can't be easily answered. I do not at prefent concern my felf with that Edition which Dr. Heylyn mentions, because I know nothing of it more than what he affirms. And therefore I cannot fay, whether it differ'd from thofe now extant in any thing befides the Controverted Claufe. But as for the two Editions which I have exhibited, they do fo manifeftly differ in fome Particulars from the Bennet College MS. and in others from Wolf's Edition, that it can't be affirm'd, that they were taken from either of them.

I have already given a Table of the Differences betwen the Bennet College MS. and the Edition of Wolf. In feveral of thofe Particulars the Tranflation will indifferently fute either the MS. or the printed Book. But in feveral others the Tranflation agrees with one in Oppofition to the other.

It agrees with the MS. in Oppofition to Wolf's Edition in the following Inftances.

Wolf.

Art.6. Ruth.

MS.

Ruth.

2.Regum. 2.Samuelis.
Paralipom.2. 2.Regum.

English. Ruth. 2.Samuel.

2.Kings.

2.Samuelis.

2.Paralipom.

2.Chronicles.

It agrees with Wolf's Edition in Oppofition to the MS. in the following Inftances.

I own my felf unable to account for thefe Differences, in which the English Translation opposes, fometimes the MS. and at other times Wolf's Edition. 'Tis plain, the English Edition does not follow the Record, by its omitting the Controverted Claufe which the Record contain'd as a part of the Twentieth Article. Whether the Translator was guilty of wilful Fraud, and defignedly varied from the Original, following different Copies at different Times on purpose to conceal his Prevarication, it may concern thofe to inquire, who have R 2

urg'd

urg'd the Authority of this Tranflation to difprove the Authority of the Controverted Claufe of the Twentieth Article. For my part, I am only concern'd for the Latin Original, which was all that the Convocation of 1562 is chargeable with; and of that (confidering all Circumftances) I hope, I have given a tolerable Account.

CHA P. XVII.

Whether any Edition of the Articles was publish’d before March 25. 1563.

IS now proper to inquire, how foon any Édition of the Articles was publish'd, after they were agreed on in the Convocation of 1562; particularly, whether any Edition of them was publish'd before the 25th of March following. And perhaps

it

may be impoffible to give a determinate Answer to this Question. I believe no body can imagin, that they were publish'd before the Royal Affent was given. Nay, Wolf's Edition exprefly affirms, that they had receiv'd it. And if they receiv'd it, whilft the Convocation fat; that Convocation, we know, was prorogu'd on the 14th of April to the 3d of October. And confequently the Royal Affent was actually given before, or on, the 14th of April. But ftill we are uncertain, when 'twas given. It might be, for ought appears to the contrary, either immediatly after they were paffed by both Houses, or immediatly before the Prorogation; or perhaps fometime after it. So that we can't argue from the time of the Royal Affent, that they were, or were not, publifh'd before the 25th of March.

But,

But we learn from (a) Mr. Strype, that foon after Midfummer 1563, Archbishop Parker went down to his Diocese, to vifit it in Perfon; and then he adds the following Words, The Book of Homilies as yet lay before the Queen to be confidered of. But in the Month of June he earnestly excited the Secretary to put her Majesty upon refolving herfelf concerning this Book, which had been revifed and furnished with a Second Part, by him and the other Bishops, and printed the Year before, and waited only for the Queen's Allowance to be publickly used in the Parifh-Churches of the Nation. And this Motion the ArchbiShop now made the rather, becaufe he was minded to deliver thefe Books, to each Parish one, as he should go along in his intended Vifitation, and give his Charge to the refpective Minifters to read thofe Homilies for the Peoples Profit and Edification. And I find (b) two Editions of them (perhaps there were more) this Year 1563 printed. So that the Second Tome of Homilies was not publish'd, to be fure, before June 1563. Now the Book of Articles not only confirms the fecond Tome of Homilies, but has alfo the following Expreffions concerning them, viz. Eas in Ecclefiis per miniftros diligenter & clare, ut a populo intelligi poffint, recitandas effe judicamus (according to Wolf's Edition) that is (according to the old English Edition) they are to be read in our Chur

(a) Life of Archbishop Parker, Book 2. Ch. 13. p. 128.

(6) There are in St. John's College Library in Cambridge two Copies of the Second Tome of Homilies bearing Date 1563. There is a third in the University Library, and a fourth in Trinity College Library, in the fame Univerfity, which bear the fame Date. They are all in Quarto, and in fome Refpects different from each other. Whether the Diverfity be fuch, as argues that they are of really different Impreffions, I wifh fome Perfon that has Leifure and Patience enough, and understands Printing well, would examin and inform us.

Chap. XVII. ches by the Minifters diligently, plainly, & diftin&tly, that they may be underftanded of the People.

What Confequence may be drawn from hence, I am not able to fay. 'Tis likely enough, that fo full an Approbation of the fecond Tome of Homilies, and fo plain a Judgment for the Ufe of them, would fcarce be publifh'd from the Convocation by the Queen's own Printers, whilft that Book ftill lay before her Majefty to be confidered of, whether it fhould be used in Churches, or no. And yet on the other Hand, if the Royal Affent was actually given to the Articles before the Homilies were permitted to appear; there was no neceffity of delaying the Publication of the Articles. Let the Reader therefore confider the State of thofe Times, the Spirit of that Queen, and the admirable Prudence of that Archbishop, &c. and then judge for himself, If we fuppofe, that the Queen approved the Homilies, before the Articles were at all publish'd; then the Homilies might be publifh'd at Midfummer, and the Articles might either accompany them, or foon follow. Accordingly the first Editions of the Homilies, and alfo the Latin Edition of the Articles above mention'd, bear Date 1563. But we know not certainly, how thofe Matters were tranfacted; and therefore can bring no direct Proof, that the Articles made their firft Appearance precifely at fuch a Time; particularly it can't be demonftrated, that any Edition of them came abroad till after March 25.

Nor do I conceive, that any clear Evidence can be given, that any Edition of them appear'd before that Date. Tis true, that, 1. Bishop Bridges (c)

(c) Defence of the Ecclefiaftical Goverment, &c. in anfwer to the Book intituled a Learned Difcourfe, &c. Lond. 1587. in the Answer to the Preface, P. 33.

speaks