894 A P P E N D IX. clouts had not been confecrated and croffed, might it not be thought he was degraded of the proteftant garments rather than the popifh ? Was it an embroideredfurplice that bifhop Ridley refufed to put on, and which he enveighed vehemently againft at his degradation ? Was it a popilh or proteftant furplice that was taken off from bifhop Latimer at his de- Tlbid. p. 190. gradation ? when he laid, now Ican make no more holy water ; or from Dr. Taylor, when he laid, now I am rid of afool's coat ? Thefe impor- tant queftions mutt be decided, before our author's diftinétion between prote/iant and popifh vellments will be admitted. Vindic. p. Mr. N. lays, Bucer gave his opinion againf the habits, as INVENTt- 30$ ONO OF ANTI CHRI ST. -- Now as a proofofMr. N's manner ofwrit.. P°nt' ing (lays he), the readerChatl have the words o bi ho Burnet.-- 4 Mr. N. then quote bifhop Burnet? No, but he r refers to $ucer'sDown Eccl. Hitt. words, in his letter to Hooper, as cited by Mr. Collyer, " another argu Vol. II. " ment why he [Bucer] would have the habit for holy miniftration P. 247. " altered, is, becaufe 'tis much the fame with that tiled in the church " of Rome, which he generally falutes by the name of ANT I CHR IsT " The London non-fubfcribing minifters add, ". that Bucer declared he would " be content to fuller Come great pain in his own body, upon condition " the contefted ceremonies might be taken away That no man will " earneftly ftrive to maintain them, but fuch are open enemies to Chrifl, " or backfliders from him." And in his letter to a friend, writ .an. Strype's 12 15So, he has thefe words, " feito hic neminem extraneum depuritate Ann. V. II. " rituum rogari, tarnen ex nobis uti plums, cio nofiro non defumus P 553+ 554+ « fcriptis && coram-- No foreign divine here [at Cambridge] bas been r.<. confultedabout the purity of ceremonies, but we bear our teflimany, as " often as we can, in writings and otherwife." And with this account Dr. Heylin agrees. Vindic. p. Mr. N. Pays, the articles were not brought into parliament, nor agreed upon in convocation. This is entirely confuted b i o Wake. It may H°$ l Purit. p y y bÌ p P. 50, be fo, but bifhop Burnet lays exprefly the contrary ; and Mr. Collyer Hilt. Ref. adds, that " 'tis pretty plain they were palled by fome members of con- Vol. II. p. " vocation only, delegated by both houles, as appears by the very title 210, err. `, articles, Hit{. &c. agreed upon in the fynod of London, by the%b ops, and Vol. II. p." certain other learned men." 325. dic. What Mr. N. relates concerning the articles belonged only to the P. in 3°9. chifm. On the contrary, bifhop Burnet lays, " in the firft impreßipn Hiít. Ref. " of the articles, the catechifm is printed before them." So this is to be Vol. III. underftood of the whole book. p. z I I. A. a ia e was left in the preface o one of their ervice books, that they Vindic. p, p g f p f f f ?y 310. bad gone asfar as they could in reforming the church, conñdring the times they
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=