removed by a synod; and that not convened by Constantine, EDWARD but his son, Constantius. Farther, as to Constantine's interposing in the case between Cæcilian and Majorinus, upon an appeal of the latter and his party; this answer may be given; Cecilian, after a fair election, was ordained bishop of Carthage by Felix Aptungetanus; Secundus, Donatus, Purpureus, and some other bishops of the opposite party, not being pleased with Cecilian's promotion, consecrated Majorinus to the same see. This Donatist faction pretended Felix, who ordained Cecilian, was a traditor; that is, had delivered the Holy Scriptures up to the heathen persecutors, and for this crime had lost his episcopal character by the discipline of the Church. VI. This controversy was, at the emperor's instance, first examined in a synod at Rome, and afterwards at the council of Arles, and judgment given for Cecilian at both places. But the Donatists refusing to acquiesce, appealed to the emperor Constantine, who, in a letter to the council convened at Arles, blames the Donatists extremely for not submitting to the decision of the bishops. "Meum judicium postulant, qui ipse judicium Christi expecto." For, to speak truth, continues the emperor, Optat. con"the sentence of the prelates ought to be no less regarded tra Parmethan if it was pronounced by our Saviour himself." St. Austin Purgationis commends Constantine for not interposing, and says plainly, et Felicis, "the emperor was not so hardy as to try the cause of a bishop.' nian. gesta Cæciliani &c. Quia Con- judicare. However, being at last either tired with the importunities of de causâ the Donatists, or prevailed on by the flattery of his courtiers, episcopi he consented the cause should have a rehearing before himself at Milan. And here, after the matter was fully examined, the sentence of the councils of Rome and Arles was confirmed, the charge against Felix his being a traditor declared false, and judgment given for Cecilian. Thus it appears the emperor did no more than settle matter of fact, and see the records inspected. If it is said he received the appeal, reviewed the cause determined by two synods, and took upon him the office of a judge, to this it may be answered, that princes are not infallible in their conduct: it is possible for them to be surprised into foreign business, and carry their regale too far. That the ancient Church did not allow of appeals to the civil Can. 12. magistrate, in clauses ecclesiastical, appears from the council of Antioch held in the reign of Constantius. This synod MER, The sense of the councils CRAN decrees, "that if any deacon or priest degraded by their dioAbp. Cant. Cesan, or any bishop deposed by a synod, should be so hardy as to give the emperor trouble by any application, when in these cases recourse ought to be had to a synod, and the matter determined there: if, therefore, any person shall overlook the jurisdiction of the prelates, and solicit the emperor for redress, he is not allowed so much as to plead his cause in a council, nor ever expect being restored to his promotion." of Antioch and Calcedon. Concil. Thus the bishops in the council of Calcedon determine in the case of Photius, metropolitan of Tyre: they declare the imperial rescript is of no force against the canons. And yet this case related only to a contest of jurisdiction between a metropolitan and one of his suffragans. Thus at the same general council of Calcedon, the emperor Martian makes no difficulty to acknowledge, that he did not come thither to exercise any power in deciding the controversy, but only to fortify the decrees of the Fathers with the civil sanction. Not that the canons and resolutions of the bishops were not binding before, with respect to conscience; but some people are so unhappy as to be governed farther by temporal penalties than the terrors of the other world. Farther, the court bishops mentioned by our learned historian did not act by the emperor's commission, though they were sometimes too flexible and complaisant. Neither does the instance of Epiphanius's condemning of Chrysostom support this assertion. For St. Chrysostom was deposed by the synod ad Quercum', neither had Epiphanius any share in that sentence. This bishop had quitted Constantinople, and set sail for Cyprus, before Theophilus of Alexandria, and the rest of the bishops Socrat. Hist. met for the censuring of St. Chrysostom. lib. 6. cap. 14. et 15. Theod. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 35. Bonner's considered. To return to Bonner: it must be said he made a hardy and plausible defence. The grounds of his deprivation seem somewhat slender, excepting in one article relating to the king's authority. And here, the bishop proved he had touched the case farther point in his sermon, though not in the form prescribed and that this omission was only a misfortune of his memory: that this was no feigned excuse appears pretty plainly by his owning the authority of a minor prince, so fully and so often before the delegates. As to his intemperate behaviour, if Fox reports him fairly, he was much to blame. For my part, the process This council, in the suburbs of Calcedon, at the Oak, met in the year 403. VI. being very tedious, and printed by Fox, I only examined the EDWARD register for the substance, and therefore, as to the manner, excepting his swearing once to Smith, I shall neither affirm nor deny the charge. сар. 12. 283. And though Bonner defended himself with great dexterity and resolution, yet I somewhat question his making the most of his case. Had he, instead of appealing to the king, appealed to the upper house in convocation, he might, in all likelihood, have got the judgment reversed, and recovered his see. Now, that he had this remedy seems pretty plain, by two acts of parliament. By the first statute it is expressly provided, 24 Hen. 8. that"in any ecclesiastical causes which may touch the king, 25 Hen. 8. his heirs, or successors, the party grieved may appeal to the cap. 19. spiritual prelates in the upper house of convocation." And this method of appealing is confirmed by an act in the next year of the same reign. It is true this provision refers to trials prosecuted in the courts of bishops or archbishops, but the reason of the case seems to hold against any other court which undertakes the cognizance of ecclesiastical matters; but I shall determine nothing in this point. That Bonner had no gentle usage, appears from the course of this whole affair. For first, the king's or council's prescribing him the matter, and, in some measure, the words of his sermon, was more than ordinary. The putting such singular terms upon him, must by consequence lessen his character, and make him contemptible: such unusual commands as these must suppose the council believed him remarkably defective, either in integrity or discretion. But "Bonner was looked on generally as a man of no principles. All the obedience he gave, either to the laws or the king's injunctions, was thought a compliance against his conscience, extorted by fear." This censure Bp. Burnet, supposes him flexible to the orders of the court, and compliant pt. 2. p. 128. to whatever was enjoined him. But to assert it was fear, and not conscience, which brought him to all these lengths; this is but diving into thoughts, and amounts to no more than conjecture. Hypocrisy keeps under covert, and men's hearts lie open to no view but God Almighty's; besides, human laws require nothing more than outward compliance. Courts of justice do not pretend to examine principles any farther than practice discovers them. I have insisted the longer upon this, because I would gladly set the matter in a true light. I be CRAN- lieve Bonner complied beyond his opinion in several instances: Abp. Cant. I am far from defending the heat of his temper, or his san MER, The duke of sent to the October 6. The articles guinary proceedings in the next reign: but justice ought to be done to every body's memory; and the more exceptionable any man's practice is, the less he is in a condition to dispense with any commendation which belongs to him. To proceed to some remarkable occurrences in the state. Dudley, earl of Warwick, by suppressing the Norfolk rebellion, had raised his reputation, and fortified his interest to a considerable degree; and his ambition growing with his success, he resolved to push his fortune, and set himself at the helm. To make way for this project, the protector was to be removed. This was looked on as no impracticable enterprise, considering the present situation of affairs; for the Protector, by abetting the complaints of the lower commons, and lately ordering inclosures to be thrown open, had disobliged the nobility and gentry. The earl of Warwick, therefore, finding himself supported by a strong party in the council, resolved to oppose the protector. This duke, being informed of their proceedings, wrote to the Londoners to raise a thousand men, and march them well-armed to Hampton Court, for the king's security. He likewise levied some men in the neighbourhood, and conveyed the king to Windsor, with as many of the council and court as he could prevail with to go with him. The lords in the earl of Warwick's interest had now formed themselves into a council at London. Their names are these: the lord chancellor, the lord St. John president, the marquess of Northampton, the earls of Arundel, Southampton, and Shrewsbury, the lords Russell and Wentworth; to which we may add the chief justice Mountague, sir Edward North, sir Richard Southwell, sir Edmund Peckham, secretary Petres, sir John Gage, sir Ralph Sadler, sir Thomas Cheyney, sir Anthony Brown, sir Anthony Wingfield, sir John Baker, speaker of the house of commons, and Dr. Wotton. These noblemen, privy-counsellors, and persons of distinction, wrote to the city of London to furnish them with forces, to rescue his majesty out of the duke of Somerset's hands, whom they styled an enemy to the king and kingdom; and, that this complaint might not appear undeserved, they drew up a charge in form against him. The principal articles are these following :"That by creating discords and misunderstandings amongst : VI. the king's subjects, he had embroiled the commonwealth, EDWARD which was left in a peaceable and good condition by the late king. That he had countenanced sedition and treason, peachment. and occasioned the loss of several thousand men in the late commotions that, either by his neglect or perfidiousness, he had been the cause of losing several forts and places of importance beyond sea. That being made protector on condition he should do nothing without the consent of the board, he had not observed that condition, but had treated with ambassadors, made bishops and lord-lieutenants by his own authority: that he had done many things contrary to law; held a court of request in his own house; embased the coin, and published proclamations against inclosures, contrary to the sense of the whole council: that he had neglected the rules and maxims laid down by the late king for the government of Ireland: that he had armed his own friends and servants, and left the king's servants unarmed. And, lastly, that he had only made it his business to aggrandize himself; to create misunderstandings amongst the nobility; to draw malecontents into his interest; to lavish out a vast deal of treasure in building of palaces, at a time of distress and public calamity." The protector, finding himself deserted, that the city of London had refused to assist him, and engaged with the lords of the other party, resigned to his misfortune, and put the king and himself in their hands. Upon this he was sent to the Tower; and here I shall break off his story till the consideration of time call for it. Godwin's Annal. letter to the 284. About the latter end of this month, Calvin, who, it is likely, Stow's had not heard of the protector's declension, wrote to him upon the subject of religion. The letter, as it stands in his epistles, Calvin's is dated in the year 1548, but in the Paper-office the 22d of protector. October is only put down, without the mention of the year. That it was not written the last year I think is pretty plain : first, from Calvin's letter to Bucer, in which he acquaints him he had written to the protector to carry on the reformation: now Bucer did not arrive in England till the beginning of the year 1549; but this letter of Calvin supposes Bucer in England. Secondly, Calvin, in his letter to the protector, makes Calvin's Epist. p. 108. several objections against the Common Prayer Book, which was not printed till this year, nor so much as drawn up till winter, 1548. |