The reformation of the Church of England justified according to the canons of the Council of Nice, and other general councils, and the tradition of the Catholick Church being an answer to a paper reprinted at Oxford, called (The schism of the Church of England) demonstrated in four arguments, formerly proposed to Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson the late bishops of Ely and Chester, by two Catholick disputants, in a celebrated conference upon that point : in which answer the unworthy and false dealings of the papists are shewed, and the charge of schism returned upon them, and the Church of England proved truly Catholick and apostolick in her doctrine and constitution / by Dr. Saywell.

The second Argument.

WHoever adhere, to Schismatical Pastors (as Schis∣matical is understood in our Definition) are Schismaticks. But all English Protestants adhere to Schismatical Pastors, as Schismatical is understood in

our Definition, therefore all English Protestants are Schismaticks.

He goes about to prove that we adhere to Schismatical Pastors, because we derive our Succession from those that Ordained Archbishop Parker, and others, in Opposition to the major Part of the English Bishops, who were then alive, and into the Places of many of them while they were alive, and never Lawfully Deprived. This is the Substance of the second Argument.

In Answer to which, I deny that the Bishops set aside in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, were Lawful Bishops of the Church of England, because they were violently and uncanonically thrust in, or rather they invaded those Bishopricks in Queen Mary's Days. So that the Bishops which Ordained Archbishop Parker and others, and those that held Communion with them, were the only Law∣ful Regular Bishops of the Church of England at that time, they being Regularly constituted in King Ed∣ward's Days, and never legally Deprived. All the other of King Edward's Bishops which complied, except Thirlby and Kitchin, were dead, and so the full Autho∣rity must remain with the rest that survived, and they all but Thirlby did concur in the Ordination of Arch∣bishop Parker, and others, or Communicated with them. Neither was Archbishop Parker, and many others, conse∣crated into other Mens Places while they were alive, for Cardinal Poole the Archbishop of Canterbury, and about nine or ten Bishops more were Dead, and Archbi∣shop Parker, and others, were elected, confirmed, and consecrated into vacant Places in due Order, according to the usage of this Kingdom for many Ages (except in the Form of the Ordinal) in which there was nothing wanting to the Essence and Validity of their Consecra∣tion. So that Archbishop Parker's Authority, and ma∣ny others, is beyond Dispute, also by the tacit consent of the rest, who ought to have opposed it at their Con∣firmation, when they were summon'd to that purpose,

if they had any Legal Exception to make against their being made Bishops, which being not done, and the Consecration proceeding, they are in all Reason and Ju∣stice shut out from any further Opposition, and they ought to be concluded to have given their tacit Consent; which we may the rather believe, because many of them agreed to the Reformations in King H. 8. and King Edw. 6. Days, and seem more now for Political than Ecclesia∣stical Reasons to refuse to comply, because they had made themselves Obnoxious to all Parties already, by their for∣mer Changes and Cruelty. So they thought it better to re∣gain their Credit with the Romanists by their standing out, than to be looked upon as Time-servers, and little regarded by the People. But then this Argument does demonstratively return upon the Author himself, and the Popish Bishops in Queen Mary's Days, as will ap∣pear by the following Catalogue.

Bishops justly Deposed in King Edward's Days, for not obeying the Laws, and their Deposition consented to, and approved by the Bishops, as appears by their Or∣daining others into their Places.

• Bishop Bonner of London.
• Bishop Gardner of Winchester.
• Bishop Day of Chichester.
• Bishop Heath of Worcester.
• Bishop Voysey of Exeter. Some say he resigned.
• Bishop Tunstall of Durham. Who is said to have re∣signed.

Bishops rightly Consecrated, and in actual Possession at King Edward's Death.

Archbishop Cranmer of Canterbury

Consecr. Hen. 8.

Bishop Ridley of London.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Poynet of Winchester.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Goodrick of Ely.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Salscot alias Capon of Salisbury.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Chambers of Peterburgh.

Hen. 8.

Bishop King of Oxford.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Bulkley of Bangor,

Hen. 8.

Bishop Parfew alias Wharton of St. Asaph.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Samson of Lich. and Coventry.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Kitchin of Landaffe.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Bush of Bristol.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Bartow of Bath and Wells.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Ferrar of St. David's.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Scory of Chichester.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Hooper of Worcester and Glocester.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Coverdale of Exeter.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Taylor of Lincoln.

Edw. 6.

Bishop Harley alias Harvey of Hereford.

Edw. 6.

Rochester void.

In the Province of York.

Archbishop Holgate of York

Consecrated. Hen. 8.

Bishop Aldrich of Carlisle.

Hen. 8.

Bishop Bird of Chester.

Hen. 8.

Durham void.

Of these in the Province of Canterbury.

• Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, Poynot, Scory, Coverdale, Taylor, Harvey alias Harley, Bush, Hooper, Ferrar, and Barlow were removed, A. D. 1554 as Dr. Burnet relates: Bishop Goodrick died about that Time, and all the rest that complied, except Bishop Thirlby and Bishop Kitchin, either before or about the Time of Queen Mary's Death. And it does not appear, they were at all Active in turning our their Brethren.

In the Province of York.

• Archbishop Holgate, Bishop Bird, turned out.

In the Province of Canterbury (Rochester being void, and Worcester and Glocester united) there could be but Twenty in all, and we find here Eleven, i. e. the Archbishop, and Major Part of the Bishops unjustly and uncanonically turned out.

In the Province of York, Durham was void, so Arch∣bishop Holgate, and Bishop Bird were the Major Part, unjustly turned out.

Now let me take up our Author's Argument. Who∣soever possess the Sees and Offices of Lawful Bishops (those Lawful Bishops yet living) or unite themselves to such as possess them, are such Schismatical Pastors.

This is our Author's Major Proposition; to which I add this Minor. But the Popish Bishops that were set aside in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, did possess the Places of Lawful Bishops yet living, or united themselves to such as did possess them, therefore they were Schisma∣tical, and no Lawful Bishops of the Church of England: For as soon as these Lawful Bishops were turned out, others were put into their Places, and not only so, but contrary to all Rule and ordorly Government in the Church. For, the most certain Fundamental Constitu∣tion of the Church in all Ages; and the constant Order of all Societies (which is always tacitly supposed, tho' not formally observed) is, that while particular Chur∣ches keep to the Faith and Unity of the Catholick Church, as ours had done, all things ought to be mana∣ged by the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province, and so by the Chief Governors and main Body of the Society, or else things cannot be Regularly done; but here the Archbishop and the Major Part of the Bishops are set aside, and others put into their Places while they were yet alive, and Dr. Burnet adds that of the in∣feriour Clergy, who were Sixteen Thousand, Twelve Thousand were likewise turned out, so there could be nothing Regularly done by the Convocation, either in

the Upper or Lower House. And further, they were not content with the present Possession, but secretly said in their Minds, These are the Heirs come let us kill them, and their Inheritance shall be ours; there∣fore, after they had bereaved them of their Bishopricks and their Livings, they quickly took away many of their Lives. And are not all these Men Schismaticks with a Witness, and all those that were Ordained by them in∣to other Mens Places and Government? It matters not to our business to pursue all the Successions and Chan∣ges in Queen Mary's Days, I will rather proceed to consider the State of the Bishopricks after Queen Mary's Death, when Queen Elizabeth restored the Church to that Regular Constitution which was settled before, by the undoubted Lawful Archbishops and Bishops in King Edward's Days.

Bishopricks void by Death.

• Archbishop Poole of Canterbury.
• Bishop King of Oxford.
• Bishop Capon of Salisbury.
• Bishop Parfew of Hereford.
• Bishop Holyman of Bristol.
• Bishop Glin of Bangor.
• Bishop Brookes of Glocester.
• Bishop 〈◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊〉
• Norwich void.
• Rochester void.

Bishops in Possession of the other Bishopricks but uncanoni∣cally for the Reasons above named.

• Bishop Bonner of London.
• Bishop Thirlby of Ely.
• Bishop White of Winchester.
• Bishop Watson of Lincoln.
• Bishop Pool of Peterburgh.
• ...

• Bishop Bourne of Bath and Wells.
• Bishop Turbervill of Exeter.
• Bishop Bayne of Lichfield and Coventry.
• Bishop Christophorson of Chichester.
• Bishop Pates of Wonchester.
• Bishop Goldwell of St. Asaph.
• Bishop Kitchin of Landaffe. Who conformed.

In the Province of York.

• Archbishop Heath of York.
• Bishop Tunstall of Durham.
• Bishop Scot of Chester.
• Bishop Oglethorp of Carlisle.

'Tis confessed that 14 or 15 were turned out or went away in Queen Elizabeth's Days, but according to our Author's own Argument, they were Schismaticks and no Lawful Bishops, because they came into the Places of Lawful Bishops while they were alive, or else were or∣dained by and communicated with such Schismaticks. I add, they usurped their Places by turning out the Me∣tropolitans and Major Part of the Bishops of each Pro∣vince, and so could have no Lawful Authority or Juris∣diction. Queen Elizabeth therefore set them aside, and so removed this Violence and Usurpation. And being willing to restore all things as they were settled in King Edward's Reign, she calls back the Bishops that were still alive, which were only Five in number. Bishop Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, Kitchin, and Thirlby. And all but Thirlby concurred in settling the Reformation; so we had still the Major Part of the Lawful Bishops to renew the Succession, and they did Ordain Archbishop Parker and others, and it has been Regularly continued ever since. Thus the Authority of our present Bishops as to Order and Jurisdiction is beyond dispute.

One Objection was insisted upon by Queen Mary and others, to justify the Deprivation of the Protestant Bi∣shops,

and others of the Clergy, because some of them were married Men, and perhaps they married after Or∣ders, which was threatned with Deposition by many an∣cient Canons.

To which I Answer, that living in a Married Estate is not by Divine Authority inconsistent with the Exercise of the Priesthood, but was always allowed in the Church, and ever practised in the Greek Church till this Day, and has been oftentimes dispensed withal in the Roman Church for secular Ends. So that the allowing Marriage before or after Orders, is a Circumstance that depends upon the Discretion of the Church; and if for some Reasons Clergy-men were heretofore prohibited to marry after Orders, yet in this long Interval of General Councils, upon the great Experience of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences that came by forbidding it, particu∣lar Churches may dispense with that Rigour; accor∣dingly this Provincial and National Church, and the Law of the Land, which had much better Authority than the Pope, had left every body to their Liberty to marry or not to marry, as they saw good, and so they that did marry offended against no Law of God and Man, and therefore were unjustly Deposed from their Bishopricks upon that Account.

But then our Author says, that they in Queen Ma∣ry's Days were Lawful Bishops, and he proves it from the Confession of Protestants, who grant that the Church of Rome, and all those of her Communion are true Churches of Christ.

Now as to the first Part of the Argument, I Answer, In time of great Schism and tumultuous Proceedings, there may be so far the Remains of a true Church, that many Pious Christians, who are not at all, or else igno∣rantly ingaged in the Schism, may be saved; but we have no Reason to say that the Popish Bishops in Queen Mary's Days were Lawful Bishops, or the governing

Part were then the National Church of England; the true Right and Authority of the Church was in those Lawful Bishops that were made in King Edward's Days, and that was the true Church of England which did adhere to them and their Constitutions.

But then the Author does Object, that Protestants do grant that the Church of Rome and all those of her Com∣munion, are true Churches of Christ.

Never was People's Charity more abused than ours of the Church of England has been in this kind, to justify the Errors and Schism of the Church of Rome, and all upon a mere and generally wilful Mistake. In short therefore 'tis true, and we do acknowledge, that the Substance of the Christian Religion is professed by the Church of Rome, tho' mingled with Errors. And so ma∣ny that honestly and sincerely serve God in her Commu∣nion, may be saved; but yet many may be damned for too pertinaciously maintaining and propagating the Er∣rors of the Church of Rome, especially those that desert and refuse Obedience to the Bishops of the Church of England, setting up Altar against Altar, and so keeping up a Schism amongst us, where they have such plentiful Means of being better informed, and all the Opportuni∣ties of serving God, according to the highest Perfection of the Apostolick and Primitive Church.

Come we now to the second Part of the Argument; where the Author goes to prove, that the Popish Bi∣shops did nothing whereby they became unlawful Bi∣shops, for if they did, it ought to be supposed it was that, for which they were deprived, and then he says, all the Reasons for which they were deprived, were re∣sisting the pretended Reformation, and refusing the Oath of Supremacy; and that was but proceeding in Practice ac∣cording to the common Tenets, the holding whereof made them not unlawful Bishops. Again, whilst they were lawful Bishops in Queen Mary's Days, they held

it a common necessary Point of Religion to resist the Re∣formation, and refuse the Oath of Supremacy.

In answer to all which I say, That according to the Author's own Argument, they were no lawful Bishops, because they either did Schismatically invade the Places of the lawful Bishops, or else were willingly Consecrated, and did joyn in Communion with those Schismatical Bi∣shops. When the Queen therefore did set them aside, she did but dispossess Men who had no just Right, and remove those by her Civil Authority, who had no Pow∣er, but what they had from Force and the secular Consti∣tution.

But perhaps it may be objected, that though their Ti∣tle were at first defective, and they did Schismatically usurp those Bishopricks, yet when their Predecessors were dead, that Defect might be overlook'd, and by the Reception of the Kingdom, their Title might be made good, and they very well confirmed in their Possession. It would have, I confess, been happy, if there had been such a Catholick Disposition in those Bishops, that they would have willingly repented and forsaken their former Errors, that so the Kingdom might have confirmed their Authority by the Universal Reception. But there were many Reasons why they did refuse, and could not own and receive them as lawful Catholick Bishops.

• 1. Many of them had been guilty of shedding much Innocent Blood, and the rest had been consecrated and joyned in Communion with them, and so in some mea∣sure were Partakers of their Guilt; and it was not fit such polluted Hands, should be permitted to Minister at God's Holy Altar. For though there was a Law brought in by the Corruption of later Times, whereby Hereticks might be put to Death, yet it was a great Abuse of that Law, to condemn their Spiritual Fathers and better Ca∣tholicks than themselves, for Hereticks: It being con∣trary to the Divine and Canon Law, that such Men should

• be allowed to exercise the Episcopal Function, the King∣dom had great Reason to set them aside.
• 2. It is a known Doctrine in the Canon Law and Roman Schools, and a frequent Practice of Roman Catholicks to depose Princes and absolve their Subjects from their Al∣legiance, and endeavour to exterminate those they call Hereticks, under which Pretence many Princes have been destroyed, many Rebellions and Tumults have been fo∣mented, much Innocent Blood has been spilt, and Chri∣stendom has been a miserable Theatre of War and Confu∣sion. These Bishops therefore who formerly had con∣sented to most Parts of the Reformation, now growing such Zealots all of a sudden, and refusing to Crown the Queen, and to give the Kingdom Security of their peace∣able Conformity to the Government, by taking the Oath which they had formerly taken, and had nothing to ex∣cept against, gave just Reason to suspect they were guilty of the Heretical Doctrine of deposing Princes, and stirring up Rebellion, to exterminate the Nobility and Gentry that would not Comply with them. And these are suf∣ficient Reasons, why they could not allow them to have Care of the People's Souls, which might have been to the utter Destruction of the Queen and Kingdom. For 'tis notorious there were many Attempts made, and by some of them to that purpose, and the Pope some Years after did actually Excommunicate and Depose the Queen, and charge all Men under an Anathema to withdraw from her Obedience and Communion, and that was the Foun∣dation of the present Schism of English Papists, and many Rebellions and Treasons amongst us.
• 3. If there had been none of these Exceptions against the Persons of these Bishops, yet the Publick Service which they did impose, will justify all Men before God and the Catholick Church, for not joyning in Commu∣nion with them. Because
  • 1. All People were in common Account obliged to

• ...
  • Worship that which is in the Priest's Hand, and in the Pix, with Divine Honour, as God himself, when we have Reason, Scripture, and the Authority of Catholick Tradition to perswade us to believe it to be Bread and Wine, and therefore they could not Worship it without the guilt of Idolatry, while they were of that mind. For though it be the general Belief of most Christians Ancient and Modern, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper, yet there is no Reason to believe the Body of Christ is in the Hand of the Priest, or in the Pix; for our Saviour says only take eat this my Bo∣dy, and many Churches and Divines say 'tis the Body of Christ vescentibus & sumentibus. But none but the Church of Rome does teach it is upon the Altar, and in the Hand of the Priest, and that what is there is to be adored.
  • 2. Our Saviour says, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood ye have no life in you. And the Church of God did partake of the Holy Communion in both Kinds for above twelve hundred Years together, and all other Churches, but the Roman, do receive it in both Kinds at this time. The Niceties therefore of the Council of Trent, and the Roman Schools cannot justify our Disobedience to the Command of Christ, and the constant Tradition of the Catholick Church.
  • ...

    3. They would allow no other Publick Service but in Latin, which People generally did not, nor never were likely to understand. Contrary to the plain Word of God, 1 Cor. 14.

    These were sufficient Reasons to omit many others, why the Queen and Kingdom should refuse to receive and to confirm those Popish Bishops; and consequently the Schism that was made was wholly at their Door. And the Protestants in joyning with the Reformed Bishops,

• ...
  • ...

    did nothing but that they had warrant to do from the Word of God, and the Catholick Church, and all other Churches ought to endeavour in a Christian and Peace∣able manner, to reform these and other Abuses as we have done.

Notes

• Compare our English Form with the an∣cient Forms in Morinus de Ordinationi∣bus, and you will find no∣thing want∣ing that is essential.
• See the Pro∣tector's Let∣ter to Bishop Gardner quo∣ted below.
• Burn. Hist. part. 2. pag. 276.
• Vid. Pet. de Marca. de Concord. Sa∣cerdotii & Imper. lib. 8. & alibi. Jo. Launoi. Ep. Hen. Gondrino sen. Arch. T. 8. Out of Archbishop Parker.
• Exod. 21. 14.
• 1 Chron. 22. 8.
• Dist. 50. c. 8. si∣quis viduam, &c. decret. lib. 5. de ho∣micid. Volun∣tar.
• 15. Q. 6. c. 3, 4. 5. Decret. lib. 5. de Hae∣ret. c. 13. sext. Decret. lib. 2. Tit. 14. c. 2. ad Apostolicam Tit. Papa Im∣peratorem de∣ponere porest. Thomas. 2. 2dae q. 12. Art. 2.
• See Acts & Mon. vol. 2. p. 337. &c. Tortur. Tort. p. 150. nihil ab iit quesitum ut facerent quam quid his jam anto fece∣rant sub. Hen. scit. 8. & Ed. 6. Heathus, Bonnerus. Tonstallus, Thurlbeius tum Episcopl; Baynus, Bur∣nus, reliqui, nondum Epis∣copi—aliis quoque ut prae∣starent Autho∣res fuere etiam idorum quidam libris scriptis defenderent quid hic ini∣qui si de eodem iterum com∣pellentur.
• Vid. Bull Pii 5. apud Cambd. p. 179. Tortur.Tort. p. 148. audet Apolo∣gia Author as∣serere nemi∣nem [Pontifi¦ciorum] Reli∣gionis causa in judicium vocasse [Regi∣nam scil.] ne∣minem ad sup∣plicium con∣demnasse quamdiu scili cet rem reli∣gionisagerent, nec cum reli∣gione Rebellio∣nis semina permiscerent, neque prius∣quam Pius Pa∣pa per Bullas suas hic in An∣gliam, per copias vero & cohortes suas ibi etiam in Hiberniam impetum & impressionem fecisset. hic plumbo ibi fer∣ro, in Anglia clavibus in Hibernia gla∣diis rem gessis∣set. Conf. Aug. c. 10. Chem. exam. Ger. de coena Dom. Cal. l. 4. instit. c. 17. §. 19. John 6. 53. Card. Bona Rer. Lit. l. 2. c. 18. semper & ubi{que} ab Ecclesiae pri∣mordiis usque adseculum XII subspeciepanis & vini, &c.