Though in various of the notes the passages have been spoken of, yet to call attention to the matter, and in the hope that others may be more successful, I would add that I have not discovered the principle on which he went, nor his authorities, for his Scripture readings. In his Latin quotations he generally quotes the Vulgate, twice or thrice Beza, or Beza varied, while at other times he goes by some other translation, or possibly makes it himself. So his long English quotation, p. 284, is not taken from Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Coverdale’s, Matthews’, or from the Genevan, Bishops’, or Rheims versions, though more like the Genevan, while, curiously enough, it precedes the one of 1611 by one or two verbal coincidences. Hence, I believe that he varied the Genevan version according to his own views and taste, and am the more inclined to this in that the passage is not in Italics, the then type and mark of quotations, but in Romans. Notwithstanding, however, the decree that had gone forth, and, notwithstanding the strange Sadducean assertion, not argument, set forth by James, and followed by John Rainolds, D.D., in his work on the Apocrypha (_tom._ ii, 1032), and by Gisbert Voet, the book’s inherent excellency, as reported by Ady, and as evidenced by the notices of it in the various books on either side that afterwards came forth, and in part, perhaps, through that decree itself, called for its reproduction; and in 1651 it was issued with a new title-page, though naturally it was again not entered on the Stationers’ Registers. This time it was really—as evidenced by the signatures—a quarto. The text was one and the same with that printed off by Richard Cotes; but there were three issues, and three slightly different title-pages. The first bears—LONDON | Printed by _Richard Cotes_. 1651. The second has—_Printed by_ R. C. _and are to be sold by_ Giles Calvert, _dwelling at the | Black Spread-Eagle at the West-end of_ Pauls. 1651. And except for these final words, separated on both title-pages by a line from the rest, both are word for word, and even to the misprint “superstions” identical. The explanation, in all probability, if not certainty, being that my “first” one was the first issue, when the publisher thought it more prudent to withhold his name; the other, a second issue of copies still called for, when, finding no ill results, he had become bolder. The third has below the line spoken of: _London_ | Printed by E. [not R.] Cotes and are to be sold by Thomas Williams at the | Bible in _Little Britain_ 1654. In this “SCOTS” is printed without the apostrophe, “men”, “women”, and “children”, as also “treatise”, have capital initials; on both occasions it has “Devils”, not “Divels”; and the last line but one above the dividing line ends “De-” not “Divels”, and “superstions” is rightly printed “superstitions”. These variations in the title-page, and the exact conformity of the text as