Chapter I: AM aware it may be said this act (1 Elizabeth, c. 1) was repealed when

the High Commission Court was abolished; but it has been held, I believe by Lord Coke (I know I have lately seen it referred to, though I have not marked the reference,) that though no longer binding as law, it would be accounted probably of some authority to show the mind in which law would deal with heresy, and as a guide to a judge in any such matter. Add to which, this law indicating what was, _at any rate_, and _at the least_, to be adjudged heresy was restrictive, not augmentative of the offence. Even so, as we see, it allowed the authority of those first four general councils, and therefore by its enactment is a special witness for their reception by the English law. And its repeal by no means destroys the force of this argument in their favour, because the law itself having been, as I have said, restrictive, and no other act being passed upon its repeal to limit again the judgment of the courts, they would revert at once to the former rule, and the Church gain instead of losing by the proceeding. In other words, the statute (1 Eliz. c. 1) shows what at all events the law, when most bent upon restriction, acknowledged as to those general councils, whilst its repeal only removes a limitation, and restores things again to their ancient footing. This is well stated in the following extract:—

“Our church law acknowledges many other heresies besides those which
were condemned by the four first œcumenical councils. The clause in
1 Eliz. c. 1, which I quoted as the least stringent measure of heresy
ever allowed among us, was repealed when the court which was
restrained by it (the High Commission Court) was abolished; and now,
whatever was heresy before the reformation is still heresy, (by 25
Hen. 8, c. 19, s. 7,) unless there have been special enactment to the
contrary. Now there can be no question that the African canons were
in force here before the reformation; for, whether received at
Chalcedon or no, they had been severally received by the whole
Church, both east and west. Therefore it still remains to be proved,
‘that a bishop or archbishop, acting on the late decision, will not
involve in direct heresy both himself and eventually all in communion
with him,’ by the very law of the Church as at present
existing.”—_Letter_, _J. K. Guardian_, _May_ 1_st._ 1850.

H. p. 128.