H'tory of the Puritans, examin'd. 209 dixit. In the feventh Day's hearing, which was his Anfwer to the ninth additional Article againft the Canons, I meet with nothing like it either in Sound or Senfe. * ' Then (lays the Archbifhop) he, [Viz. Prynn] urged out ofmy Diary at May 29, 1640, ' that I acknowledged there were feventeen Canons made, which I did hope would be ufeful to the Church. 'Tis true, my Lords, I did hope fo. ; and had I not hoped it, I never would have paffed my confent unto them. And when I writ this, there was nothing done or faid againft them ; and if by any Inadvertency, or human Frailty, any thing er- ' roneous and unfit have flipt into thelè Canons, I humbly befeech your Lordfhips to remember, that it is an Article of the Church of England, That General Councils may err, and therefore this ' national Synod may miftake,; and that fince (if any Error be) it is not wilful, it may be real- ' fied, and in Charity paffed by.' Nor does he fay it, p. 8o, and 81. where he anfwers the Ob- jetions made againft the Convocation's fitting, when the Parliament was up. Neal, p. 378. Bifkop Kennet in his complete Hi- llary Pays, That theft publick Cenfures of the Canons were grounded upon prejudice, that it is hard to find any DefeEZ of Legality in the makingof them. And then follows, omitted by Mr. Neal, t ' Or any juft Authority that did afterwards annul them. It is true, the Aft 13 Car. II. cap. 12. would not confirm them, but fo neither did it '. repeal them ; they are left with the fame force they had from the beginning, &c. And if the King's Licence and Confirmation does not make the Canons regularly paffed in Convocation to be binding, without a Parliament, we have had no * Trial and Troubles, p. z8a. Iennet, p. t 64. i ft Edition. I? , proper
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=