W. Ecclefiæ. ART. 19. D. Ecclefia W: exiguntur. D. exigantur. The Translation proves Day's Mistake. altyd knols ART. 23. 176 It must be fint to agree with præfint, in which both Wolf and Day agree. Otherwife 'twould be uncertain ; for quanquam (which is of the fame Nature with quamvis) is used indifferently in our Articles with an Indicative or Subjunctive Mood. Thus in the Ninth Article 'tis aftringat, and in the Twelfth 'tis poffunt. do for to in the Copy H. in Numb. 27. ART. 23. Some Words are tranfpos'd into Nonfenfe in L (if that ata Copy ought to be reckoned amongst those of 1571) at Numb. 19. And the Copy I reads in for into at. [*]. ART. 34. Some Quarto Copies read and instead of or, tho' the The bare Inspection of the feveral Places (efpecially if the Latin and English Texts be compared, and the little Notes I have fometimes added, be confidered) will convince any Man, that in all the foregoing Inftances (to which I could have added fome others) the Difference is occafion'd by a Miftake of the Prefs, either in Wolf's or Day's Edition. CHAP. XXII. That the Latin Text of the Articles was revised, and an authentic English Translation of them was passed, by the Convocation of 1571. HAT the Latin Text of the Articles was TH revised, and an authentic English Translation of them was paffed, by the Convocation of 1571, has been generally taken for granted. But good Proof of thefe Matters may be juftly expected, because they are of great Importance. Now tho' the Records of this Convocation are loft, yet the Tables exhibited in the preceding Chapter afford us fubftantial Proof; and do alfo in a good measure discover the gradual Progress of the Convocation therein. To make this evident, I fhall diftinctly confider the Latin and English Texts. That the Convocation did not, before this Year, prepare or pass any English Translation of the Articles agreed on in 1562, appears from what I have already written. But the Bennet College English MS. figned by Eleven Bishops on the 11th of May in this Year, fhews that an English Translation had been under their Confideration. And that it was afterwards finished by them, and alfo printed, and that it is the fame with the Quarto Editions of this Year, I fhall evince in the following Manner, It must be observed, that the Two English Copies A and B, which were printed before 1571, do exactly agree with each other in Words (for I take no notice at prefent of different Spellings and Pointings, which depend upon the Fanfy or Overfight of him that corrects the Prefs) except in Five Five Inftances, viz. Numb. 4, 25, 35, 45, 56, of the Third Table exhibited in the 21ft Chapter, p. 284, &c. And every one of those Inftances are fuch arrant Trifles, as might be occafioned by mere Chance. And therefore, I think, there is in Reality no Difference between thofe Two Editions; no fuch Difference I mean, as neceffarily implies, that the Translation was purpofely and defignedly altered by the Author, or any other Perfon, in any one of thofe Particulars. However, because poffibly fome Perfons may be inclined to think, that fome one, or more, or perhaps every one, of the foregoing Inftances, might really be intended by the Author or Corrector of that Tranflation; therefore at prefent I fhall affirm no more, than what no Man that has Eyes and Honefty can deny, viz. That A and B are undoubtedly the very fame Tranflation, except in the Five Inftances abovementioned. Now tho' the aforefaid Translation was made by a private Hand; yet, when the Convocation undertook to make an authentic Tranflation, they began upon the Groundwork of the Old one (viz. that of the Copies A and B) correcting it in various Places, and afterwards getting it transcribed, that it might pafs by Subfcription. 'Tis impoffible for any Man to doubt of this, who confiders the notorious Agreement between the Octavo Copies and the Bennet College English MS. in the moft minute Trifles throughout, excepting only fome Inftances, which I fhall prefently take farther Notice of, and which are comparatively fpeaking wonderfully few. Infomuch that I dare affirm, that no Two Men in the World cou'd feparatly tranflate the faid Articles, without making Ten times (I fhould rather fay, Chap. XXII. fay, an hundred times) greater Difference in their refpective Verfions, than can be pretended between the Octavo Editions, and the English MS. And whereas the Copies A and B differ from each other in Five Inftances, the MS. evidently agrees with A, in oppofition to B, in the Four firft of them; and as, for the Fifth, viz. Numb. 56. 'tis a mere trifle. I conclude therefore, that the Bennet College English MS. of 1571, is a Correction of the old Tranflation, of which we have Two Editions now extant in Octavo, and particularly, that it was made upon that very Edition of the Copy A. But then, as the Collation and the Tables in the preceding Chapter fhew, feveral Corrections appear in the MS. it felf, viz. in the Title of the Seventh Article, in the Second Table, p. 279. and in Numb. 10, 21, 23, 28, 54, 59, 61, 64, 79, 81, of the Third Table, p. 287, &c. which Corrections are in all no lefs than Eleven. Now it can't be doubted, but that Four of thefe, viz. Numb. 10, 28, 54, 64, were Miftakes of the Tranfcriber, which he took care to rectify in Conformity to the Copy fet him. To which, I think, Numb. 23, 81, must be added. For he had manifeftly varied from the old Tranflation; and the Corrections do only restore the old Rea-dings. As for the reft, viz. that in the Title of the Seventh Article, and Numb. 21, 59, 61, 79, of the aforefaid Third Table, the Four first of them are manifeftly defign'd Variations from the Old Tranflation, and the Fifth is manifeftly an Additton to it (the Homily againft Rebellion not having been published, when that Tranflation |