87 " which there could be no greater cc Abufe, might lawfully be eaten ; " therefore they faw no Necefïity be- " caufe of a former Abu% to throw " away Habits, that had fomuch De- cc cency in them, and had been former- " ly in life]." All that is enclofed Mr. N. has left out, without hinting at the Omiffion. But as fo great a Part of the Puri- tanical Difpute was about the Ha- bits, let us examine a little farther in- to that Matter. Mr. NCI affects, " that p. 139, " Queen Elizabeth's Common-Prayer " Book was hardly equal to that which " was fet out by King Edward, and " confirmed by Parliament, in thefifth " Year of his Reign. For whereas in " that Liturgy, all the Garments were " laid afide but the Surplice, the Queen " now returned toKing Edward'sfcrft " Book, wherein Copes and other Gar- " ments were order'd to be ufed. " The Truth of the Cafe is this ; the Change of Religion was fo hazardous, that great Caution was neceffary, and as few Perfons as poflible to be offend- ed. But tho' the Habits appointed' in the zd Year of Edward VI. were pre- fcribed in the Aet of Uniformity ; yet a Claufe was inferted to impower the Queen, if it íhould appear practicable, G 4 to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=