unto them, not depending in the administration of the one or other on the determinations or orders of your Pope or Church. Not that any of them do use absolutely