A P P E N D I X. 895 they lived in, and hoped that they that came after them would, as theyHi1. Pant. might, do more. Mr. N. has not had an opportunity to examine thisP 53. quotation, nor does he lay any ftrefs upon it ; but he tranfcribed it from Mr. Peirce's V77r cation, p. I a. where it is to be found verbatim, withPeirce', his authority ; and in Bennet's memorial of the reformation, p. 5o. Mr.viadic. P. Strype intimates, that a farther reformation was intended [Mem. Cran.51 p. 299.] And bilhop Burnet adds, that °" in many of the letters to " the foreign divines 'tis alerted, that both Cranmer and Ridley intend- " ° ed to procure an ad for abolifhing the habits," So that whether the palligebe in the book or no, the fad that if king EDWARD had lived, he would have madefurther amendments in the hierarchy of the church, is fo notorious, that I know not of one tingle hiftorian who difputes it. Mr. N. introduces BUCER asprppo/ing the habits to be laidaide in theHi(t. Park. year 1553, when he had told us, they were already laid glide in the year P. 53. 1552. Mr. N. knew very well, that Bucer died in 1551, but he was then giving a fummary of the changes in king EDWARD'S reign, and therefore introduced Bucer as the king's great confident and counfellor in thefe affairs. And though bithop Burnet lays, the molt material things to which Bucer excepted were correEted afterwards, yet they who will be at the pains to read over the abftraét of his book, entituled, of the kingdom ofChri/l, in Collyer's hißory, Vol. II. p. 296, &c. mutt be of another mind. Nor was Cranmer fatised with the liturgy, though it had been twiceVindic. p. reformed, if we maygive credit to the learned Ballinger Thisground-3u. lefs floc, Mr. N. mentions without the legit appearance of d/lruft, though i `s4 Parut. the authorfromwhence he took it calls it an improbable report. But Mr. P. N. is not obliged to be always of the opinion of Mr. Strype ; for Mr.. Peirce, a writer of no lefs learning and integrity, who had examined in- to this affair, Pays, he could fee no reafon to queftion the truth of it, and the rather, becaufe it was one ofCox's fide [who was for the fervice book] that reported it upon his own knowledge, and not upon the teflimony of BSLLIxcER, as is plain to him who looks into the book itfelf. Peirce's vindic. p. I z, 13. See allo troubles of Frankfort, p. 82. Mr. Mem. p..55. Bennet adds, that Cranmer was not the only man, quifatebatur multa detratta oporterefieperflua, & ardentibus votis cupiebat ea inmeliuscorrec- ta, who confe fed that there were many fuperfluous things in the book that ought to be taken out, and earneßy wiped it might have fome further amendment. Mr. N. Pays, it is Paid that cardinal Pole was for gentler methods of.Vindic. p: inflruttionandperfuafion, WHICH IS VERY DOUBTFUL. Doubtful, with3 I2. whom (lays this writer), butfach as are unwilling to allow any good quail p. * S Y 2 ties
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=