I hereby lay any Aspersion upon such Grants of the King and his Ancestors Those Statutes are in themselves very good for the King and People as creating some kind of Difficulty or such Kings as for the Glory of Conquest might spend one part of their Subjects Lives and Estates in Molesting other Nations and leave the rest to Destroy themselves at Home by Factions That which I here find fault with is the wresting of those and other such Statutes to a binding of our Kings from the use of their Armies in the necessary defence of themselves and their People The late long Parliament that in 1648 Murdered their King a King that sought no greater Glory upon Earth but to be indulgent to his People and a Pious defender of the Church of England no sooner took upon them the Soveraign Power then they Levyed Money upon the People at their own Discretion Did any of their Subjects Dispute their Power Did they not send Souldiers over the Sea to Subdue Ireland and others to Fight against the Dutch at Sea or made they any doubt but to be obeyed in all that they Commanded as a Right absolutely due to the Soveraign Power in whomsoever it resides I say not this as allowing their Actions but as a Testimony from the Mouths of those very Men that denyed the same Power to him whom they acknowledged to have been their Soveraign immediately before which is a sufficient Proof that the People of England never doubted of the Kings Right to Levy Money for the Maintenance of his Armies till they were abused in it by Seditious Teachers and other prating Men on purpose to turn the State and Church into Popular Government where the most ignorant and boldest Talkers do commonly obtain the best preferments again when their New Republick returned into Monarchy by Oliver who durst deny him Money upon any pretence of Magna Charta or of these other Acts of Parliament which you have Cited You may therefore think it good Law for all your Books that the King of England may at all times that he thinks in his Conscience it will be necessar for the defence of his People Levy as many Souldiers and as much Money as he please and that himself is Judge of the Necessity La. Is there no body harkning at the door Ph. What are you afraid of La. I mean to say the same that you say but there be very many yet that hold their former Principles whom neither the Calamities of the Civil Wars nor their former Pardon have throughly cur'd of their Madness Ph. The Common People never take notice of what they hear of this Nature but when they are set on by such as they think Wise that is by some sorts of Preachers or some that seem to be Learned in the Laws and withal speak evil of the Governors But what if the King upon the sight or apprehension of any great danger to his People as when their Neighbours are born down with the Current of a Conquering Enemy should think his own People might be involved in the same Misery may he not Levy Pay and Transport Souldiers to help those weak Neighbours by way of prevention to save his own People and himself from Servitude Is that a sin La. First If the War upon our Neighbour be Just it may be question'd whether it be Equity or no to Assist them against the Right Ph. For my part I make no Question of that at all unless the Invader will and can put me in security that neither he nor his Successors shall make any Advantage of the Conquest of my Neighbour to do the same to me in time to come but there is no Common Power to bind them to the Peace La. Secondly when such a thing shall happen the Parliament will not refuse to Contribute freely to the safety of themselves and the whole Nation Ph. It may be so and it may be not For if a Parliament then sit not it must be called that requires 6 Weeks time Debating and Collecting what is given requires as much and in this time the Opportunity perhaps is lost Besides how many wretched Souls have we heard to say in the late Troubles What matter is it who gets the Victory We can pay but what they please to Demand and so much we pay now and this they will Murmur as they have ever done whosoever shall Raign over them as long as their Coveteousness and Ignorance hold together which will be till Dooms-day if better order be not taken for their struction in their Duty both from Reason and Religion La. For all this I find it somewhat hard that a King should have Right to take from his Subjects upon the pretence of Necessity what he pleaseth Ph. I know what it is that troubles your Conscience in this Point All Men are troubled at the Crossing of their Wishes but it is our own fault First we wish Impossibilities we would have our Security against all the World upon Right of Property without Paying for it This is Impossible We may as well Expect that Fish and Fowl should Boil Rost and Dish themselves and come to the Table and that Grapes should squeeze themselves into our Mouths and have all other the Contentments and ease which some pleasant Men have Related of the Land of Cocquam Secondly There is no Nation in the World where he or they that have the Soveraignty do not take what Money they please for Defence of those respective Nations when they think it necessary for their safety The late long Parliament denyed this but why Because there was a Design amongst them to Depose the King Thirdly There is no Example of any King of England that I have Read of that ever pretended any such Necessity for Levying of Money against his Conscience The greatest sounds that ever were Levyed Comparing the value of Money as it was at that time with what now it is were Levied by King Edw. 3d. and King Henry the 5th Kings of whom we Glory now and think their Actions great Ornaments to the English History Lastly As to the enriching of now and then a Favourite it is neither sensible to the Kingdom nor is any Treasure thereby Conveyed out of the Realm but so spent as it falls down again upon the Common People To think that our Condition being Humane should be subject to no Incommodity were Injuriously to Quarrel with God Almighty for our own Faults for he hath done his part in annexing our own Industry and Obedience La. I know not what to say Ph. If you allow this that I have said then say that the People never were shall be or ought to be free from being Taxed at the will of one or other being hindred that if Civil War come they must Levy all they have and that Dearly from the one or from the other or from both sides Say that adhering to the King their Victory is an end of their Trouble that adhering to his
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
so nor do I see any reason to the contrary For the Subjects whether they come into the Family have no title at all to demand any part of the Land or any thing else but security to which also they are bound to contribute their whole strength and if need be their whole fortunes For it cannot be supposed that any one Man can protect all the rest with his own single strength And for the Practice it is manifest in all Conquests the Land of the vanquished is in the sole power of the Victor and at his disposal Did not Joshua and the high-Priest divide the Land of Canaan in such sort among the Tribes of Israel as they pleased Did not the Roman and Graecian Princes and States according to their own discretion send out the Colonies to inhabit such Provinces as they had Conquered Is there at this day among the Turks any inheritor of Land besides the Sultan And was not all the Land in England once in the hands of William the Conqueror Sir Edw. Coke himself confesses it therefore it is an universal truth that all Conquer'd Lands presently after Victory are the Lands of him that Conquer'd them La. But you know that all Soveraigns are said to have a double Capacity viz. a natural Capacity as he is a Man and a a politick Capacity as a King In his politick Capacity I grant you that King William the Conqueror was the proper and only owner once of all the Land in England but not in his natural Capacity Ph. If he had them in his politick Capacity then they were so his own as not to dispose of any part thereof but only to the benefit of his People and that must be either by his own or by the Peoples discretion that is by Act of Parliament But where do you find that the Conqueror disposed of his Lands as he did some to English-men some to French-men and some to Normans to be holden by divers Tenures as Knight-service Soccage c. by Act of Parliament Or that he ever called a Parliament to have the assent of the Lords and Commons of England in disposing of those Lands he had taken from them Or for retaining of such and such Lands in his own hands by the name of Forrests for his own Recreation or Magnificence You have heard perhaps that some Lawyers or other Men reputed wise and good Patriots have given out that all the Lands which the Kings of England have possessed have been given them by the People to the end that they should therewith defray the Charges of their Wars and pay the wages of their Ministers and that those Lands were gained by the Peoples Money for that was pretended in the late Civil War when they took from the King his Town of Kingston upon Hull but I know you do not think that the pretence was just It cannot therefore be denyed but that Land which King William the Conqueror gave away to English-men and others and which they now hold by his Letters Patents and other conveyances were properly and really his own or else the Titles of them that now hold them must be invalid La. I assent As you have shewed me the beginning of Monarchies so let me hear your opinion concerning their growth Ph. Great Monarchies have proceeded from small Families First by War wherein the Victor not only enlarged his Territory but also the number and riches of his Subjects As for other forms of Common-wealths they have been enlarged otherways First by a voluntary conjunction of many Lords of Families into one great Aristocracie Secondly by Rebellion proceeded first Anarchy and from Anarchy proceeded any form that the Calamities of them that lived therein did prompt them to whether it were that they chose an Hereditary King or an elective King for life or that they agreed upon a Council of certain Persons which is Aristocracy or a Council of the whole People to have the Soveraign Power which is Democracy After the first manner which is by War grew up all the greatest Kingdoms in the World viz. the Aegyptian Assyrian Persian and the Macedonian Monarchy and so did the great Kingdoms of England France and Spain The second manner was the original of the Venetian Aristocracy by the third way which is Rebellion grew up in divers great Monarchies perpetually changing from one form to another as in Rome rebellion against Kings produced Democracy upon which the Senate usurped under Sylla and the People again upon the Senate under Marius and the Emperor usurped upon the People under Caesar and his Successors La. Do you think the distinction between natural and politick Capacity is insignificant Ph. No If the Soveraign power be in an assembly of Men that Assembly whether it be Aristocratical or Democratical may possess Lands but it is in their politick Capacity because no natural Man has any right to those Lands or any part of them in the same manner they can command an Act by plurality of Commands but the Command of any one of them is of no effect But when the Soveraign power is in one Man the Natural and Politick Capacity are in the same Person and as to possession of Lands undistinguishable But as to the Acts and Commands they may be well distinguished in this manner Whatsoever a Monarch does Command or do by consent of the People of his Kingdom may properly be said to be done in his politick Capacity and whatsoever he Commands by word of Mouth only or by Letters Signed with his hand or Sealed with any of his private Seals is done in his natural Capacity Nevertheless his publick Commands though they be made in his politick Capacity have their original from his natural Capacity For in the making of Laws which necessarily requires his assent his assent is natural Also those Acts which are done by the King previously to the passing of them under the Great Seal of England either by word of Mouth or warrant under his Signet or privy Seal are done in his natural Capacity but when they have past the Seal of England they are to be taken as done in his politick Capacity La. I think verily your distinction is good For natural Capacity and politick Capacity signifie no more than private and publick right Therefore leaving this argument let us consider in the next place as far as History will permit what were the Laws and Customs of our Ancestors Ph. The Saxons as also all the rest of Germany not Conquer'd by the Roman Emperors nor compelled to use the imperial Laws were a Savage and Heathen People living only by War and Rapine and as some learned Men in the Roman Antiquities affirm had their name of Germans from that their ancient trade of life as if Germans and Hommes de guerre were all one Their rule over their Family Servants and Subjects was absolute their Laws no other than natural Equity written Law they had little or none and very few there were in the time
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