made in the Articles after the Bennet College MS. was figned on Jan. 29. and previous to Wolf's Edition. Which Confideration alone may filence those unreasonable Clamors, which have been rais'd about the controverted Claufe of the Twentieth Article. Because that, as well as the generality of the other Variations, was found in this MS. exactly as Wolf's Edition reads.

I,

There still remains a third fort of Variations, of which 'tis hard to fay, whether they were defign'd and refolved on, or no. Under this Head we may reckon Numb. 1, 2, 8, 14. If the Reader imagins, that they might be merely accidental; no difficulty can arife from the difference between the MS, and Wolf's Edition with relation to them. But if it be fuppofed, that they were really intended to be made; then they may be accounted for after the fame manner, as thofe of the fecond fort.

In a word, when the Articles were ferled by the laft Act of the Upper Houfe, I prefume they were tranfcrib'd, and tranfmitted to the Lower House, who made no Amendments as far as appears, but paffed what the Bishops fent them. And when both Houses had done what refpectively became them, they were fubmitted to the Queen for her Approbation and Ratification, and then recorded in the Archbishop's Registry.

2. I proceed now to chofe Inftances, which belong to the fecond Head, and are of different kinds.

First, perhaps it might be refolv'd to add the Word carnis between ftudium and interpretantur in the Ninth Article; but the Marginal Infertion might be by chance not obferved, and the Word might confequently be omitted in the Record. Or elfe this Correction might be made by the Archbishop in after Times upon an intended Review of the Articles.

Chap. XIV. ticles. This laft Conjecture feems by much the moft probable; for carnis is not in King Edward's Articles, from which our prefent Article of Origi nal Sin was manifeftly taken.

Secondly, the fame may be faid of verbo for verbis in the Twenty firft Article; for 'tis verbis in King Edward's Articles.

Thirdly, as for the ftroak drawn under quomodo nec pænitentia in the Twenty fifth Article, 'twas made either in 1562 (and then they thought no Alteration needful, tho' those Words were omitted, when the Articles were revised) or elfe, which is much more probable, in 1571, when the Words were accordingly omitted.

And thus are we come as near to a Certainty, as can reasonably be expected at this distance of time, when the Records are loft. And upon the whole, I am confident, that there can be no Scruple juftly rais'd, which may in any measure either create Sufpicions about the Sincerity of those thro' whofe Hands the Articles pafs'd, or affect the Confciences of those who are at prefent required to fubfcribe the Articles. If we do not in fome Particulars certainly know how the Record read, and confequently what Words were agreed to by the Convocation, and allowed by the Queen: yet those Particulars are very few, and not one of them is of any mo

-ment.

I need not obferve, that if it be allowed, that Bod. 2. was corrected by the Record, 'twill be more easy to pafs a Judgment upon those Particulars, wherein Wolf's Edition differs from the Bennet College MS. of which there is a Table in the foregoing Chapter, p. 223, 224.

CHAP.

T

СНАР. ХV.

Of the Poftcript of Wolf's Edition.

HE Poftcript of Wolf's Edition consists of two diftinct Paragraphs, as the Collation fhews. The first begins with Hos articulos; the fecond with Quibus omnibus.

As for the firft of thofe Paragraphs, 'cis manifeftly the fame Ratification, that was annex'd to the Record in the Body of the Acts of the Convocation of 1562, as appears from Archbishop Laud's Paper. For it agrees exactly with it, faving in two Inftances. For

and I dare fay, I need not inform the Reader, that thefe Variations might easily be occafion'd by the Haft or Inadvertency of him who transcrib'd a Copy to print by, without the Imputation of any finifter Defign.

But then I must add,that both the Record and the printed Edition do, in my Opinion, plainly refer to the Bennet College MS. as the Autographum in the Archbishop's Cuftody; and mention that it contain'd nineteen Pages. Whereas this was certainly a Miftake of him that enter'd the Acts; and was occafion'd by his following the original Form of the Bishops Subfcription (mutatis mutandis, viz. putting the third Person for the first, as 'twas proper in a Record) too clofely, without obferving the Correations made, either in the Text (one whole Page

of

of which, viz. the nineteenth, is expung'd, as the Collation fhews) or in the Register of the Pages, Articles and Lines, which he was not to transcribe, and for that Reafon haftily flipp'd over. For had he duly obferv'd, either the Pages themselves, or the Register of them, he could not have been guilty of fuch a Mistake.

I must also take notice, that the latter part of this Paragraph does in my Opinion establish (had we no other Evidence) what was before shewn, viz. that the Subfcriptions of the Inferior Clergy do not belong to that MS. of the Articles, which the Bishops fubfcrib'd. For do but obferve the Phrafe. After mention had been made of the Autographum fubfcribed by the Bishops, which I take to be the Bennet College MS. 'tis faid, Univerfufq; Clerus Inferioris Domus eofdem etiam unanimiter & recepit & profeffus eft, ut ex manuum fuarum fubfcriptionibus patet, quas obtulit & depofuit apud eundem Reverendiffimum to Die Febr. anno prædicto. Now had the Inferior Clergy fubfcrib'd that fame Autographum, which the Bishops fubfcribed; furely 'twould have been fignified that they did fo, and the Expreffions would have been very different. Whereas, as the Expreffions now ftand, they manifeftly imply, I think, that the Inferior Clergy had receiv'd and approv'd a diftin&t Copy; at leaft,that they fent up their Subfcriptions" in a Parcel of Paper by themselves to be kept by the Archbishop.

There feems to be no Difficulty about the fecond Paragraph of this Poftcript. It does not appear, that 'twas in the Record depofited in the Archbi fhops Registry, which feems to have contain'd nothing but what the Convocation had done. If another Copy was fign'd by the Queen, or had the great Seal affixed; this fecond Paragraph might poffibly

poffibly be added therein. But if otherwife; yet twas fit, that the Printer fhould inform the World, that the Articles had been honor'd with a Royal Declaration concerning their Orthodoxy.

CHAP. XVI.

Of the firft English Editions of the Articles.

UT befides the Latin one by Wolfius, there were

B diverte English Editions of the Articles printed

by Jugge and Cawood, the Queen's English Printers. I have exhibited two in the foregoing Collation, which (as has been already obferv'd) feem to have been printed before 1571; because they do not recite the Title of the Homily against Rebellion. 'Tis probable they were printed very early; perhaps in the Year 1563.

But Dr. Heylyn (a) faies, that the Controverted Claufe of the Twentieth Article was printed as a part thereof both in Latin and English in the Year 1562. As for the Date of the Year, I fhall foon fhew his Mistake. At present I observe, that tho' the faid Controverted Claufe was printed as a part of the Twentieth Article in Latin by Wolf, yet 'tis omitted in both thofe English Editions which I have exhibited in the Collation. And therefore it should feem, that there was one other English Edition, which I have not yet feen; nor did I ever hear, that a Copy of it is now extant.

But it may be ask'd, from what Latin Copy the English ones were tranflated. And this Queftion

(a) History of the Presbyt. Book 6. Sect. 40. p. 268. Lond. 1670.

can't