_P._ From this which you have showed me, I think we may proceed to the examination of the learned Sir Edward Coke concerning heresy. In his chapter of heresy, 3 _Inst._ p. 40, he himself confesseth that no statute against heresy 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. IV_, _c._ 15, and other acts cited in the margin, it may be gathered that the diocesan hath the jurisdiction of heresy. This I say is not true: for as to acts of Parliament, it is manifest, that from acts repealed, that is to say, from things that have no being, there can be gathered nothing.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 Pope’s usurped authority was here obeyed. But if they had written this in the time of King Edward VI or Queen Elizabeth, Sir Edward 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. What jurisdiction could the diocesan then have of heresy, when by the statute of _Edw. VI_, _c._ 12, then in force, there was no heresy, and all punishment for opinions was forbidden? For heresy is a doctrine contrary to the determination of the Church; but then the Church had not determined any thing at all concerning heresy. _L._ But seeing the high-commissioners had power to correct and amend heresies, they must have power to cite such as were accused of heresy to appear before them; or else they could not execute their commission. _P._ If they had first made and published a declaration of what articles they made heresy, 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 accused. But before they can know what should be heresy, how was it possible that one man should accuse another? And before he be accused, how can he be cited? _L._ Perhaps it was taken for granted, that whatsoever was contrary to any of the four first general Councils, was to be judged heresy.