A P P E N D I X. Hooper had been confecrated without fwearing thefupremacy, this omif- fion might have brought the archbifhop under apreemunire. Mr. N. adds, in which time the matter was in tome/irt compromifed withHitt. Plait. bp. Hooper. So lays Dr. Heylin exprefly, hill. prefbyter. p. 242. and p. 47. Dr. Wells. And was it not a compromife according to bi(hop Burnet, when he was to be difpenfed with wearing the habits, except when he preached before the king or in his cathedral, or in any publick place, but was to be difpenfed with on other occafions ? However, this was not the cafe, according to Mr. Fox in his matyrology, who fays, " he was con Pierce's '° (trained to appear once in publick attired after the manner ofother bi- Vindic. p. " (hops, which unlefs he had done, fome think therewas a contrivance 30. " to take away his life; for his fervant told me (lays Mr. Fox), that " the duke of Suffolk fent fuch word to Hooper,, who was not himfelf " ignorant what was doing." Mr. N. Pays, m f of the reformed clergy were with Hooper in this Vindic. p.. controverfy. And fo he rays Rill ; nor can all the management of 306. Pur t. this writer difprove it. It is no lets than ridiculous to conclude, that P 48 becaufe Hooper confented to wear the habits on fome occafions, therefore he was a conformi/l in oppof tion to a puritan, or becaufe Coverdale, Tay- lor, Philpot, and Bradford died members of the church, and continued beneficed in it, therefore they approved of the habits ; for by the fame way of reafoning he might prove at once, there were no puritans at all till the feparation. Our author maintains, that the habits put upon Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Vindic. p. at their degradation, were the popifh habits not tba/e retained in the 307 reformed church of England, which were di/linguifhedfrom the other ; and that the &Ake they exprefedat them- degradation was to the pops habits. This is retnárkably curious ! how then were theprote/lant habits diftin- guifhed from the popi/h ? Was the proteftant cope of albe of a diftinét fashion? or did the furplice in king EDWARD'S reign, differ from the furplice in king HENRY'S? Yes, lays our author, for thefirmer were not Vindic, p: confecrated with prayer, croJings, andfprinkling with holy water, as the po- 90. pith veltments were. 'Twos" thefurplice only that could in anyfènf be called POP l sis- and even this hadnot the crud and cro/lis, which were embroidered on the popi/h garments. Were all the furplices, copes, and albes then, throughout the kingdom, embroidered in this manner imthe reign of kingHENRY ?' or, if the embroidery had been taken off from a confecrated furplice, wouldthe indelible charaâer have gone withit? Mr. Cran. Mem,. Strype fays, when archbifhop.Cranmer was degraded; they apparelled P- 375, him in all the garments and ornaments of an archbifhop only in mocke- ry ; every thingwas in canvas and old clouts; but if-the canvas and old Yos . L * 5 Y dots, 893
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=