446 LIVES OF' THE PURITANS. A. There is provision in the statute of 7 Elia., that the queen, with her high commissioners, or the archbishop, may take further order. F. The proviso of 7 Eliz. can have no relation to 13 Eliz., which was some years after. And -the proviso expresseth how far it is to be extended : not to taking away and establishing ceremonies. A. But so much of the canon law is still in force, as is not contrary to God's word; and you have promised canonical obedience. F. But the question is, whether the things required be agreeable to God's word ? And not only so, there is no canon which, requires us to subscribe to the judgment of our ordinary. A. That I allow ; but the law hath charged the bishop to see that all things for the ministry be duly observed, as by law established ; and I take this order for the more effectual execution ofthings already established. F. Your care and diligence in the execution of laws must be according to law, and not contrary to law ; that is, by admonition, by suspension, by sequestration, or by deprivation, as the case may require. But these proceed- ings are not according to law; but an inquisition into our hearts and consciences, for which there is no law. A. I make this a decree and order for the whole of my province, and, therefore, is to be observed as if it had been made before. F. No one person, nor any number of persons, bath authority to make decrees or constitutions, except in con vocation ; which must be called together by the king's writ : As e5, Henry VIII. and 1 Eliz., which is entitled, a The Submission of the Clergy." A. -I have the queen's consent. F. But that consent was not according to law provided in this behalf. Nor was it done in convocation. A. Ihave the consent of my brethren and some others. F. That was not according to the order of convocationi wherein weare to have our free choice ofclerks.* Mr. Fenn remained under suspension a long time, during the whole of which period his cure was'totally neglected.i. But by the kind favour of the Earl of Leicester, as appears from his letter to the archbishop, dated July 14, 1585, he was at length 'restored to his ministry, when'he returned to * MS. Register, p. 592. 146.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=