Appeal to the Parliament, Evidence · Part 3
3. Position proved.
THey beare the Multitude in hand that they are jure divino, yet they are forced to confesse that their calling is a part of the Kings prerogative.
It is truly affirmed in that supplication Anno 1609. That the Prelats have no warrant, either for the nature of their offices or qualitie of their proceedings from the Lord Iesus, neither was it maintained by any of their faction till they grew weary of houlding in capite, and then they turned their tenure into Soccage quitting themselves of Knights-service. In this plea D. Downam shewed himself more rash than wife to appeare. For he is not onelie cast over the barre by the booke of God, by the Iury of the learned, by the most judicious judges and lawes of the Land: but also by the verdict of his fellow Bishops and his owne confession. So that in scanning of this particular it shall evidently appeare, that their calling is opposite to Gods trueth, to our Soveraigne Lord the King,D. Bridg. Defenc. of Eccl. government. Pag. 319. and 320. B. Whit. Def. in pref. & alibi. they crosse his wholesome lawes, with forreigne jurisdictions, and they are at contradictory opposition amongst themselves.
1. For the first, they oppose the trueth of God in affirming without shame or feare, that their calling is jure divino, when it is nothing lesse, since there is not one jote of all the word of God for it, as hath beene proved) but asmuch against it as against anie one thing, which the cheifest of them cannot choose but confesse, and so in this, they have confessed the truth untill of later times, yea theire Maister peece and many arguments evinceth this, which they take from the continuation of theire calling from 300. yeares after Christ, and not before which as they cannot prove, so the challenge proveth clearly that they are not of God: but opposite to his truth, yea a learned man, and a better B. thō anie now, tells us plainly, that from the year 607. the Church began to be ruled by Bishops which government (saith he) was especially devised and invented by the Monkes. Bale scrip. Brit. Cent. 1. 37. which indeed is true; for till this age, every particular Church was governed by the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the same; witnesse the authors of the Cent. Mag. Cent. 6. 7. Col. 591. & although some before this were titular bishops, yet their superiority the Church would not beare, witnesse our English Synod an. 674. Synod Harford.
2. They are opposite to the King and his Lawes, in affirming their calling to be jure divino, because by his Laws they are said to be a part of his prerogative, from whom all their power intensive and extensive is conveyed tot them (though this cannot warrant them) Witnesse the petition to the Queene, and judicious Beza in his Epist. to Grindoll Bishop of London, which is worthy the reading. But to the point the rescript of Edw. the 6. cited by Sāders runneth on this manner Edward. Dei gratia &c. To Thomas Arch-B. of Cant. &c.De schism. Anglic. lib. 2 pag. 227. Since from the King all power and jurisdiction proceedeth &c. We give thee power within thy Diocesse, to give orders &c. by these presents to endure at our pleasure. So in the first yeare of the said Edward the sixt it is enacted, that they should exercise no jurisdiction in their Diocesse, nor send out writts but in the Kings name, and under the Kings seale, which statute was abrogated in the first yeare of Queene Mary, and reestablished by Qu. Eliz. & in the first of King Iames. So that by the continued transgression of this law, your Honours know that they and their Offices, are all over head and eares in a Proemunire; of which a Bishop in Edward the sixt his time was convicted and submitted himself to the Kings mercy.
3. They are devided amongst themselves in this particular point:Def. of his Sermon. D. Downame not knowing how to shift the matter, pitched at last upon this, that it is jure Apostolico, Refut. p. 92.but not juris divini. M. Francis Mason, in his great book upon this subiect,Lib. 2. c. 7. p. 118. 119 820. &c. 12. ibid. dedicated to the Arch-bishop, and published by authoritie, affirmeth plainly and peremptorily, that they derive their Episcopall authoritie from the Pope. The same doth the supplicants averre to the King p. 9. Whence your Hons. may be pleased to observe, how this establisheth forraigne power,Bilson de Gub. Eccl. cap. 15. Page 402. contrary to that act of Parliament 1. Eliz. 1. Doctor Bilson B. of Winchester affirmeth otherwise, terming it plainly principis-praerogativam, the Kings prerogative. In the maintenance whereof his very heart sqandereth,Page 403. If there be any fault saith he, let it be laid upon the Magistrate, and not upon the Bs. Where we may observe, what a cup of could comfort they afford Kings for maintaining of them.
For further testimonie of truth, we might cite a cloud of learned witnesses both in the divine and humane lawes, as Husse, Luther, Wickliffe, Zwinglius, Latimer, Cranmer, Reformatio legum Eccl. tit. de divin. offic. D. Fulke & Whitaker in their answers to the Papists useing the same arguments for the Hierarchie.
It is the scope of Sr. Ed. Cook in his report de jure Ecc. to prove that the functiō of the L. Bishops & their jurisdiction exercised is from the Kings prerogative, who may & doth grant to Lord Bishops that Ecclesiasticall power, Fol. 1.which they now exercise and also may take it from them at his pleasure. The self same truth both by ancient and later Prelats is avouched: witnes the judgment of the Clergie in the dayes of Hen. 8. expressed in a treatise intituled the institution of a Christian man. This was the judgment of the state in the time of K. Edward 6. and Elizab.Prefac. p. 2. Page 133. To this also giveth witnesse Arch-Bishop Whitgift and B. Hooper, yea D. Downham himself could not deny it, being pressed by that statute of a Parliament held at Carlile 26. Edw. 1. Hence first the untruth of the said Doctors assertion may evidently appeare.Pag. 95. That Episcopall government is perpetually necessarie, not onelyonly for the wel-being, but also for the being of a visible Church. 2. It discovers their derogating from the King: their injurie to his lawes: and their Tyrannie against his subjects in committing men to prison for denying their authoritie to be immediatlie from God.
To conclude; this very Question de jure divino was debated in the Trent. Counsell,Pet. Suavis Histor. Concil. Trident. Lib. 7. Page 687. and 688. where they were like to go together by the eares for it. Lanetius (generall of the Iesuits) held every particular Prelate jure Canonico to be meerely from the Popes authoritie, by which he might remove them at his pleasure, in an other sence then M. Mason.
The Bishop of Paris opposed this as a new devised tricke, and broached by Cajetan for a Cardinalls hatt, which to his shame the Sorbonists oppose, houlding it as true in the Hypothesi, namely, if they be true Officers of Christs Church, they must be jure divino.
To conclude the point, you see (right Honourable) how they would rest on many pillers, but their maine Supporter is the Pope. If to this that hath been said, they answer that the summe of all these things hath been fully answered, we reply, if their imprisoning, persecuting and banishing of the Lords worthies had been of no more force than their answers, their cause had fallen long ago. Further, what answer hath M. Bucer, Bucanus, Parker the Damascen-Altar and others received?
Lastlie, what Honour or rather disgrace have they gained by their answers and replyes, let the works of B. Whitgift, B. Downham, & B. Morton, B. Lindsey, & B. Spotswood speake. To close up all, we desire in all modesty, that they will bring their callings and evidences to the standard of divine truth, and by comparing matter with matter, and reason with reason, let the truth cary it. And so much for proofe of the third Position.