| OCR Text |
Show [ 128 ] " proves" (Pays he) " that it was fuppofed " the King, by his {ole authority, could " then SI, and 3 inft. p. 40 and 41). [ 129 l " then introduce any EHg/rj'lr Law 3 and " will that authority" (lays he) " be S " lelTencd Alfo 2 Hen. V. caps], (which Sir Edward Coke, by miflalce, calls rap. 6,) " againft Preachers (was) difitvowed the next Par- And the fame learned author thereupon directs us to " mar/r will I/Jt manner qf l/Je penning I/Je A'z‘i : for, ice- K . ‘ ing" (lays he) " the Commons did not allow; there- " liament by the Commons, for that tlyqy rim/er af- I "; 4...»,4-4- - Init. p. 51.) F; _.-...k ‘ unto, the words of the Act be, ‘ ("Exiled in 1M: [infer/t Par/ramwrf, I/Jat, &C. It 2': ordaimdarrd ‘ it was, being but by the King and the Lords." " fen/Ed, and yet the jhfipq/E'd AC} (was) fir/Mud." (.1. By fuch notorious marker} and inflow/l} did the Zealots of the Romilh Church introduce the papal Tyranny into England. Sir Edward Coke, in his 3d Infl. (pages 40 and 41,) clearly proves, from the Parliament-Rolls and Other Records, the fraudulent introduction of the above- mentioned Act, in the 5th of Rich. Il. by a popifh Prelate", And {0 The fame rule enables us to judge concerning the authenticity of many other ancient Acts, wherein the flflcn/ oftlre Commons is not particularly mentioned, and yet they.are publifhed. The conilitutions called Statzmmr d: Brgamr‘r, for inllance, are declared to 1mm hm " jet fort/J in 1/2: Par/fame"! after Michaelmas," {5'0 who at that time was Lord-Chancellor And * Sir Edward Coltc calls him " yabn Braibraol'," ; Inf}. p. 41 ; but, according to Bifhop Godwin, his name was " Rabzrl Bray" brook," (De Prat/14115:" flag/['4' Com. p. 186.) but both of them (efiify that he was Bifhop of London, as well as Lord Chancellor. Among the big/[Ed emails of his pram fraud the following are repo ted by Sir Edward Coke, 3d Infi. p. 40. --. " By colour of this/11;» " Pofcd Act," (5 Rich. II.) certain petfons that held " Ifiditze fucrunt apud Wellm. in parliamento poll " feitum lanai Michaelis," 65¢. (Mag. Char. cum f‘tatutis (11.133 antiqua vocantur, ESQ. p. 104, 13. Ed. 1556.) But when we " mar/f rwrl/ tbr manner oft/upm- " m'ng {Ive #3," according to bir Edward Coke's rule, it appears to be very deficient in parliamentary Autho- rity, though he himfclfhns taken great pains to prove its authenticity. He remarks, that " the-(e words in tlmr lmugu " were no! la [Never/hipped, «Sec. were holden inflrong [Or/fan, until " they (to redeem their vrxation) mifenbly yielded before theft: " Mallets of Divinity to take in Oath, and did fwmr ta war/121} " Images; which was againfl the moral and eternal Law of Almighty " God l" This and many other {nth irrflances of hardened Apriltacy in popifl'l Profcfl'ors {ufficicntly juftify our applying to the [an/ml 7y- mnny, in general, that Prophecy of the Apuftle Paul concerning the. " Man if Mn," that was to her-wru/ed, " the Sun of Perdition. " who oppoftth and cxaltcth himr'ell‘ahove all that is called God, or " that is worfhippcd 5 f0 that he. as God, fittethin the temple of " God, flrewing bimfrlfthat he is Geu‘" (z 'l‘htff. ii. 3 to 6); and " whom " the Ill; chapter (concordatum ell per julliciarios ct " alioa " whom thr‘ Lord (hail confirm." with the Spirit of his nmnth, and " {hall div/[my with the brigh'nrl‘u oi" bi: Cam/rig ;" (vurf; 3.) »- O i that all thnfc p4 Irmr, wlmfi: hurts are not yet entirely "‘ mrrd cuff/2 " lbs-tor inn" «it popii'h {inthulial‘m' may duly (onliu'er theft: glaring inflincts of pnpilh Cult in uppufirion to the Laws of God, and confcquen'ly the :Ippmt'nt danger ol skillfl‘llg to that church which has (n notoriunily perverted the l). chino of Vhr. Col‘pcl ; lr'll' they {haul} be found in mmmunion will. rhr; Kimmie! «if L‘Irrii' at his glorioufl Camirg! |
