I will now examin the foregoing Particulars.

CHA P. XIII.

That Bod. 2. does probably express the Record of the Articles in the Registry of the See of Canterbury.

HOSE in Bod. 2. are of different kinds.

TH

1. Some of them imply no difference between the Edition of Wolf, and the MS. with which this Copy was collated: but on the contrary are Notes importing an Agreement between the faid MS. and Wolf'sEdition. Thus Numb. 3,8,10. are accounted for.

2. Others imply no confiderable difference, but only fuch Variations as might eafily be occafion'd by a Miftake, either of the Tranfcriber or of the Prefs, that is, by mere Chance. How eafily might the Transcriber omit a Comma (for certainly it ought to have been inserted) after Deus in Numb. 1? How easily might he repeat Domini (for certainly it ought not to have been repeated) in Numb.6? How eafily might he write publicam for publice (fince the Senfe is the fame both ways) in Numb. 12? How easily might the Printer (for they are manifest Mistakes) put fint for funt in Numb. 5. and conftent for conftant in Numb. 7? As for Numb. 2. (befides that the difference is not of any Importance) 'tis probable that invifibilium reached very near to the end of the Line, and the following Words might begin the next Line without any Indenture, as is notorious even in the printed Copies of the Articles; and this the Collator might efteem making a diftin& Section, that is, beginning a new Paragraph. And as for Numb. 4. how eafily might

Q 2

he

Chap. XIII. he that tranfcribed a Copy for the Prefs, put 2. Regum for Regum duo, or the like? The only difficulty is, that the Books of Samuel are twice found in the corrected Copy. Now if they were twice found in the MS. 'twas moft certainly the Tranfcriber's Miftake. But I rather prefume, that the Collator of this Copy with the MS. after he had inferted them between Ruth and Kings in Conformity to the MS. forgot to expunge them after Chronicles, where they ftood before in Wolf's Edition. However, this muft 'needs have been the Effect of mere Chance, whatever we fuppofe to have been the true Cafe.

3. Others imply a confiderable difference, but yet fuch as might very naturally be occafion'd by the Tranfcriber's Miftaké (as is too frequent and evident in Multitudes of other Cafes) even tho' no Alteration were ever intended or dreamt of. Thus the Omillions in Numb, 9, 11. are accounted for. The Senfe is (in the refpective Places) complete without thofe Words. But I am perfuaded they ought to have been inferted. Because the Bennet College Latin MS. has them, and we have no reafon to imagin,that any change was defignedly made in thefe Inftances.

Now the question is, what that MS. was, which this Copy was corrected by. That it could not be a MS. Copy of the Articles as they were altered in 1571, is evident from the feveral Alterations made in that Year, and which will afterwards be exhibited at large. And 'tis plain, that it could not be the MS. now extant in Bennet College Library, from the notorious difference, in fo great variety of Inftances, between that and the corrected Copy. Nay, it muft needs have been a MS. in which every one of the minuteft of thefe many Particulars was · found, wherein Wolf's Edition differs from the Ben

net

229 net College MS. For this corrected Copy agrees with Wolf to a Tittle in oppofition to the Bennet College MS. except in fuch Inftances as might eafly be caused by mere bing, or at the Prefs,as every body must grant,who compares the Tables in the foregoing Chapter.

Beither in tranfcri

I am perfuaded therefore, that this MS. was the Record in the Archbishop's Registry.Tis certain, this was Mr. Selden's Book, it having came into the Bodleyan with the rest of his vaftLibrary. And probably, when the difpute about the controverted Claufe of the Twentieth Article had rais'd his Curiofity, he either collated the Record himself (for the Corrections, as I am affur'd by a good Judge, agree with fome of his Hand Writing, tho' not with his common Hand) or got fome other Perfon to do it for him. Certainly, were it not the Record, the Collator would not have obferv'd fuch Trifles, as the greatest part of his Marginal Notes contain.

To conclude, I am fully of opinion, that when the Articles were finally fetled, they were tranfcrib'd into the Acts; and that a Copy was then taken by fome Perfon very little skill'd in Latin (perhaps from the very Acts themselves, and by the very Clerk that wrote the Acts) in order to the Impreffion, which too clofely follow'd the faid Copy, and was never corrected by a tolerable Scholar. This folves all Difficulties. Nor is it otherwife poffible to account for fuch grofs Mistakes, as ecclefiæ for ecclefia in Art. 19. Numb. 2. and fuffpitientes for fufcipientes in Art. 27. Numb. 6. in which both Wolf's Edition, and the MS. which Bod. 2. was collated with, do fo exactly agree.

CHA P. XIV.

The Differences between the Bennet College Latin MS. and Wolf's Edition, particularly with reSpect to the Controverted Claufe of the Twentieth Article, and the whole Twenty ninth Article, ac counted for.

Proceed now to the Differences between the Bennet College Latin MS. and Wolf's Edition and will diftinctly confider the two forts of them.

1. As for those which appear in the MS. as 'twas prepared by the Tranfcriber for Subfcription, and which remain to this Day without any Shadow of Correction,they are partly fuch as might easily happen by mere accident,without any Design at all; and partly fuch as do manifeftly fhew, that they were defigned and refolv'd on; and partly fuch, as 'tis hard to fay, whether they were defigned and refolv'd on, or no.

Of the first fort, viz. fuch as might happen by mere accident, without any Design at all, I esteem Numb. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 20. For, 1. How eafily may a Letter be chang'd, either in transcribing for the Prefs, or elfe by the Compofitor's Overfight, when a Letter is dropt into a wrong Box? Thus Numb. 5, 6, 11, 13, 20. may be accounted for. 2. How eafily may a Word be omitted, the infertion of which is not neceffary, and the Force of which muft neceffarily be underftood? Thus Numb. 4, 18. may be accounted for, 3. How eafily may a Word be chang'd for one that is very near it in Sound or Senfe? Thus Numb. 10, 16, may be accounted for. 4. How eally might the Order of the Words Judith and Tobias

Tobias be inverted, and the Figure of Two be differently placed, in Numb. 3? And 5. as for Numb. 12. the Senfe will admit either babeant or habeat. If it be babeant, it must agree with facramenta; but babeat muft (as well it may) agree with pænitentia ; tho' I confefs,babeant is preferable. In all thefe Cafes, how easily might the Corrector of the Prefs himself miftake, or not rectifie the Mistakes of another?

Of the second fort, viz. fuch as were manifeftly defign'd and refolv'd on, I efteem Numb. 7, 9, 15, 17, 19. That thefe Variations could not proceed from mere Accident, I verily think, needs no Proof. But the Question is, whether they were introduc'd by Authority, or no. Now for my part, I confess, unless fufficient Proof be given, I can't allow my felf the liberty of fufpecting, much less of affirming or believing, that the Printer or any other Perfon would affume the Liberty of making fuch confiderable Changes in what Authority had refolved on, And therefore, fince no fufficient Proof can be gi ven, or fo much as pretended, I doubt not but all thefe Particulars were fixed by Authority.

But this will be more clear, if we examin the feveral Inftances. They are of three kinds. For the difference is made by, either Addition, Subftraction, or Alteration. There are two Additions, viz. Numb. 9, 19. one Subftraction, viz. Numb. 15. and two Alterations, viz. Numb. 7, 17. Now I appeal to the Reader's Confcience, whether any private Design could poffibly be ferv'd by three of thofe five inftances, viz. Numb. 7, 17, 19. For the Doctrin is not in the least affected by putting lapfis for peccato, or Latin Titles of the Homilies inftead of English ones. And as for Numb. 19. the Sense of the Article is not in the leaft affected either way. For the thing affirmed is the very fame, whether

Q 4

jure