asunder, and the Bulls of the Pope let loose to work all the mischief which the great enemy of our Church and country could require.

Perhaps I may be permitted to observe, that few are fully aware of the uncertainty in which some of our ancient Acts are involved, still less of the fact, that some of those framed in the earlier part of our history against heretics, were not real but supposed statutes passed, or supposed to be, by the intrigues and power of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the day, sanctioned indeed by the Sovereign, whom they could in some cases control; and by the Peers, but without the consent of the Commons, and that they were subsequently disaffirmed by the Commons.* Sir Edward Coke, speaking in his time, says: In perusing over the rolls of Parliament, we find divers Acts of Parliament in print, that are not of record in the rolls of Parliament. Secondly, many Acts of Parliament that be in the rolls of Parliament, and never yet printed. Thirdly, divers clauses omitted in the print, which are in the Parliament roll. Fourthly, more in the print than in the record. Fifthly, many variances between the print and the roll. Sixthly, statutes repealed or disaffirmed, and yet printed, &c. Seventhly, whole Parliaments omitted out of the print. Eighthly, whole Parliaments repealed, or a great part.

Instances of each are given, and as to the sixth,

* To some of these Bishop Burgess refers at the end of his "Protestant's Catechism," p. 66.

Sir Edward Coke proceeds thus: "The sixth, statutes pretended to be enacted, and after disaffirmed, and yet printed, 5 R. II. cap. 5, stat. 2, touching inquiries of heresies, anno 6 R. II. nu. 52, disaffirmed by the Commons, for that they protested it was never their meaning to be justified, and to binde themselves and their successors to the prelates no more than their ancestors had done before them. Robert Braibroke, Bishop of London, was then Lord Chancellor."

tutes dis

the Com

mons.

Other instances are given. And in another* place Supposed stahe thus writes: "There was a statute supposed to be affirmed by made in 5 R. II., that Commissions should be the Lord Chancellor made, and directed to sherifs and others, to arrest such as should be certified into the Chancery by the bishops and prelates, masters of divinity, to be preachers of heresies and notorious errors, their fautors, maintainers and abettors, and to hold them in strong prison, until they will justifie themselves to the law of holy Church. By color of this supposed act, certaine persons that held that images were not to be worshipped, &c., were holden in strong prison, until they (to redeem their vexation) miserably yeelded before these masters of divinity to take an oath, and did swear to worship images, which was against the morall and eternall law of Almighty God. We have said (by color of the said supposed statute, &c.), not only in respect of the said opinion, but in respect also, that the said supposed act, was in

* Coke, Fourth Institute, page 51.

truth never any Act of Parliament, though it was entred in the rolls of the Parliament, for that the Commons never gave their consent thereunto. And therefore in the next Parliament, the Commons preferred a Bill reciting the said supposed Act, and constantly affirmed, that they never assented thereunto, and therefore desired that the said supposed statute might be aniented, and declared to be void for they protested, that it was never their intent to be justified, and to bind themselves and their successors to the prelates, more than their ancestor had done in times past: and hereunto the King gave his royall assent in these words, Y pleist au roy.' And mark well the manner of the penning the Act : for seeing the Commons did not assent thereunto, the words of the Act be, It is ordained and assented in this present Parliament, that, &c. And so it was, being but by the King and the Lords.

"It is to be known, that of ancient time, when any Acts of Parliament were made, to the end the same might be published, and understood, especially before the use of printing came into England, the Acts of Parliament were ingrossed into parchment, and bundled up together with a writ in the King's name, under the great seal to the sheriff of every county, sometime in Latin, and sometime in French, to command the sheriff to proclaim the said statutes within his bayliwick, as well within liberties, as without. And this was the course of Parliamentary proceedings,

before printing came in use in England, and yet it continued after we had the print, till the reign of Henry VII."-3 Institute, c. 5, 40.

with Acts of

"Now at the Parliament holden in 5 R. II., John Papal tricks Braibrook, Bishop of London, being Lord Chancellor Parliament. of England, caused the said ordinance of the King, and Lords to be inserted into the Parliamentary writ of proclamation to be proclaimed amongst the Acts of Parliament, which writ I have seen, &c. But in the Parliamentary proclamation of the Acts passed in anno 6 R. II., the said Act of 6 R. II., whereby the said supposed Act of 5 R. II. was declared to be void, is omitted, and afterwards the said supposed Act of 5 R. II. was continually printed, and the said Act of 6 R. II. hath by the prelates been ever from time to time kept from the first.

"Certain men called Lollards were indicted for heresy upon the said statute of 2 H. IV., for these opinions, viz., Quod non est meritorium ad Sanctum Thomam nec ad Sanctam Mariam de Walsingham peregrinari. 2. Nec imagines, crucifixi, et aliorum sanctorum adorare. 3. Nulli sacerdoti confiteri nisi soli Deo, &c. Which opinions were so far from heresy as the makers of the statute of 1 Eliz. had great cause to limit what heresy was."-Coke, Third Institute, p. 41.

And, speaking of the inaccuracy in the transcription of our earlier statutes for the purpose of printing them, he says, with reference to the statute of provisors, a statute

passed by Roman Catholics to protect the Church and nation from the encroaching power of Rome,

[Note] In the roll of Parliament of the statute of Provisions there are more sharp and biting words against the Pope, than in the print, a 'mysterie often in use, but not to be knowne of all men.""-2 Inst. 585, b.

But supposing that the statutory enactments, instead of being modified, as they have been, were all gone, that not only were the penalties removed, but the Acts themselves absolutely repealed and clean swept away; that we had not the Act of 16 Rich. II., c. 5, nor the portions which yet remain of 1 Eliz. c. 1, nor 2 Eliz. c. 13, nor the provisions of 10 Geo. IV. c. 7.* Still these are the principles of the Common Law, and there are the dictates of common sense, and of common safety, telling us to repel from our country, as we would repel from our own houses, a power which sought to usurp our place.

To such an invasion, we ought not to give place, by way of subjection or submission-no-not for an hour. Let us for a moment see what Sir William Blackstone has written upon this subject :—†

66

:

Having thus, in some degree, endeavoured to trace out the original and subsequent progress of the Papal usurpations in England, let us now return to the statutes of præmunire, which were framed to

* See post, Appendix G., p. 144.

† And see "National Protests before the Reformation." Seeleys, Hanover-street, and Fleet-street.