the Convocation was diffolved? And what if fome Particulars were altered by her Command, when there was no Convocation fitting? Does not every body know, what Spirit Queen Elizabeth was of 2. He that can account for the Alterations in these Canons, may eafily account for the Alterations in the Articles, either in 1562, or in 1571. But enough of this Matter.

'Twill now be proper to relate, how that foul Corruption of the Twentieth Article, by leaving out the Controverted Claufe, was managed at the Prefs. Know then, that the Quarto Copies of this Year do begin all their Pages, except the Fourteenth, with the very fame Word or Syllable and that the Twentieth Article begins in the latter. Part of the Thirteenth, and ends in the former Part of the Fourteenth Page. Now the Compofition of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Pages in the genuin Copies is exactly like the reft, neither clofer nor wider. How then could thofe, that pretended to print Page for Page, fteal two Lines and an half out of the Text, and yet fo well deceive the Eye, that a Vacancy fhould not be difcerned, but the Pages ftill appear full? Why, thus. The Title of the Twentieth Article in the genuin Copies makes but one Line. They therefore made two Lines of it, by putting the Word Church in a Line by it felf. Then they opened the Space of a Line between the Title and the Body of the Twenty firft Article. Thus they gained two whole Lines. Then they overran the remaining Matter of the Body of the Twentieth Article, which in the genuin Copies makes (comprehending the Controverted Claufe) ten complete Lines, and half an Eleventh; and they brought it, by omitting the Controverted Claufe, to eight complete Lines, A a 2

and

and less than half of a ninth. This was the Progress of the Cheat, as every Eye may discover.

It may perhaps feem ftrange, that there was but one Edition of the Articles printed with the Controverted Claufe in this Year; whereas there are different Editions of the fame Year printed without it. But it must be obferv'd, that the Act which obliged the Clergy to fubfcribe them, paffed this Year; and the feveral Diocefes were accordingly to be furnish'd with vaft Quantities. So that the Forms could not but ftand a long time, and greater Numbers might then be probably wrought off of one Impreffion, than at any other time four or five Impreffions might amount to. 'Twas accordingly unreasonable to expect more than one Impreffion of Genuin Copies in this Year. But as for the Corrupted ones, they were probably wrought off by Stealth, and in Imall Quantities; and the Forms accordingly were not probably fuffered to ftand long. So that a new Impreffion was neceffary, whenever they refolv'd to repeat the Cheat. However, the Dispute is not, whether there were more Editions of genuin, or of fpurious Copies; but which was the first, and confequently the genuin Edition.

CHAP. XXV.

Of Day's Latin Copies of the Articles printed in 1571..

Α As

S the English Text was printed by Jugge and
Cawood; fo the Latin Text was printed by

Day. But it may be asked, whether Day published more than one Latin Edition in this Year.

I

I have in the Collation exhibited one Edition of this Year printed by Day, which has not the Controverted Claufe. Every body will obferve, that 'tis carelefly printed; and indeed,fince I made my Collation, I have obferv'd, that all the Copies are not exactly alike. For Inftance, I have a Copy now before me, which reads Grace for Greci in the Ninth Article, and inferts effet after macula in the Fifteenth. And as in the foregoing Inftances it juftly corrects that Copy which my Text expreffes; fo it difcovers in it felf fome Faults, which in that Copy which my Latin Text expreffes, are corrected. For Inftance, this Copy, in Oppofition to that which I had used, reads in the Twenty fifth Article uterentur recipientes (for tho' fome Perfon has by fcratching out the Top and the Tongue of the t, and by joining then and t with a fmall Stroke of a Pen, changed the former of thefe Words into uterémur; and tho' a flight Stroke of a Pen is drawn thro' recipientes: yet every Man will difcern, how 'twas firft printed) instead of uteremur; and in the Title of the Thirty fixth Article it reads Epifcorum for Epifcoporum. And perhaps, were it worth while to examin a Variety of Copies, a larger Number of Differences might be collected.

But the great Question is, whether Day ever printed any Copies in this Year, which had the Controverted Claufe. For my part I am fully perfuaded he did. For,

First, There is no fufficient Ground to think, that he did not. I own, I could never see fuch a Copy, nor speak with, or hear from, any Person that did fee it. But might there not formerly have been an Edition, of which there is not at present a Copy to be found? Or may not fome fuch Copies ftill lie hid amongft Parcels of old Books, which are very feldom fearched

A a 3

fearched into, at least with tolerable Care? Let thofe Perfons anfwer thefe Queftions, who never could have believed, till they were very lately convinc'd, that there were English Copies extant, printed in the Year 1571, with the Controverted Claufe in them. 'Tis true alfo, that feveral great Authors have affirm'd, that the Controverted Claufe was omitted in the Latin Copies of this Year. But what then? Have not the fame Authors affirm'd the fame thing of the English Copies of the fame Year? And might not thofe, whose mistake about the English Copies has been made fo glaring, as well miftake about the Latin ones too? The Words of thofe Authors imply no more, than that they never remember to have met with any Copies of that Year (either Latin or English) that had the Controverted Claufe. But have not fuch English Copies been lately produc'd? And may not Latin ones alfo.be produc'd in God's good Time? The Argument from the Non-appearance of fuch Latin Copies is at the best but a negative one; and therefore can't be thought fufficient to counterbalance the positive Affertion of an unexceptionable Witnefs on the other fide. For

Secondly, Bifhop Sparrow has exhibited in his Collection a Latin Edition of this very Year printed by Day, with the Controverted Claufe in it. And he has exhibited it in fuch a manner, that he must either have really feen and followed fuch an Edition, or been guilty of the groffeft downright Forgery.

For he can't be juftify'd byfaying,that theClaufe was in Wolf's Edition, or that it was in the Record (which Particulars he may indeed well be fuppofed aware of) and confequently that he did only reftore it in Day. For, 1. he pretends to exprefs the Edition of Day, without any Intimation, that he ufed

used a Liberty in correcting the Omiffions of it; and he is so punctual as to preferve in his own Copy the very Date, &c. of Day's Edition, and confequently he pretends to give us an exact Copy of what was to be found in Day. 2. Had he intended to restore the Claufe from the Record or Wolf, he would have printed it as he found it in them; whereas he varies from them in this very Claufe.For they both want the Words five ceremonias, which Bishop Sparrow inferts. And 'tis remarkable, that there was no need of inferting them neither. For tho' the inferting them brings the Claufe rather nearer to the English Copies of this Year yet the Latin of the Record and Wolf would well enough have born the English reading. For in the English Tranflation two Words, the one exegetical of the other, are fometimes found to answer one Latin one. "Thus in the Twenty fifth Article note is tranflated Badges or Tokens. How then could Bifhop Sparrow intend only to reftore the Claufe, when he made a manifeft and unneceffary Addition to it? 3. He could not but know, what a Stir was made about this Claufe in Archbishop Laud's Time; and that Archbishop Laud, in his Speech in the Star-Chamber, which was the celebrated Defence of the genuinefs of this Claufe, exprefly faies, that it was left out in the Latin Edition of the Year 1571. And would Bishop Sparrow then dare to infert it in his Copy of that very Edition; and in that very Infertion vary from the Reading of A. Bp. Laud's Authorities (upon the Credit of which, principally, he must have restored it) would he do this, I fay, without giving a Reafon for it, or declaring upon what Grounds he did it?