was equal at least, if not superior to her father's, is clearly proved from the following quotation." In the same statute of Queen Elizabeth, [viz, 1 E. c. 1.] it is added, That the branches, sentences, and words of the several acts made in King Henry the Eighth's time, and every one of them, shall be deemed and taken to extend to your Highness, your heirs and successors, as fully and largely as ever the said acts did extend to the late King Henry VIII. your Majesty's father.' "Whereby it appears," continues my authority, "that though the title of Head was left off, yet the Supreme Authority Ecclesiastical was united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of England in Queen Elizabeth's time, as fully and largely as ever King Henry enjoy'd it; and, in some respects, more advantageously."-Vid. A Discourse on the Supreme Power Ecclesiastical, in Mr. Collier's Eccl. Hist. V. II. B. 11. p. 89. In fine, Q. Elizabeth, by her parasites, and particularly by the famous Secretary Cecil, was made, believe (and perhaps she was not unwilling to believe) that her Spiritual Power was as full and ample as the Pope's. And for a proof of this, we appeal to the case of Mr. Tilney, which is thus related by a Church Historian. "* An. Dom. 1569. This summer one Tilney, a gentleman, moved for a marriage-dispensation. The case was at last brought into the Arches, where the Archbishop, the Lord Keeper, and Secretary Cecil, were present. The question was double; whether the case would admit of a dispensation, and if so, who had a right to give it? The Secretary affirmed, the Queen might do it: For she, says he, may do as much as the Pope." Conclude we this subject with the following remark : 66 In a Parliament called anno 1584, the Queen is affirmed by Stow to have made a speech, and therein to have told the Bishops, "That if they did not look more carefully to the discharge of their duties, she would take care to deprive them.'" Sharp words, says Dr. Heylin: but he did not reflect, that nothing could have been uttered, upon the occasion, more suitable or consonant to the style and character of a Pontiff-Queen. *Collier's Eccl. Hist. Vol. II. B. vi. p. 519. 15. Some Account of the High Commission Court, and the Use that was made of it in Q. Elizabeth's Reign............. Mr. Collier's Observations upon it. SINCE the High Commission Court sets Q. Elizabeth's Spiritual Power and authority in a conspicuous point of light; and since it was looked upon, by the Protestant Dissenters of this reign, as an intolerable grievance, we imagined it might not be disagreeable to our reader, to be entertained with a succinct account of it. Now the origin of this High Commission is derived from King Henry the Eighth, who first appointed the whole business of his Spiritual Supremacy, and every branch of it, to be executed by his proxy. And who should this proxy be, but the celebrated Thomas Cromwell! who (in quality of King's Vicar-General in Spirituals) enjoyed the unexampled deputation, and exercised it alone and without a rival, till he fell into disgrace, which, in a short time afterwards, was followed with the loss of his head. And thus fell the Grand Vicar of God's High Minister, as King Henry Vouchsafed upon a solemn occasion to style himself. From which time the important commission became vacant, and continued so till this King's death. In the reign of King Edward the Sixth, the reforming business, together with the Church Authority, fell into the hand of and was managed by the Lord Protector Somerset, and the rest of the privy council of that minor king. In Queen Mary's reign, reforming was out of fashion, and so was the Lay Supremacy. Whereupon the High Commission Court, having no business to transact, was obliged to lie dormant from the beginning to the end of this reign. But Q. Elizabeth, in the 18th year of her reign, issued out formal commissions under the Great Seal of England, to empower what persons soever she pleased (even withont being obliged to make use of so much as one clergyman) to execute the important business of her spiritual supre macy. King James I. after he had got possession of the throne of England (for he durst not do it before) attempted to erect a High Commission Court in Scotland. But vain was the attempt. For it was never like to thrive on that ground where the Scottish Kirk had first been planted. And even in England, towards the latter end of his reign, the House f Commons began first to call in question, and afterwards to dispute, the power and authority of the High Commission Court. In the reign of King Charles the First, as soon as the Fanatics had got the upper hand, they took up a resoluti on to remove all grievances, and this amongst the rest. "They began with taking down the Star Chamber and the High Commission-Court and in the Act for taking down the Court of the High Commission, a clause is cunningly inserted, which plainly took away all coercive power which had been vested in the Bishops and their under officers; disabling them from imposing any pain or penalty, and consequently from inflicting all [or any] church censures on notorious sinners. Their jurisdiction being thus gone, it was thought convenient to strip them from having any place or suffrage in the House of Peers." And thus fell this famous court, and the Bishops along with it. — And now, having pursued the High-Commission-Court from its first institution to the end of its progress, we return to Q. Elizabeth. The Nonconformists of her reign were very loud and very bitter in their complaints of the cruel use (as they called. it) that was made of this Supreme Spiritual Court by Q. Elizabeth, her Bishops, and their under officers It fell like a thunder-bolt upon Curtwright, Snape, Udal, Travers, Penry, Barrom, Arthington; and, in short, upon all the leading members of the l'uritan Faction. It assumed the authority, not only to reform, redress, order, correct, and amend heretics, but likewise to condemn them to the flames. In fine, to dissenting Protestants of all denominations, it was extremely formidable, and as odious as the most rigid Spanish Inquisition. But it is now time to give our reader a taste of the nature of it; with which, and Mr. Collier's observations thereupon, we shall conclude this section. Bp. Burnet, in his Collection of Records, No. VII. has preserved a copy of one of these High Commissions. It is for the Archbishopric and Province of York, and is directed to the following persons, viz. Francis Earl of Shrewsbury, Edward Earl of Darby, Thomas Earl of Northumberland, William Lord Evers, Sir Henry Piercy, Sir Thomas Gar grave, Sir James Crofts, and Sir Henry Gates, Knights. To these were joined Edwin Sandys, D. D. Henry Hervey, L. D. Richard Bones, George Brown, Richard Kingsmale, and Christopher Escot, Esquires.-Upon whom, and the extent of their commission, Mr. Collier observes, that, Heylin's Hist. Presb. L. XIII. p. 439. "+Among these fourteen commissioners there is never a clergyman excepting Sandys, unless Hervey, Doctor in Law, was authorized in orders; which is somewhat unlikely. Notwithstanding this, any two of them are to visit all cathedrals, collegiate and parochial churches, and all degrees of the clergy, the bishops not excepted. They were empowered to examine them upon the articles of their belief, the qualifications of their learning, and their behaviour as to morals : and in case they find them defective, heterodox, or irregu lar, they are to proceed against them by imprisonment and ecelesiastical censures. Farther, their commission empowers them to deliver new injunctions, to declare spiritual promotions void, to allow competent pensions to those who quit their livings; to examine letters of orders, to give institution and induction, to convene synods, and receive synodals, and to excommunicate those who refuse to pay. To give licences to preach to those they judged qualified. To try the causes of deprivation, and restore such as have been illegally displaced. In short, their commission takes in the whole compass of Eeclesiastical Jurisdiction, and reaches to every part of the Episcopal Function, excepting Ordination, Consecrating of Churches, and Officiating in Divine Service. And what is still more singular, Sandys the clergyman is not constituted one of the Quorum, but any two of the lay-commissioners are authorised to transact all this extraordinary business, and to exert the highest censures of the Church. This, as one of our historians [Burnet] observes, seemed a great stretch of the Queen's Supremacy. But the author appears inclined to justify the commission. For he subjoins, ''Twas thought that the Queen might do that, as well as the late Chancellors did it in the Ecclesiastical Courts; so that one abuse was the excuse for another.' But 'tis to be fear'd this plea won't hold; for the imitation of an ill precedent is no sufficient defence. Besides, lay-chancellors, tho' they sometimes judge what crimes deserve excommunication, yet they never pronounce the sentence. But these commissioners are not tied to the rules of Ecclesiastical Courts: their jurisdiction was unconfined and paramount; and therefore, as far as it appears, they might have pronounced the sentence of excom-munication, without exceeding the hounds of their deputa tion. And lastly, the Chancellors act in the Bishop's name, and by virtue of his commission. But these fourteen commissioners managed purely upon the strength of the regale. They had no authority but what they received from the Queen, who was, without question, a lay-person, and by consequence, could make out no claim to any share of the sacerdotal character, nor produce any warrant from our Saviour for the exercise of the keys." § 16. The lamentable Consequences of Q. Elizabeth's Su premacy.....Some Instances of her burning Heretics, and other Executions of Protestant Dissenters, are recounted. It is reported of Q. Elisabeth, (and perhaps not without some foundation in truth) that "+The cruelty of her father was a little too predominant in her nature."How just this observation is, will be made appear from the following recital of some instances of the inclement use she made of her Spiritual Supremacy. Fire and faggot were employ→ ed under this Queen, and much to the same purposes as in the preceding reigns of her father and sister: and Elizabeth seems to have been as zealously intent upon the lamentable business of burning heretics, &c. as either of them. To place this truth in a proper light, we shall be obliged to give some account of such Protestant Dissenters only as were executed, [some, says Mr. Collier, for denying the Queen's Supremacy, and others for defaming the Common Prayer-Book,] from the year 1575 to 1593; and whose executions are particularly described by D. Heylin, in his History of the Presbyterians. He begins his narrative with બ Two Dutch Anabaptists. "They were burnt in Smithfield," says he, "on the second of July, 1575, (An. Reg. Eliz. 18.) where they died with very great horror, expressed by many roarings and cryings, but without any sign or show of true repentance." - [Heylin's Hist. Presb. L. vii. p. 280.] The same historian adds, that John Fox (the famous Pseudomartyrologist) addressed himself by letters to the Queen, supplicating for the lives of those wretched men; but to no purpose. Nothing could induce them to a retractation of their damnable heresies, says the Doctor. "So the forfeiture of their lives was taken, and the sentence executed." Fox, however, + Short View, p. 210. I |