§14.-Elizabeth, in her first Parliament, reclaims the Supremacy, but changes the Title of Supreme Head into that of Supreme Governor of the Church.....A political Finesse, but no Abatement of her Father's Supreme Power Ecclesiastical.....Her Supremacy is opposed by the Catholic Prelates and Party..... She publishes her Admonition..... Reflections upon it and the Change of the Supremacy Title.... Mr. Tilney's Case, &c. ̧ ALTHO' the Reformation met with nothing but interruption, disencouragement, and disfavour, as long as a Catholic Princess enjoyed the crown, yet neither was the New Gospel so entirely outed, nor the Old Religion so thoroughly re-established, during the short period of Queen Mary's reign, but that her sister Elizabeth, when exalted to the throne, might (and actually did) find out ways and means to unravel every project, and to frustrate every design that had, of late years, been formed in favour of the Catholic interest. At first, indeed, Q. Elizabeth seemed to be somewhat embarrassed, and unresolved how to proceed, or which way to steer. But, after some fluctuations, she determined, at last, to effect another revolution in the Church. Yet this enterprise, she soon perceived, could not easily be accomplished, unless her powers and prerogatives were advanced to the height of her father's in every particular. Wherefore, in her first Parliament, she revived her father's claim to the Spiritual Supremacy over this national Church. The first of her sex that ever aspired to so great an honour!, 66 "* It seem'd," says D. Heylin, a thing abhorrent even in nature and policy, that a woman should be declared Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England. It was even A jest to the rest of the world! But Elizabeth, it seems, was determined to make a serious affair of it. Power is a tempting bait to the ambitious! and therefore we need not wonder if the most ambitious of her sex should sit upon thorns till such time as she was put into possession of that very fine thing called the Supremacy:" which, to make use of D. Heylin's expression, she considered as the fairest jewel in the regal diadem. Charmed with the brilliancy of so incomparable a gem, it was not long before she resolved (cost what it would) to Heylin's Hist. Ref. p. 107. + Short View, p. 207. win it, and wear it too. And with this resolution she summoned the Lords and Commons to meet at Westminster, At which place being assembled, † March 22, 1559, a bill was brought into Parliament, (which soon passed into a law) for restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same. By this act, such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-emiences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised and used, for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for the reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, shall for ever, by the authority of this present Parliament, be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this realm. "Then follows the clause for impowering the Queen to erect the High Commission-Court [of which more hereafter] for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. And by this branch, the Queen and her successors are enabled to assign, by Letters Patents under the Great Seal, such persons, and for so long a time as they shall think fit, (provided they are natural born subjects) for the exercising under the Crown all manner of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Particularly by this Act the Commissioners are empowered to visit, reform, redress, order, correct, and amend all such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities whatsoever, as by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power, Authority, or Jurisdiction, can or may be lawfully reformed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, &c. "Nothing can be more comprehensive than the terms of this clause. The whole compass of Church Discipline seems transferred upon the Crown. "And thus, by the Queen's Letters Patents, passed in the 18th year of her reign, her Ecclesiastical Commissioners are authorized to visit, reform, correct, as well in places exempt as not exempt, all errors, heresies, schisms, &c. by censures ecclesiastical, deprivation, or otherwise, "And here it may be observed, that to make the Act more inoffensive, the title of Supreme Head was changed into that of Supreme Governor." + Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. 11. Book vi. pp. 420, 421, But it was all one to the Parliament whether the Queen was pleased to style herself Head or Governor of the Church. "They were not over nice about words, so they might gain the point they aimed at, which was the stripping the Pope of all Authority within these dominious, and fixing the supreme Ecclesiastical Power in the Crown Imperial." Yet besides this, (which was indeed the main article) there was another point in view, another wile in reserve : and that was, to trepan the unguarded Catholics into a recognition of the Queen's Supremacy, under the cover of a title seemingly different from that of her father's, when, at the same time, her power, in all spiritual matters, was really the same, if not more extensive, as Mr. Fuller ob serves. "It was farther enacted," says he, "that all Ecclesiastical Persons and Magistrates who received pensions from the Exchequer; such as should take any degree in the Universities, &c. and such as were to be admitted into the Queen's service, &c. should be tied by an oath to ac... knowledge the Queen's Majesty to be the only and supreme Governor of her kingdoms (the style of Supreme Head of the Church of England liked them not) in all matters and causes, as well spiritual as temporal. But the Papists complained, that the simplicity of poor people was abused, the Queen declining the title of Head, and assuming the name of Governor of the Church, which though less offensive, was more expressive. So that, while their ears favoured in her waving the word, their souls were deceived with the same sense, under another expression." were This the Catholic Prelates plainly perceived, and therefore opposed the Supremacy Bill with all their might. "This Bill having been canvassed near a month since it was first sent up by the Commons, must argue strong debates and great Opposition to it in the House of Lords. Cambden tells us, that it was vigorously opposed by nine Bishops besides the Abbot of Westminster." Their names are as follow: Heath, Archbp. of York; + Heylin's Hist. Ref. (Q. E.) p. 107. Bain, Bp. of Coventry ; Oglethorpe, Bp. of Carlisle; and D. Heylin further observes, that in Q. Elizabeth's first Parliament + Two speeches were made against the Book [of Common Prayer] in the House of Peers, by Scott and Feckenham, and one against the Queen's Supremacy, by the Archbishop of York. But they prevailed little by the power of their eloquence." See these speeches in the Appendix No. V. However, the opposition raised against the Queen's Supremacy at this juncture, by the abovementioned Prelates and others of the Catholic Party, prerailed so far, as to oblige the Queen to publish her Admonition. It is an admirable piece, and sets forth, That the Queen's Majesty being informed that some of her subjects found some scruple in the form of this Oath [of Supremacy] would that all her loving subjects should un-. derstand that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath, to have any other duty or allegiance required by that Oath than was acknowledged to be due to King Henry VIII. her Majesty's father, and King Edward VI. her Majesty's brother. And further, her Majesty forbiddeth her subjects to give credit to such persons who notify to her subjects, how by the words of the said Oath, it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this realm may challenge authority of administering the divine offices in the Church; wherein her subjects be very. much abused. For her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge, any other authority than that which was challenged and lately used by King Henry and King Edward; which is, and was of ancient time, due to the Imperial Crown of this realm; that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within; these realms, whether ecclesiastical or temporal; so as no other sovereign power shall or ought to have, any superiori. ty over them.' Thus the Royal Monitory. Upon which we shall only observe, that if the design of its being made public was to cure scruples, it may very well be questioned if ever it produced that salutary effect. For, in + Heylin's Hist. Ref. p. 108. fact, it lays no restraint on the Queen's Supremacy, but, on the contrary, leaves it, in every respect, equal to that of King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. Reflections upon the Premises. Now if what Mr. Collier advances upon this subject be true, that in Q. Elizabeth's first Parliament, the whole com.. pass of Church Government was transferred upon the Crown: if King Henry VIII. (as it is the opinion of a modern historian) challenged a power equal to Christ's and if Elizabeth claimed an authority in spiritual matters every jot as large and extensive as that which had been acknow-ledged due to King Henry VIII, her Majesty's father, a man, without pretending to be a conjuror, may easily guess at the dimensions of Q. Elizabeth's spiritual power. We grant indeed, that her quirking, quibbling, equivocating admonition may be admired, as a notable coup de politique; but we are too well acquainted with her temper, to imagine it was ever meant or intended to be a curb to her supremacy. She would never suffer any such thing to be attempted. She never would suffer either her Privy Council or Parliaments. to tarnish the lustre of the brightest jewel in her crown, by any restrictive or derogatory clause whatsoever. As to the change of the style of Supreme Head into that of Supreme Governor of the Church, what was it but a distinction without a difference? For if the same power be as fully and largely implied in Elizabeth's title of Supreme Governor, as was confessed to be due to her father's title of Supreme Head, where is the difference in point of authority, though the names differ? All that can be advanced in favour or defence of Q. Elizabeth's new style amounts to nothing more than this, that, perhaps, it might be less liable to exception, as D. Heylin has observed. "+The reformed party," says he, "fixed the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power in the Crown Imperial, not by the name of Supreme Head (which they perceived might be liable to some exceptions) but (which comes all to one) of Supreme Governor.". -And if it comes all to one, then I think there's, an end of the dispute. For when the thing itself is granted, what does it signify to wrangle about synonymous.. terms? What's this but a frivolous and insipid logomachy and just as much to the purpose as to dispute De lana caprina? But that Q. Elizabeth's Supreme Power Ecclesiastical + Heylin's Hist. Ref. (Q. E.) p. 107. |