( 124 )

one. But here he has gone further: He makesa Shew of entering into a special Detail of all thatcan be {aid in Favour of the expunged Text , andon a pretended View of the whole, pronounces itan Interpolation. Now had he taken Care to betolerably punClual, in reciting the adverse Testimo-nies, had he omitted none of those, wherein theFriends to the Paragraph in Question are all agreed,tho’ even then we should have blamed his Judg-ment, we should nevertheless have applauded hisHonejly. But here, he has not been solicitous tosave so much as common Appearances of Equity.Some entire Heads of Evidence he pastes over inutter Silence ■ and where he mentions Generals ,most of the particular Proofs, and especially thoseof the greatest Importance, are wholly suppressed.Lastly, those which he vouchsafes to produce, aremostly treated by him with extreme Unfairness andContumely. Nay, he does not spare the Personsand Characters of some Ancients, whose Suffragesto this disputed Paslage, he has at the same Timeconcealed. That so, if ever his Readers shouldcome to the Knowledge of them from other Hands,no Impression may be made by them. ’Tis proba-ble the Editor applauds this Dexterity at biasingthe Credit of adverse Testimony: But for my Part,was the Advancement of Truth my only, as it ismy chief Concern, I should wish every Enemy toit might thus over aB his Part, and hurt a badCause by worse Management.

But before I proceed to make good these Chargesagainst the State of the Authorities for the disputedPassage, as represented by our Adversary, I mustErst have Leave to except to his Evidences against

it.