C k )

II. Luke xvii. 3 6.

This Verse is entirely omitted in the newText, as it had before been in Mills' s Edition.But in pronouncing this an Interpolation theDoctor contradicts those sound and irrefragablePrinciples, on which he afterwards defends andmaintains the disputed Passage of 1 John v. 7.for the Verse before us is found in many antientGreek MSS. which cannot be said of the other:Both the Vulgates have it, and many LatinFathers ; whereas but two at the most of theearly Writers cite the other and Jeronis Vulgarhas it not.

* Again, none of the Oriental Versions exhibit1 John v. 7. whereas all save the Coptick ownLuke xvii. 36. That it should be wanting insome Greek Fathers, and in many Greek MSS.is easy to be accounted for from its having thesame Beginning and Ending with the precedingVerse . Omissions oft happened this way: Parti-cularly in the parallel Place of St. Matthew the41st Verse is wanting in one MS, on this veryAccount. Further we are told, that the GreekFathers observe here a Difference between thethe Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke j butthis neceslarily proves no more, than that theOmission of the 36th Verse happened very early,which Dr. Mills allows to have been the Cafeof 1 John v. 7, In short, most evident it is, thatmany Passages beginning and ending like thoseimmediately preceding them, have been omittedfcy Transcribers. And as the Doctor withs. good