Here is some documented information about the Church of England's Court of High Commission that would make me wonder about any confessions to heresies that it obtained.
Durham Dunlop maintained that the Court of High Commission “became a terrible instrument of tyranny and persecution in the hands of Church and State. It fined or imprisoned its victims, confiscated their property, tortured or murdered them at will, without being amenable to appeal, or subject to any controlling authority save the Crown, whose creation it was, and whose sanguinary instrument it always proved” (Church, p. 157). John Southerdan Burn maintained that “the whole course of the High Commission from its first arrest or summons, to the ultimate ruin, or death of its unfortunate victim, was a series of unconstitutional and illegal cruelties,--refusing a copy of the charges, insisting on the oath ex-offico, suspending, deriving, degrading, and ruining the poor wretch,--occasionally sending to prison even the lawyer who dared to defend the accused, or to question the power or legality of the Court” (The High Commission, p. vi). J. B. Marsden wrote that “the high court of commission aimed, whether with design or otherwise, a deadly wound upon our civil and religious liberties” (History, p. 66).
John Brown stated that this Court's "methods of investigation were described as worthy only of the Spanish Inquisition" (English Puritans, p. 76). Neal also observed that this Court's methods "were almost equal to the Spanish Inquisition" with its "long imprisonments of ministers without bail or bringing them to trial" (History of the Puritans, p. xi). James Miall asserted that this Court “exercised a jurisdiction greatly resembling that of the inquisition in other countries” (Footsteps, p. 79). David Hume noted that “an inquisitorial tribunal, with all its terrors and iniquities, was erected in the kingdom” (History of England, VII, p. 85). Cramp contended that the High Commission Court "was in reality a Protestant Inquisition" (Baptist History, p. 302). William Cathcart referred the High Commission Court as “a tribunal second only to the Inquisition in wickedness” (Baptist Encyclopaedia, pp. 663-664). Fisher described the High Commission Court as “a species of Protestant inquisition” (History of the Christian Church, p. 403). Leonard Bacon maintained that “the High Commission for Causes Ecclesiastical might well be called the English Inquisition” (Genesis, p. 79). When the High Commission Court was brought into Scotland in 1610, George Gillespie also compared it to "the Spanish Inquisition" (Dispute, p. 183). William Hetherington wrote: “Never was a more tyrannical court instituted than that of High Commission” (History of the Church, p. 71). Babbage noted that in 1610, "the House of Commons addressed a Petition to the king for the redress of grievances arising through the Court of High Commission" (Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, pp. 286-287). Smith observed that John Cotton (1585-1652) complained that "the ecclesiastical courts are dens of lions," "cages of uncleanness, and roosting places of birds of prey, the tabernacles of bribery, forges of extortion, and fetters of slavery, a terror of all good men, and a praise to them that do evil" (Select Memoirs, pp. 391-392). Durham Dunlop asserted: “The extraordinary powers conferred on it [the Court of High Commission] by the mere prerogative of the Crown, were not only unknown to the law, but in many respects were in direct violation of the law, and it was a tribunal in no one respect less iniquitous in its constitution, or atrocious in its proceedings, than the Papal Inquisition” (Church, pp. 247-248). John Milton (1608-1674) referred to “the illegal proceeding of the high commission and oath ex officio” (Prose Works, III, p. 139). Marsden maintained that “the high court of commission aimed, whether with design or otherwise, a deadly wound upon our civil and religious liberties; and while it existed it was equally inconsistent with both” (History of the Early Puritans, p. 66).
Hill pointed out that Lord Burghley and others had compared the High Commission Court to "the Spanish Inquisition" (Society and Puritanism, p. 350). F. O. White cited Lord Burghley as noting that “this kind of proceeding is too much savoring of the Romish inquistion” (Lives, p. 228). After giving many documented examples, Samuel Hopkins concluded: “In their usurpation of power; in their contempt of all civil tribunals, laws, and charters; in their control of the courts; in their illegal and midnight arrests; in their slow torture by long imprisonments, by chains, by starvation, by poisonous air; in their more direct torture by the ‘Little Ease,’ the cudgel, and the dungeon; and in the measures which they coolly adopted to bring their victims to recantation or to death;--we think we have shown a more exact resemblance of the [High] Commissioners of England to the Inquisitors of Spain than Lord Burleigh dreamed of, probably a more exact resemblance than he ever discovered” (The Puritans, III, p. 502).
Hopkins described the “Little Ease” as “a place of such strait dimensions, that the prisoners could neither stand, nor sit, nor lie down,--an ingenious contrivance to adminster terrible torture without trouble to the torturer” (III, pp. 494-495). Durham Dunlop noted that “Little Ease was a place of such contracted dimensions, that when thrust into it the sufferer could nether stand, nor sit, nor lie down at full length, but had to compress himself into a squatting posture, in which position he had to remain for days” (Church, p. 222). Hopkins asserted that “when by the torture of ‘Little Ease’ men were well-nigh killed, or by that of the cudgel were beaten to a jelly, their keepers knew that forcing them to chapel was the will of the Commissioners, and did but employ these means of coercion with which they were furnished” (Puritans, III, p. 499).
