val at Trent (an, 1562) was very acceptable to the Fa- § 2. By Virtue of the Queen's Injunctions, Churches are stript of their Altars, and Images are removed, and coarsely used... Mr. Collier's Thoughts upon this Exploit aud his Observation upon the Bishops Address to the Queen, for the Removal of the Images. AF FTER the example of her father and brother, the Queen begins her Reformation with injunctions: and the design of them was to remove and reform both altars and images clear out of sight, and, by degrees out of mind too; for fear lest the former should put folks in mind of Sacrifices, and the latter should make them think on the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, the sufferings of Christ, or the Martyrdom of his Saints. And here I cannot help taking notice, that the demolishing of the altars was styled, in the silly cant of those times, the pulling up the Pope's fences, and cultivating the vineyard of the Lord! As to images, as soon as they fell into the hands of their enemies, no quarter was to be expected. They were hacked and hewed, broken and burnt, with all the indications of contempt, derision, and seeming detestation! But give me leave to observe, that if the pulling down of an emperor's statue has heretofore been condemned (and punished too) as a mutiny against the government, and an insult upon temporal majesty, then, surely, to maltreat the pious representatives of the world's Redeemer and King of eternal Glory in the most spiteful and malicious manner that can well be imagined, must, without doubt, amount to a very high degree of impiety. Mr. Collier is of this opinion; and all unbigotted and unprejudiced men, we presume, will think as he does. "To treat images coarsely, and burn them, looks like an affront to those they represent, and is altogether unbecoming Christians. To burn the figure of the cross, and especially that of our Saviour, is, to speak softly, a horrid prophanation; and, if we may reason from such indignities done to men, must be superlatively wicked." But the Bishops, it seems, were of a different opinion. They produced a legion of arguments in favour and defence of these horrid profanations. They addressed the Queen more than once upon the subject of images, and thought the time long, before she vouchsafed to commit hostilities against them. And in their second address, they make a show of arguing from scripture-texts; but so lamentably misapplied, that we do not think it worth our while to trouble our reader with them. Their main argument, however, must not be overlooked. It is drawn from Deut. xxvii. where a curse is denounced against those who made an image an abomination to the Lord, and put it in a secret place; which they (ridiculous enough)_expounded of some chapels in private houses. But to this Mr. Collier answers properly enough, by observing, that case. "The dispensations of the Jewish and Christian Religion are different in many points, and therefore there's no arguing from the one to the other. There's no arguing, I say,' either from precept or precedent, unless where the grounds are the same; but this cannot be affirmed in the present For from this prohibition, we can't infer the unlawfulness of making a figure of our Blessed Saviour. And that the worship, and not the use of images, was altogether forbidden the Jews, may be collected from Solomon's carving cherubims upon the walls of the temple, and embellishing the molten sea with oxen and lions. As for the luster and pomp in things in religion, 'tis far from any dangerous *Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. II. B. vi. p. 465. + Ibid. p. 435. amusement. Had this been an exceptionable circumstance, the temple-service at Jerusalem, of God's own institution, would not have been carried on with so much magnificence and expence." Now, tho' there is nothing criminal in the sober use of images, yet D. Burnet is positive, that "+These reasons of the Bishops (weak as they are) prevailed with the Queen to put it in her Injunctions, to remove all Images out of Churches." And, indeed, this removal was executed with a vengeance! No image could stand before the Puritanic Bigots in any shape! No, not in the shape of Christ crucified! And when there were no more images to batter down, they defaced the monuments of the dead, and destroyed a prodigious number of noble church windows, (which, for beauty and magnificence, were hardly to be matched in any part of the Christian world) only because they happened, most of them, to be curiously embellished and adorned with historical representations of scripture occurrences. §3.-Q. Elizabeth's Motives for enjoining the Observation of Fasting Days; and Mr. Collier's Remarks upon them. ..Her Apostolical Commission. THE next thing that occurs to be observed in Q. Elizabeth's conduct, as Head of the Church, is an Order of her Council, setting forth, that "The Queen's Majesty of late, entering into some consideration, how that the observation of embering and fish days is not so duly looked unto as it ought to be, and is requisite in policy, for the maintenance of mariners and fishermen, hath thought convenient, for that cause, first in her Highness's own houshold, to give strict charge unto the officers for the observation of them. And it is ordered, that they shall be more carefully seen unto and continued than heretofore they have been.-And farther it is declared, that the same is not required for any liking of Popish Ceremonies heretofore used (which utterly are detested) but only to maintain the mariners and the navy of this land, by setting men a fishing, &c,"-Upon which Mr. Collier makes the following grave remarks. + Burnet's Hist. Ref. Vol. II. p. 298. Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. II. B. vi. pp. 557, 558. "By this order it appears," the days of abstinence are declared to be kept only for promoting the fishery, and the encouragement of seamen. Now, with submission, to lay the whole stress of embering and abstinence upon reasons of state, is somewhat singular. For to say nothing of emberweeks, the fast of Lent, and those of Fridays, reach up to the earliest ages of Christianity. Now this restraint of appetite was always imposed with a prospect upon the other world: 'twas enjoin'd to reduce the senses, and make the mind more absolute. And is it not somewhat a misfortune, that the Apostles' Canons, the authority of the Fathers, and the practice of the Primitive Church, should be struck out of all consideration? And must all this discipline be only for the benefit of navigation? Have we no sins to fast for, no temperance to guard? Are we not bound to distinguish times, upon Spiritual Motives, and prepare for the solemnities of religion?" " Having thus entertained our reader with Q. Elizabeth's spiritual and truly pious motives to enjoin the observation of fish-days, we shall close this section with a word or two rela tive to her Apostolical Commission. 6.6 On the 29th of March the Queen made a speech to both Houses at the prorogation of Parliament. She takes notice, that since God had made her an over-ruler of the Church, her negligence could not be excused, if any schism or heresy was connived at. She grants there may be some misbehaviour and omission amongst the body of the Clergy; and that such miscarriage is common to all considerable offices. All which, continues her Majesty, if you, my Lords of the Clergy, do not amend, I mean to depose you.'-Thus the Queen delivers herself, as if she had an Apostolical Commission within her dominions, and her power was paramount to the Episcopal College." -- And well might the Queen deliver herself in this manner! She was persuaded by her flattering court-sycophants, that her power was paramount to the Episcopal College and she acted up to this persuasion in several instances. Add to this, that the Apostolical Commission which she challenged within her dominions, was most signally displayed in the case of D. Matthew Parker, when Elizabeth adventured to dispense both with his own and his consecrators' defects, irregularities, disabilities, &c. in the most ample manner and form. And as this is one of the most remarkable ex ploits of our great Over-ruler of the Church, we shall endeavour, with all the brevity the subject will admit of, to lay it fairly before the reader. §4.-Preliminary Observations. THE design of this Work not being Controversy, we shall endeavour to dispatch, as briefly as possible, the important affair of the Consecration of D. Matthew Parker, the first Archbishop of Canterbury ordained à la Protestante. His Ordination is indeed an exploit, which no one that treats of Q. Elizabeth's Ecclesiastical Transactions can forbear taking notice of, upon several accounts; but chiefly because it places her Majesty's Apostolical Commission in a very conspicuous point of light. But, before we enter directly upon our subject, we beg leave to introduce it with the following preludial observations. 1. This is far from being a new dispute: on the contrary, it may, properly enough, be said to be as old as the Reformation. The famous Bishop Bonner was one of the first that begun it, and upon the following occasion.-By virtue of an Act of Parliament (5. Eliz. I.) the Protestant Bishops were impowered to tender the Supremacy Oath to any ecclesiastical or other persons within their respective dioceses. Horn, (at that time styled Bp. of Winchester) taking the advantage of this Act, tendered the oath to Bishop Bonner, then a prisoner in the Marshalsea, which is in the Diocese of Winchester. Bonner refused the oath, and was indicted in the King's Bench for recusancy. At his appearance there, he confessed the fact, and traversed the indictment; and upon his motion for council, the famous Ployden and Wray (afterwards Lord Chief Justice) were assigned him. He pleaded, that Horn was no Bishop when he tendered him the Oath; and backed bis plea with the following reasons: 66 Because Horn was neither elected nor consecrated pursuant to the Canons of the Catholic Church, nor the laws and statutes of this realm;" and then quotes Stat. 25. H. 8. c. 20. suit, however, was kept depending, and every body in suspense, till the meeting of the Parliament, (8 Eliz.) when Horn and his colleagues were enacted to be Bishops, by virtue of a statute for that purpose made and provided. And this gave the Catholics a handle to style them Parlia mentary Bishops. Thus the matter dropt, and Bonner, obFf The |