THE Account we have re­ceived here of Dr. B—'s Refusal of the Bishoprick of Bath and Wells, hath occasioned great Talk, and different Censures, as men are divided in their Interests and Opinions. I know not what to think of it, because I know not the Reasons for which he did it; [Page 2] but it is an unhappy amusement at such a time as this, to which a Wise Man, who had well considered Consequences, would not have given the occasion. I hope it may end all in noise, without any mischievous Effects; but consider­ing how many there are, who are very watchful to improve every Accident to the Disturbance of the Government, and to unsettle mens minds, I cannot for­bear giving you my Thoughts about it; tho my tender regard for the Person concerned, would have made me silent at any other time.

I can easily apprehend several Reasons which might move Wise and Good men, where there are no greater and more pres­sing Obligations to the contrary, rather to chuse an Ecclesiastical Preferment void by Death or Cession, than by Deprivation; but our present Circum­stances [Page 3] are such, as ought to over-rule all Niceties; the mischiefs of such a Re­fusal being so intolerable, as nothing can excuse, much less justifie it, but the absolute unlawfulness of succeeding in such Preferments, while the Deprived Bishop lives; which would be very odd for them to pretend, who have submit­ted to the present Government. To sa­tisfie you in this matter, I shall briefly consider the first sort of Reasons, and shew that they are no Reasons in our Circumstances; and then examine the Lawfulness of the thing it self.

As for the first, It may so happen, that the person Deprived, and the per­son to be Promoted, have been old and intimate Friends; and this may grate hard upon the person to be Promoted, to succed in the Chair of one whom he loves, whose Misfortune he pities; [Page 4] whom he greatly values for his other many good Qualities: Now if to refuse such a Preferment, would keep my Friend possessed of it, there were some sense in this; but I know no other case, wherein tis thought a Breach of Friendship to succeed a Friend in a Pre­ferment which he has lost, and which the Law says is not, and shall not be his; when there is no suspicion of foul play in supplanting him, any more than to succeed a dead Friend: Friendship is so far from being any Reason against it, that it should make it desirable to both; to one, That his Friend may get what he has lost; to the other, That he may have opportunity, if there be oc­casion for it, to make his Friend's Mis­fortune more easie, than a Stranger would do.

[Page 5] And if Friendship be no Objection, What should hinder any Man from taking a Preferment, which another is legally deprived of? for I must take the Legality of it for granted now and argue upon that Supposition. We must not take away what is another's; but surely what is not his, we may accept from those who have Power to give it. If one may give, the other may re­ceive; for let the Objection be what it will, it lies as much against the Giver as the Receiver. They who have lost it, want it; And what then? so do a great many Men want what is not theirs, what they never had, as well as what they have lost: And must no Man take a Preferment in Church or State, which another wants? Must the good Order and Government [Page 6] of Church and State be sacrificed to the Wants and Misfortunes of private Men?

But there is a more material Consi­deration, which may influence pru­dent and cautious Men, who are well preferred already. The Experience of the Revolution in 1660 hath taught them, how dangerous it may be in case such a Revolution should happen, to change their old Preferments for new Ones, which may be challenged again by their old Proprietors. But in our Case there is the least to be said for this Caution, that can possibly be in any Revolution: for it is as vain a thing to hope to secure our selves in such a Revolution, by Prudence and Caution, as it is for a Man to fortify [Page 7] his House against the breaking in of the Sea: If he take care of the Banks, and keep out the Sea, his House will escape; but if the Sea break in upon him, he must perish with his Neighbours. If there ever be such a Revolution as can unset­tle what this hath done, God be mer­ciful to this miserable Nation; the prudent and the cautious Sinner, and the zealous Defenders of the present Government, will fare much alike: Nay, however they may flatter them­selves, the deprived Bishops will not long triumph over their new Succes­sors.

Thus in some Cases it may be a good Reason not to do a very law­ful and innocent thing, if it be great­ly mistaken and misrepresented, and [Page 8] give a general Offence and Scandal: But when it appears, that there is no­thing but Mistake and Passion, and private Interest, or ill Designs on one Side; and a real Scandal, and great and publick Mischief on the Other, no wise Man will deliberate long which Side to take: None but the Enemies of the Government can take offence at any Man's succeeding the deprived Bishops; and I think those who have submitted to the Go­vernment, and sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties, ought not to be concerned at that: They have offended these Men already, and are no better in their Opinion than Per­jured Rebels; and all that they can now gain by humouring them, is to be flattered, and to be laugh'd at. They [Page 9] may for a while give them some good words, as our Dissenters did those honest Men, who, as they thought, conformed against their Consciences; but they will either secretly abhor them as Knaves; for swearing against their Consciences, or despise them as Fools for refusing Bishopricks. And this is no very good Reason for a wise Man to court their Favour.

But on the other hand, what an unpardonable Scandal does such a Re­fusal give, both to the Enemies, and to the Friends of the Government, and to the Government it self?

Whatever may be pretended, the World will not believe that Doctor B— refused a Bishoprick, but either out of Fear or Conscience: The [Page 10] first calls in question the Stability or Continuance of the present Govern­ment; the second the Authority of it. Now this confirms the Enemies of the Government in their opinion of the unlawfulness to submit to it, and encourages them to attempt its over­throw; it weakens the hands of Friends, and makes them cautious of embarking in a sinking Interest, and fills them with new Jealousies of the lawfulness of it; and what just of­fence this must give to the Govern­ment, I need not say.

The truth is, were I not better per­swaded of the good Inclinations of their Majesties to the Church of Eng­land, and the general Inclination of the Nation to support the Govern­ment, [Page 11] I should dread what might be the fatal Consequence of such a mis­carriage as this both to Church and State.

There are always too many, who are glad of such an opportunity to reproach the Church, and to possess their Majesties with an ill Opinion of the Clergy, notwithstanding their Oaths of Allegiance; and I confess this gives too great an Advantage to such Misrepresentations, were not the Zeal and good Affection of wi­ser Men too well known, to be su­spected; and then I hope a single In­stance of Folly can do no great hurt; for that is the softest Name I can give it, on which side soever I view it.

This plainly proves, that supposing [Page 12] it lawful to have taken the Bishoprick, no other Consideration whatsoever can justify the refusal in our Circumstan­ces; and I know not how to suppose that Dr. B— could think it un­lawful.

He submitted to the Government, and took the Oath of Allegiance as early as any Man; and never, that I heard, had the least scruple about it; and yet this was the time to have been Scrupulous, if He would have been so; for it seems a little of the latest, when He is become a sworn Subject to King William and Queen Mary, to question their Authority to make a Bishop. And if the former Bishops were Deprived, and New Bishops made, by such an Authority as he can swear Allegiance to, I cannot un­derstand, [Page 13] that it can be unlawful to accept a Bishoprick from the hands of those whom he owns, by his swearing Allegiance to them, to have Autho­rity to give it; for this is an Authori­ty which belongs to the Imperial Crown of England.

Besides this, Dr. B— was one of those, who by Commission from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, hath exercised Archi-Episcopal Authority, during the Vacancy of the See, by the deprivation of the A. B. as it is expres­sed in the Commission; and I take this to be altogether as unlawful (if either of them were unlawful) to seise upon the Authority of the A. B. upon the ac­count of his deprivation, as to take the Character, and exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop. To receive the Consecrati­on [Page 14] on of a Bishop, I suppose, is not the thing he accounts unlawful, nor to exercise the Authority of a Bishop; and then there is nothing he can think unlawful, but to exercise the Authori­ty of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop; and then it seems to me as un­lawful for a Presbyter to do this, as for a Bishop to do it, unless a Presbyter may do it without the Revenues of the Bishoprick; but a Bishop must not do it with them; but this can be no Eccle­siastical scruple, as so great a Canonist must needs know; for if the Civil Pow­er cannot dispose of such Temporal Matters, it can do nothing.

But whatever he thought, his re­fusing a Bishoprick upon great delibe­ration, after an appearing forwardness to take it, hath tempted people to think, that he judges it unlawful; and [Page 15] to let him see, how inconsistent this is with his owning the present Go­vernment, and his exercising the Archi­episcopal Authority, I shall explain the meaning of it to him, which, I believe he never thought of.

If it be unlawful to succeed a de­prived Bishop, then he is the Bishop of the Diocess still; and then the Law that deprives him is no Law, and con­sequently the King and Parliament, that made that Law, no King nor Parliament; and how can this be re­conciled with the Oath of Allegiance, unless the Doctor can swear Allegi­ance to him, who is no King, and hath no Authority to govern?

If the deprived Bishop be the only lawful Bishop, then the People and Clergy of his Diocess are bound to own him and no other; then all Bi­shops, [Page 16] who own the authority of a new Arch-bishop, and live in Communi­on with him, are Schismaticks; and the Clergy, who live in Communion with Schismatical Bishops, are Schismaticks themselves; and the whole Church of England now established by Law is Schismatical, and Doctor B— himself a Schismatick, if he commu­nicate with it. And thus we have no Church, or only a Schismatical Church, as well as no King; and all that Dr. B— has got by refusing a Bishop­rick, is to prove himself a Schisma­tick, if he live in Communion; or to make a Schism, if he separate from it.

Now will the Doctor say this? or if he dare not say it, will he dare to think it? and yet if the deprived Bi­shops, though they retain their Epis­copal Character, have no Authority [Page 17] or Jurisdiction in the Church of Eng­land, then it must be lawful for other Bishops to exercise that Authority, which they have lost; and to succeed in the Government of such vacant Sees, unless such Churches must be de­prived of the Episcopal Authority, while their deprived Bishops live.

And this brings me to consider the lawfulness of the thing it self, which is so evident when set in a clear light, that it will admit of no dispute with Men of Sense.

In a late Letter said to be sent to Doctor B— and now printed on the Backside of a scandalous Rhyming Libel upon his Sermon of Restitution, he is threatned in Case he should accept the Bishoprick, with the Fate of those Ecclesiastical Schismatical Vsurpers, Gregory and [Page 18] George of Cappadocia, who unjustly invaded the See of Alexandria upon the deposing of Athanasius the Orthodox Bishop there. What effect this might have on Doctor B— I know not; but those who have used them­selves to good Sense, as well as to an­cient Canons, easily perceive a vast difference between these two Cases, as will presently appear. But to represent this matter plainly and easily, I shall briefly State the Case, and that I believe will satisfie understanding Men, with­out disputing.

1. First then in a Christian Nati­on and Government, the Church is in­corporated into the State, and the So­veraign Power has a Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical Causes. To deny this, is either Popery or Fanaticism: It is plain, the Reformation of this, [Page 19] Church was founded on this Principle; and it is the constant Doctrine of our Articles, Homilies, and Canons, and they are our Rule considered as Mem­bers of the Church of England.

2. This Supremacy, though it do not extend to the administration of Holy Offices or Church Censures, yet it reaches the Persons and external Jurisdiction of Bishops, and the other Clergy, and the Regulating and Or­dering the Externals of Religion: As the making and deposing Bishops, when there is just Cause for it, be­longs to the Supremacy; which Au­thority was exercised by the Iewish Kings over the High Priest himself: and to resolve all this into a meer Ec­clesiastical Authority, is to set up a Pope, or a Presbytery, or a National Synod, above the Supream Power; [Page 20] and we may as well say at this day, that the Supream Power has no Au­thority to make a Bishop, because by the ancient Canons and Practice of the Church, a Bishop ought to be freely and canonically elected by the other Bishops of the Province, or by the Clergy and People of the Diocess; as that it cannot depose a Bishop from the exercise of his Episcopal Authori­ty within their Dominions, without a Synod or Council.

3. When a Church is incorporated into the State, an offence against the State is a just reason to depose a Bishop from the exercise of his Episcopal Au­thority in such a State: Especially if such Bishop or Bishops wholly disown the Authority and Government of the State, and refuse to submit to it: The denial of the King's Supremacy in [Page 17] Ecclesiastical Causes, was thought a good Reason to depose Bishops; and to deny their Civil Authority, is some­what more than that. This is as cer­tain and evident, as that the Church is and must be Incorporated into the State; for if Bishops, who oppose and disown the Authority of the State, must not be deposed from the Exer­cise of their Authority in such a State, then the Church must be divided from the State, and be independent on it; such Men may be Bishops of the Church who are no Subjects of the State; which is a contradiction to the very Notion of a Church incorporated with the State.

4. And therefore we must distin­guish between an Ecclesiastical and Ca­nonical deposition of a Bishop for [Page 18] Heresie, or other Ecclesiastical Crimes; and a State deprivation. The first con­cerns the Character, and Ecclesiastical Communion; it is the censure of the Church, which concerns him as a Bi­shop; and when it is ratified and con­firmed not only by a Provincial or Na­tional Synod, but by a General Council, such a deposed Bishop is no longer a Bishop of the Catholick Church, and no Christian must Com­municate with him as a Bishop: But a State-deprivation does not concern the Character; such a Man may be a Bishop of the Catholick Church still, if he do not fall under Church-Censures, for Heresie or other Crimes; but it only concerns the Exercise of his Episcopal Authority in any Dio­cess within the Dominions of that [Page 19] State, or enjoying any Ecclesiastical Benefice in it. And if we will not allow the Supreme Power of a Nati­on to judge, who shall be Bishops in their Dominions, and enjoy the Re­venues of the Church, which are the Gift of the State; you leave the Su­pream Power no Authority or Juris­diction over Ecclesiastical Persons.

5. And this makes a great difference between succeeding an Orthodox Bi­shop uncanonically deposed, and suc­ceeding an Orthodox Bishop depri­ved by an Act of State. If a Bishop be deposed by an Heretical Synod upon false suggestions, and publickly known to be false and malicious, and be own'd and acquitted by a Council of Orthodox Bishops, it is Usurpa­tion to invade his See, a breach of [Page 20] Catholick Communion, and a Schism in the Catholick Church, which was the Case of Athanasius and George of Cappadocia, who succeeded him: But if a Bishop otherwise Orthodox, is guilty of such an Offence against the State, that he is deprived of the Ex­ercise of his Episcopal Office, neither the Faith nor the Communion of the Church is concerned in it, but only the Authority of the State, which obliges both the Clergy and the Laity in such cases; and when neither the Ca­tholick Faith nor Catholick Communi­on are concern'd, it can be no Eccle­siastical Offence to succeed in such a Bishoprick, but a due submission and compliance with that Authority, to which the Church in a Christian Nati­on ought to be subject.

[Page 21] The reason why these Matters are not so acurately distinguished by some Men, is because they were not at first distinguished when the Empire became Christian, and the Church was at first Incorporated into the State. The Zeal of the Christian Emperors for the Service of the Church, and that great Opinion which at that time they deservedly had of the Piety and Prudence of the Governours of the Church, made them leave the Go­vernment of the Church in the same state they found it in, when the Church was a distinct Society from the State; and in consequence of this, they reserved all Causes relating to Bi­shops to the Cognizance of their own Synods, without distinguishing be­tween Offences against the State, which [Page 22] properly belong to a Civil Cognizance, and those which were of a pure Eccle­siastical Nature. This soon created great trouble to Princes, and by de­grees grew into the Omnipotent Power of the Bishop of Rome, which domi­neered over Emperors themselves, and set the Church above the State.

The Reformation of our Church began with the Reformation of this Abuse and Church-Usurpation, and restored our Princes to that Suprema­cy, which both the Laws of God, and the reason and nature of Sovereign Power gives them over all Persons, in all Causes, as well Ecclesiastical as Ci­vil: And now an Offence against the State, is as just a Reason for a State-Deprivation by the sole Authority of the State, without the Authority of [Page 23] Synods or Councils; as Heresie and Schism, and other Crimes are of Ec­clesiastical Censures.

This Authority, as I observed before, the Jewish Kings exercised even over their High-Priests, as Solomon deposed Abiathar for following Adonijah to make him King, and placed Zadock in his stead; which was a pure State-Quarrel, and done by his sole Autho­rity, without consulting the Sanhedrim in it. Thus when Iudea was under the Government of the Romans, they changed the High-priests every Year; tho by the Institution of God it was for Life; and this in our Saviour's Days, who never reproved them for it, nor separated himself or his Disci­ples from the Communion of such Schismatical Vsurping High-priests, who [Page 24] succeeded in the places of their living Predecessors without a Canonical De­position. The Grand Signior at this Day makes and unmakes the Patriarch of Constantinople at pleasure, and no Man blames the Patriarch who suc­ceeds.

Dr. Sherlock in his Preface to the Case of Allegiance, took notice of this as matter of Fact, without enquiring into the Reasons. His Answerer had nothing to return to it, but by deny­ing the legal Authority of this Go­vernment; which is just nothing to the purpose: For if a legal Government, by their Authority and Supremacy, can depose Bishops, and promote New ones; then all their Arguments against succeeding in the Sees of such Bishops as are not Canonically deposed by an [Page 25] Ecclesiastical Authority, are utterly lost; and besides that, if this Answer be good, no man ought to question these new Promotions, who owns the Authority of the present Govern­ment.

The truth is, the same Objections which are now made against the Pro­motion of these new Bishops, are e­qually strong, and as eagerly urg'd at this Day by the Papists against our first Reformers: For they were pro­moted to Bishopricks, while the for­mer Popish Bishops were living, and not Canonically deposed by any Act of the Church, but only by the Au­thority of the State; and there denying the Supremacy of the King, was one, and none of the least of those Doctrines, which they were deposed for; and yet [Page 26] that only rejects the King's Ecclesiasti­cal Authority; and therefore as it is only an Offence against the State, so it is a much less Offence, than utterly to renounce their Authority in Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes, as our de­prived Bishops now do.

I shall not need to enlarge on these things, which are plain and obvious at the first Proposal: If you have any opportunity of seeing Dr. B—, desire him to consider again of it; and though he may repent too late to do himself any good; yet if he discover his mistake, common Justice to the Government, under whose Prote­ction he lives, and to Their Majesties, to whom he has sworn Allegiance, and who had placed such a Mark of Fa­vour and Honour on him, had he [Page 27] known how to value it, obliges him publickly to own his Mistake, which is the only recompence he can now make. I am