Enemies there is no end for the War will continue by a perpetual Subdivision and when it ends they will be in the same Estate they were before That they are often Abused by Men who to them seem wise when then their Wisdom is nothing else but Envy to those that are in Grace and in profitable Employments and that those Men do but abuse the Common People to their own ends that set up a private Mans Propriety against the publick Safety But say withal that the King is Subject to the Laws of God both Written and Unwritten and to no other and so was William the Conqueror whose Right it all Descended to our present King La. As to the Law of Reason which is Equity 't is sure enough there is but one Legislator which is God Ph. It followeth then that which you call the Common-Law Distinct from Statute-Law is nothing else but the Law of God La. In some sense it is but it is not Gospel but Natural Reason and Natural Equity Ph. Would you have every Man to every other Man alledge for Law his own particular Reason There is not amongst Men an Universal Reason agreed upon in any Nation besides the Reason of him that hath the Soveraign Power yet though his Reason be but the Reason of one Man yet it is set up to supply the place of that Universal Reason which is expounded to us by our Saviour in the Gospel and consequently our King is to us the Legislator both of Statute-Law and of Common-Law La. Yes I know that the Laws Spiritual which have been Law in this Kingdom since the Abolishing of Popery are the Kings Laws and those also that were made before for the Canons of the Church of Rome were no Laws neither here nor any where else without the Popes Temporal Dominions farther than Kings and States in their several Dominions respectively did make them so Ph. I grant that But you must grant also that those Spiritual Laws Legislators of the Spiritual Law and yet not all Kings and States make Laws by Consent of the Lords and Commons but our King here is so far bound to their Assents as he shall Judge Conducing to the Good and safety of his People for Example if the Lords and Commons should Advise him to restore those Laws Spiritual which in Queen Maries time were in Force I think the King were by the Law of Reason obliged without the help of any other Law of God to neglect such Advice La. I Grant you that the King is sole Legislator but with this Restriction that if he will not Consult with the Lords of Parliament and hear the Complaints and Informations of the Commons that are best acquainted with their own wants he sinneth against God though he cannot be Compell'd to any thing by his Subjects by Arms and Force Ph. We are Agreed upon that already since therefore the King is sole Legislator I think it also Reason he should be sole Supream Judge La. There is no doubt of that for otherwise there would be no Congruity of Judgments with the Laws I Grant also that he is the Supream Judge over all Persons and in all Causes Civil and Ecclesiastical within his own Dominions not only by Act of Parliament at this time but that he has ever been so by the Common-Law For the Judges of both the Benches have their Offices by the Kings Letters Patents and so as to Judicature have the Bishops Also the Lord Chancellour hath his Office by receiving from the King the Great Seal of England and to say all at once there is no Magistrate or Commissioner for Publick Business neither of Judicature nor Execution in State or Church in Peace or War but he is made so by Authority from the King Ph. 'T is true But perhaps you may â—â—ink otherwise when you Read such Acts of Parliament as say that the King shall â—ave Power and Authority to do this or that by Virtue of that Act as Eliz. c. 1. That your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings or Queens of this Realm shall have â—â—ll Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England to Assign c. Was it not this Parliament that gave this Authority to the Queen La. For the Statute in this Clause is no more than as Sir Edw. Coke useth to speak an Affirmance of the Common-Law For she being Head of the Church of England might make Commissioners for the deâ—iding of Matters Ecclesiastical as freely â—s if she had been Pope who did you know pretend his Right from the Law of God Ph. We have hitherto spoken of Laws without considering any thing of the Naâ—ure and Essence of a Law and now unless we define the word Law we can go no â—arther without Ambiguity and Fallacy which will be but loss of time whereas on the contrary the Agreement upon our words will enlighten all we have to say â—hereafter La. I do not remember the Definition of Law in any Statute Ph. I think so For the Statutes were made by Authority and not drawn from any other Principles than the care of the safety of the People Statutes are not Philosophy as is the Common-Law and other disputable Arts but are Commands or Prohibitions which ought to be obeyed because Assented to by Submission made to the Conqueror here in England and to whosoever had the Soveraign Power in other Common wealths so that the Positive Laws of all Places are Statutes The Definition of Law was therefore unnecessary for the makers of Statutes though very necessary to them whose work it is to Teach the sence of the Law La. There is an Accurate Definition of a Law in Bracton Cited by Sir Edw. Coke Lex est sanctio justa jubens honesta prohibens contraria Ph. That is to say Law is a just Statute Commanding those things which are honest and Forbidding the contrary From whence it followeth that in all Cases it must be the Honesty or Dishonesty that makes the Command a Law whereas you know that but for the Law we could not as saith St. Paul have known what is sin therefore this Definition is no Ground at all for any farther Discourse of Law Besides you know the Rule of Honest and Dishonest refers to Honour and that it is Justice only and Injustice that the Law respecteth But that which I most except against in this Definition is that it supposes that a Statute made by the Soveraign Power of a Nation may be unjust There may indeed in a Statute Law made by Men be found Iniquity but not Injustice La. This is somewhat subtil I pray deal plainly what is the difference between Injustice and Iniquity Ph. I pray you tell me first what is the difference between a Court of Justice and a Court of Equity La. A Court of Justice is that which hath Cognizance of such Causes as are to be ended by the Possitive Laws of the Land and a
God made Kings for the People and not People for Kings How shall I be defended from the domineering of Proud and Insolent Strangers that speak another Language that scorn us that seek to make us Slaves Or how shall I avoid the Destruction that may arise from the cruelty of Factions in a Civil War unless the King to whom alone you say belongeth the right of Levying and disposing of the Militia by which only it can be prevented have ready Money upon all Occasions to Arm and pay as many Souldiers as for the present defence or the Peace of the People shall be necessary Shall not I and you and every Man be undone Tell me not of a Parliament when there is no Parliament sitting or perhaps none in being which may often happen and when there is a Parliament if the speaking and leading Men should have a design to put down Monarchy as they had in the Parliament which began to sit Nov. 3. 1640. Shall the King who is to answer to God Almighty for the safety of the People and to that end is intrusted with the Power to Levy and dispose of the Souldiery be disabled to perform his Office by virtue of these Acts of Parliament which you have cited If this be reason 't is reason also that the People be Abandoned or left at liberty to kill one another even to the last Man if it be not Reason then you have granted it is not Law La. 'T is true if you mean Recta Ratio but Recta Ratio which I grant to be Law as Sir Edw. Coke says 1 Inst. Sect. 138. Is an Artificial perfection of Reason gotten by long Study Observation and Experience and not every Mans natural Reason for Nemo nascitur Artifex This Legal Reason is summa Ratio and therefore if all the Reason that is dispersed into so many several Heads were united into one yet could he not make such a Law as the Law of England is because by many Successions of Ages it hath been fined and refinâ—d by an infinite number of Grave and Learned Men. And this is it he calls the Common-Law Ph. Do you think this to be good Doctrine though it be true that no Man is born with the use of Reason yet all Men may grow up to it as well as Lawyers and when they have applyed their Reason to the Laws which were Laws before they Studyed them or else it was not Law they Studied may be as fit for and capable of Judicature as Sir Edw. Coke himself who whether he had more or less use of Reason was not thereby a Judge but because the King made him so And whereas he says that a Man who should have as much Reason as is dispersed in so many several Heads could not make such a Law as this Law of England is if one should ask him who made the Law of England Would he say a Succession of English Lawyers or Judges made it or rather a Succession of Kings and that upon their own Reason either solely or with the Advice of the Lords and Commons in Parliament without the Judges or other Professors of the Law You see therefore that the Kings Reason be it more or less is that Anima Legis that Summa Lex whereof Sir Edw. Coke speaketh and not the Reason Learning or Wisdom of the Judges but you may see that quite through his Institutes of Law he often takes occasion to Magnifie the Learning of the Lawyers whom he perpetually termeth the Sages of the Parliament or of the Kings Council therefore unless you say otherwise I say that the Kings Reason when it is publickly upon Advice and Deliberation declar'd is that Anima Legis and that Summa Ratio and that Equity which all agree to be the Law of Reason is all that is or ever was Law in England since it became Christian besides the Bible La. Are not the Canons of the Church part of the Law of England as also the Imperial Law used in the Admiralty and the Customs of particular places and the by-Laws of Corporations and Courts of Judicature Ph. Why not for they were all Constituted by the Kings of England and though the Civil Law used in the Admiralty were at first the Statutes of the Roman Empire yet because they are in force by no other Authority than that of the King they are now the Kings Laws and the Kings Statutes The same we may say of the Canons such of them as we have retained made by the Church of Rome have been no Law nor of any force in England since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Raign but by Virtue of the Great Seal of England La. In the said Statutes that restrain the Levying of Money without consent of Parliament Is there any thing you can take exceptions to Ph. No I am satisfied that the Kings that grant such Liberties are bound to make them good so far as it may be done without sin But if a King find that by such a Grant he be disabled to protect his Subjects if he maintain his Grant he sins and therefore may and ought to take no Notice of the said Grant For such Grants as by Error or false Suggestion are gotten from him are as the Lawyers do Confess Void and of no Effect and ought to be recalled Also the King as is on all hands Confessed hath the Charge lying upon him to Protect his People against Forraign Enemies and to keep the Peace betwixt them within the Kingdom if he do not his utmost endeavour to discharge himself thereof he Committeth a Sin which neither King nor Parliament can Lawfully commit La. No Man I think will deny this For if Levying of Money be necessary it is a Sin in the Parliament to refuse if unnecessary it is a sin both in King and Parliament to Levy But for all that it may be and I think it is a Sin in any one that hath the Soveraign Power be he one Man or one Assembly being intrusted with the safety of a whole Nation if rashly and relying upon his own Natural sufficiency he make War or Peace without Consulting with such as by their Experience and Employment abroad and Intelligence by Letters or other means have gotten the Knowledge in some measure of the strength Advantages and Designs of the Enemy and the Manner and Degree of the Danger that may from thence arise In like manner in case of Rebellion at Home if he Consult not with of Military Condition which if he do then I think he may Lawfully proceed to Subdue all such Enemies and Rebels and that the Souldiers ought to go on without Inquiring whether they be within the Country or without For who shall suppress Rebellion but he that hath Right to Levy Command and Dispose of the Militia The last long Parliament denied this But why Because by the Major part of their Votes the Rebellion was raised with design to put down Monarchy and to that end Maintained Ph. Nor do
whatsoever was repugnant to those 4 General Councils For if they had I believe the Anabaptists of which there was great plenty in those times would one time or other have been question'd upon this Article of the Nicene Creed I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins nor was the Commission it self for a long time after Registred that Men might in such uncertainty take heed and abstain for their better safety from speaking of Religion any thing at all But by what Law was this Heretick Legat burnt I grant he was an Arian and his Heresie contrary to the Determination of the Church of England in the Highest Points of Christianity but seeing there was no Statute-Law to burn him and no Penalty forbidden by what Law by what Authority was he burn't La. That this Legat was accused of Heresie was no fault of the High Commissioners but when he was accused it had been a fault in them not to have examin'd him or having examin'd him and found him an Arian not to have judged him so or not to have certified him so All this they did and this was all that belonged unto them they medled not with his Burning but left him to the Secular Power to do with him what they pleased Ph. Your Justification of the Commissioners is nothing to the Question the Question is by what Law he was burn't the Spiritual-Law gives no Sentence of Temporal Punishment and Sir Edw. Coke confesseth that he could not be burned and Burning forbidden by Statute-Law By what Law then was he burned La. By the Common-Law Ph. What 's that It is not Custom for before the time of Henry the 4th there was no such Custom in England for if there had yet those Laws that came after were but Confirmations of the Customs and therefore the Repealing of those Laws was a Repealing of the Custom For when King Ed. the 6th and Queen Eliz. abolished those Statutes they abolished all Pains and consequently Burning or else they had abolished nothing And if you will say he was burn't by the Law of Reason you must tell me how there can be Proportion between Doctrine and Burning there can be no Equality nor Majority nor Minority Assigned between them The Proportion that is between them is the Proportion of the Mischief which the Doctrine maketh to the Mischief to be Inflicted on the Doctor and this is to be measur'd only by him that hath the charge of Governing the People and consequently the Punishing of Offences can be determined by none but by the King and that if it extend to life or member with the Assent of Parliament La. He does not draw any Argument for it from Reason but alledgeth for it this Judgment executed upon Legat and a story out of Hollingshed and Stow But I know that neither History nor Precedent will pass with you for Law And though there be a Writ de haeretico comburendo in the Register as you may Read in Fitzherbert grounded upon the Statutes of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. and 2 H. 5. cap. 7. yet seeing those Statutes are void you will say the VVrit is also void Ph. Yes indeed will I. Besides this I understand not how that is true that he saith that the Diocesan hath Jurisdiction of Heresie and that so it was put in ure in all Queen Elizabeths Reign whereas by the Statute it is manifest that all Jurisdiction spiritual was given under the Queen to the High Commissioners how then could any one Diocesan have any part thereof without deputation from them which by their Letters Patents they could not grant nor was it reasonable they should For the Trust was not committed to the Bishops only but also to divers Lay-Persons who might have an Eye upon their Proceedings lest they should Incroach upon the power Temporal But at this day there is neither Statute nor any Law to Punish Doctrine but the ordinary Power Ecclesiastical and that according to the Canons of the Church of England only Authorized by the King the High Commission being long since abolished Therefore let us come now to such Causes Criminal as are not Capital Of Praemunire La. THe greatest Offence not Capital is that which is done against the Statute of Provisoes Ph. You have need to expound this La. This Crime is not unlike to that for which a Man is outlawed when he will not come in and submit himself to the Law saving that in Outlawries there is a long Process to precede it and he that is outlawed is put out of the Protection of the Law But for the Offence against the Statute of Provisors which is called Praemunire facias from the words in the Original VVrit if the Offender submit not himself to the Law within the space of 2 Months after notice he is presently an Outlaw And this Punishment if not Capital is equivalent to Capital For he lives secretly at the Mercy of those that know where he is and cannot without the like Peril to themselves but discover him And it has been much disputed before the time of Queen Elizabeth whether he might not be lawfully killed by any Man that would as one might kill a VVolf It is like the Punishment amongst the old Romans of being barred the use of Fire and VVater and like the great Excommunication in the Papacy when a Man might not eat or drink with the Offender without incurring the like Penalty Ph. Certainly the Offence for which this Punishment was first Ordained was some abominable Crime or of extraordinary Mischief La. So it was For the Pope you know from long before the Conquest incroached every day upon the Power Temporal VVhatsoever could be made to seem to be in ordine ad Spiritualia was in every Common-wealth claimed and haled to the Jurisdiction of the Pope And for that end in every Country he had his Court Ecclesiastical and there was scarce any cause Temporal which he could not by one shift or other hook into his Jurisdiction in such sort as to have it tryed in his own Courts at Rome or in France or in England it self By which means the Kings Laws were not regarded Judgments given in the Kings Courts were avoided and presentations to Bishopricks Abbies and other Benefices founded and endowed by the Kings and Nobility of England were bestowed by the Pope upon Strangers or such as with Money in their Purses could travel to Rome to provide themselves of such Benefices And suitably hereunto when there was a Question about a Tythe or a VVill though the point were meerly Temporal yet the Popes Court here would fetch them in or else one of the Parties would appeal to Rome Against these Injuries of the Roman Church and to maintain the Right and Dignity of the Crown of England Ed. 1. made a Statute concerning Provisors that is such as provide themselves with Benefices here from Rome for in the 25th year of his Reign he ordained in a full Parliament that the Right of Election of
also if he will And they say true but they have no reason to think he will unless it be for his own profit which cannot be for he loves his own Power and what becomes of his power when his Subjects are destroyed or weakned by whose multitude and strength he enjoyes his power and every one of his Subjects his Fortune And lastly whereas they sometimes say the King is bound not only to cause his Laws to be observ'd but also to observe them himself I think the King causing them to be observ'd is the same thing as observing them himself For I never heard it taken for good Law that the King may be Indicted or Appealed or served with a Writ till the long Parliament practised the contrary upon the good King Charles for which divers of them were Executed and the rest by this our present King pardoned La. Pardoned by the King and Parliament Ph. By the King in Parliament if you will but not by the King and Parliament you cannot deny but that the pardoning of Injury to the Person that is Injur'd Treason and other Offences against the Peace and against the Right of the Soveraign are Injuries done to the King and therefore whosoever is pardoned any such Offence ought to acknowledge he ows his Pardon to the King alone But as to such Murders Felonies and other Injuries as are done to any Subject how mean soever I think it great reason that the parties endammaged ought to have satisfaction before such pardon be allow'd And in the death of a Man where restitution of Life is Impossible what can any Friend Heir or other party that may appeal require more than reasonable satisfaction some other way Perhaps he will be content with nothing but Life for Life but that is Revenge and belongs to God and under God to the King and none else therefore if there be reasonable satisfaction tendred the King without sin I think may pardon him I am sure if the pardoning him be a sin that neither King nor Parliament nor any earthly Power can do it La. You see by this your own Argument that the Act of Oblivion without a Parliament could not have passed because not only the King but also most of the Lords and abundance of Common People had received Injuries which not being pardonable but by their own Assent it was absolutely necessary that it should be done in Parliament and by the assent of the Lords and Commons Ph. I grant it but I pray you tell me now what is the difference between a general Pardon and an Act of Oblivion La. The word Act of Oblivion was never in our Books before but I believe it is in yours Ph. In the State of Athens long ago for the Abolishing of the Civil War there was an Act agreed on that from that time forward no Man should be molested for any thing before that Act done whatsoever without exception which Act the makers of it called an Act of Oblivion not that all Injuries should be forgotten for then we could never have had the story but that they should not rise up in Judgment against any Man And in imitation of this Act the like was propounded though it took no effect upon the death of Julius Caesar in the Senate of Rome By such an Act you may easily conceive that all Accusations for offences past were absolutely dead and buried and yet we have no great reason to think that the objecting one to another of the Injuries pardoned was any violation of those Acts except the same were so expressed in the Act it self La. It seems then that the Act of Oblivion was here no more nor of other nature than a General Pardon Of Courts Ph. SInce you acknowledge that in all controversies the Judicature originally belongeth to the King and seeing that no Man is able in his own person to execute an Office of so much business what order is taken for deciding of so many and so various Controversies La. There be divers sorts of Controversies some of which are concerning Mens Titles to Lands and Goods and some Goods are Corporeal and Lands Money Cattel Corn and the like which may be handled or seen and some Incorporeal as Priviledges Liberties Dignities Offices and many other good things meer Creatures of the Law and cannot be handled or seen And both of these kinds are concerning Meum and Tuum Others there are concerning Crimes punishable divers wayes and amongst some of these part of the punishment is some Fine or Forfeiture to the King and then it is called a Plea of the Crown in case the King sue the party otherwise it is but a private Plea which they call an Appeal And though upon Judgment in an Appeal the King shall have his Forfeiture yet it cannot be called a Plea of the Crown but when the Crown pleadeth for it There be also other Controversies concerning the Government of the Church in order to Religion and virtuous Life The offences both against the Crown and against the Laws of the Church are Crimes but the offences of one Subject against another if they be not against the Crown the King pretendeth nothing in those Pleas but the Reparation of his Subjects injur'd Ph. A Crime is an offence of any kind whatsoever for which a penalty is Ordain'd by the Law of the Land But you must understand that dammages awarded to the party injur'd has nothing common with the nature of a penalty but is meerly a Restitution or satisfaction due to the party griev'd by the Law of Reason and consequently is no more a punishment than is the paying of a Debt La. It seems by this Definition of a Crime you make no difference between a Crime and a sin Ph. All Crimes are indeed Sins but not all Sins Crimes A Sin may be in the thought or secret purpose of a Man of which neither a Judge nor a Witness nor any Man take notice but a Crime is such a Sin as consists in an Action against the Law of which Action he can be Accused and Tryed by a Judge and be Convinced or Cleared by Witnesses Farther that which is no Sin in it self but indifferent may be made Sin by a positive Law As when the Statute was in force that no Man should wear Silk in his Hat after the Statute such wearing of Silk was a Sin which was not so before Nay sometimes an Action that 's good in it self by the Statute Law may be made a Sin as if a Statute should be made to forbid the giving of Alms to a strong and sturdy Beggar such Alms after that Law would be a Sin but not before For then it was Charity the Object whereof is not the strength or other Quality of the poor Man but his Poverty Again he that should have said in Queen Maries time that the Pope had no Authority in England should have been Burnt at a Stake but for saying the same in the time of Queen Elizabeth
of the Anabaptists and many other La. What Punishment had Arius Ph. At the first for refusing to Subscribe he was deprived and Banished but afterwards having satisfied the Emperor concerning his future Obedience for the Emperor caused his Confession to be made not for the regard of Truth of Doctrine but for the preserving of the Peace especially among his Christian Souldiers by whose valour he had gotten the Empire and by the same was to preserve it he was received again into Grace but dyed before he could repossess his Benefice But after the time of those Councils the Imperial Law made the Punishment for Heresie to be Capital though the manner of the Death was left to the Praefects in their several Jurisdictions and thus it continued till somewhat after the time of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and the Papacy having gotten the upper hand of the Emperor brought in the use of Burning both Hereticks and Apostates and the Popes from time to time made Heresie of many other points of Doctrine as they saw it conduce to the setting up of the Chair above the Throne besides those determined in the Nicene Creed and brought in the use of Burning and according to this Papal-Law there was an Apostate Burnt at Oxford in the time of William the Conqueror for turning Jew But of a Heretick Burnt in England there is no mention made till after the Statute of 2 Hen. 4. Whereby some followers of Wiclif called Lollards were afterwards Burned and that for such Doctrines as by the Church of England ever since the first year of Queen El. have been approved for Godly Doctrines and no doubt were Godly then and so you see how many have been Burnt for Godliness La. 'T was not well done but 't is no wonder we read of no Hereticks before the time of H. 4. For in the Preamble to that Statute it is intimated that before those Lollards there never was any Heresie in England Ph. I think so too for we have been the tamest Nation to the Pope of all the World But what Statutes concerning Heresie have there been made since La. The Statute of 2 H. 5. c. 7. which adds to the Burning the Forfeiture of Lands and Goods and then no more till the 25 H. 8. c. 14. which confirms the two former and giveth some new Rules concerning how they shall be Proceeded with But by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. All Acts of Parliament formerly made to punish any manner of Doctrine concerning Religion are repeal'd For therein it is ordain'd after divers Acts specified that all and every other Act or Acts of Parliament concerning Doctrine or matters of Religion and all and every Branch Article Sentence and Matter Pains and Forfeitures contained mentioned or any wise declared in the same Acts of Parliament or Statutes shall be from henceforth Repealed utterly void and of none effect So that in the time of King Ed. 6. not only all Punishments of Heresie were taken away but also the Nature of it was changed to what Originally it was a Private Opinion Again in 12 Phil. and Ma. those former Statutes of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. 2 H. 5. Cap. 17. 25. H. 8. cap. 14. are Revived and the Branch of 1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. touching Doctrine though not specially named seemeth to be this that the same Statute confirmeth the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. concerning Treasons Lastly in the first year of Queen Eliz. cap. 1. the aforesaid Statutes of Queen Mary are taken away and thereby the Statute of 1 Ed. cap. 12. Revived so as there was no Statute left for the Punishment of Hereticks But Queen Eliz. by the Advice of her Parliament gave a Commission which was called the High-Commission to certain Persons amongst whom were very many of the Bishops to Declare what should be Heresie for the future but with a Restraint that they should Judge nothing to be Heresie but what had been so declared in the first four General Councils Ph. From this which you have shewed me I think we may proceed to the Examination of the Learned Sir Edw. Coke concerning Heresie In his Chapter of Heresie 3 Inst. p. 40. he himself confesseth that no Statute against Heresie stood then in force when in the 9th year of King James Bartholomew Legat was Burnt for Arianism and that from the Authority of the Act of 2 Hen. 4. cap. 15. and other Acts cited in the Margin it may be gather'd that the Diocesan hath the Jurisdiction of Heresie This I say is not true For as to Acts of Parliament it is manifest that from Acts Repealed that is to say from things that have no being there can be gathered nothing And as to the other Authorities in the Margin Fitzherbert and the Doctor and Student they say no more than what was Law in the time when they writ that is when the Popes Usurped Authority was here obeyed But if they had Written this in the time of King Ed. 6. or Queen Elizabeth Sir Edw. Coke might as well have cited his own Authority as theirs for their Opinions had no more the force of Laws than his Then he cites this Precedent of Legat and another of Hammond in the time of Queen Elizabeth but Precedents prove only what was done and not what was well done VVhat Jurisdiction could the Diocesan then have of Heresie when by the Statute of Ed. 6. cap. 12. then in force there was no Heresie and all Punishment for Opinions forbidden For Heresie is a Doctrine contrary to the Determination of the Church but then the Church had not Determined any thing at all concerning Heresie La. But seeing the High Commissioners had Power to Correct and Amend Heresies they must have Power to cite such as were Accused of Heresie to appear before them or else they could not execute their Commission Ph. If they had first made and published a Declaration of what Articles they made Heresie that when one Man heard another speak against their Declaration he might thereof inform the Commissioners then indeed they had had Power to cite and imprison the Person accus'd but before they had known what should be Heresie how was it possible that one Man should accuse another And before he be accused how can he be cited La. Perhaps it was taken for granted that whatsoever was contrary to any of the 4 first General Councils was to be judged Heresie Ph. That granted yet I see not how one Man might accuse another ' ere the better for those Councils For not one Man of ten thousand had ever read them nor were they ever Published in English that a Man might avoid Offending against them nor perhaps are they extant nor if those that we have Printed in Latin are the very Acts of the Councils which is yet much disputed amongst Divines do I think it fit they were put in the Vulgar Tongues But it is not likely that the makers of the Statutes had any purpose to make Heresie of