( * 3 * )

Thirdly, The Armenian , an Eastern Version,publiflied ac Amsterdam , by an Armenian Bishop,contains the Verse in Dispute. Simon Hi/t. Crit.des Versions, c. 17. gives this Version a good Cha-racter for its Exactness.

Thus we fee how wretchedly partial this Man is,in his Account of Greek Authorities, Editions andancient Versions, that favour the controvertedVerse of St. John's first Epistle: Our next Businessis to enquire, whether he has dealt more honestlyin his Catalogue of Latin Authorities for the Text .Of this Sort he reckons up

First , The Prologue to the Canonical Epistles as-cribed to Jerom. Secondly , One particular Latin Copy written in the Time of Lotharius the Second,between the Years 1125 and 1139; and in general,almost all the Latin MSS. of the last 600 Years.Thirdly, The Decretal Epistles of Pope John theSecond and Hyginus , manufactured by Pfeudo-IJi -dorus alias Riculphus, Bishop of Mayence . To whomhe adds certain spurious Writers, Knaves as Ire callsthem of the same Feature and Complexion, such asJdatius Clarus, alias Vigilius Tapsenfis and ViElorTJticenJis , alias Vitenfis. He does not indeed di-rectly call these, Vouchers for the Text , but onlyhints it, by giving his Readers a Caution, not toinvolve themselves in such wretched Company, i. e.in plain Englijh, not to accept of their Testimonyto the Pastage under Debate. And these are all theLatin Authorities, for the Genuineness of 1 Johnv. 7. that our honest Annotator could find in hisConscience to admit of. But I must desire theReader to accept the following more perfect Ca-ialogue .

8 2. 1. A