Five disputations of church-government and worship

Sect. 1. Pag. 89. There is somewhat that requireth correction of the pen, and somewhat that requireth explication. In translating that passage of Ignatius, [Unus panis qui pro omnibus fractus est] must be written next [effusus est] before [& unus Calix.] And for the following objection, though it was made by a discreet person, yet I know no ground for it: unless Is. Vossius his Edition leave out [[Greek or Hebrew]] (which I have not now at hand, but is likelyest) I know not of any Greek copy that leaves it out. Indeed Bishop Ushers Latin doth, and the Vulgar Latin leaves out the translation of the next words before it [[Greek or Hebrew]] of which saith Bishop Usher [Ex interpretatione hac excidisse videantur.] And noting the corruption of the Vulgar Translation in this very place, I there premised to my Answer, ⟨p. 2⟩that it might occasion a change in the Text: that it hath done so in many places, I think is easy to prove; but that it hath done so here, there is no probability, (if any Greek Copy be as is objected:) and the Reasons of my conjecture of the possibility, are so little for a probability, that as I express them not, so I think them not worth the expressing, but rather bid you take that as non dictum. Though of the general I find Bishop Usher himself saying, both of his Latine Version [Ex eâ solâ integritati suae restitui posse Ignatium, polliceri non ausim,] and of the first Greek Edition [Hanc reliqui sequuti sunt editores; non ex Graco aliquo codice alio, sed partim ex ingenio, partim ex vetere Vulgato Latino Interprete, non paucis in locis eandem corrigentes] Epist. ad Lect. ante Annot. & pag. 26. Dissert.

Sect. 1. Pag. 89. There is somewhat that requireth correction of the pen, and somewhat that requireth explication. In translating that passage of Ignatius, [Unus panis qui pro omnibus fractus est] must be written next [effusus est] before [& unus Calix.] And for the following objection, though it was made by a discreet person, yet I know no ground for it: unless Is. Vossius his Edition leave out [〈non-Latin alphabet〉] (which I have not now at hand, but is likelyest) I know not of any Greek copy that leaves it out. Indeed Bishop Ushers Latine doth, and the Vulgar Latine leaves out the translation of the next words before it [〈non-Latin alphabet〉] of which saith Bishop Usher [Ex interpretatione hac excidisse videantur.] And noting the corruption of the Vulgar Translation in this very place, I there premised to my Answer,