( >;8 )

lations yet extant, in which the Words of I Johnv. 7. are brought in as explicatory of Rev. i. 5.

10. The Preface before the Canonical Epiftles ,ascribed to Jcrom , cannot be later than the eighthCentury, and probably is much earlier. Howeverit undoubtedly witnesses to the disputed Passage asextant, not only in Jerom’s Vulgar of those Times,but also in many Greek Copies.

11. In the Glojfa Ordinaria of Walas rid Stra-

bo, in the ninth Age of Christianity , a Work uni-versally approved, we see the Pastages of the threeWitnesses in Heaven , both in the Text and the :Commentary. 1

12. Lastly , We find no one Latin Writer com- 1

plaining of this Passage (which appears to have been i

extant in many Copies from the fifth Century in- 1elusive) as an Interpolation , which is a very good jnegative Evidence, that no just Objection could be rmade to its Genuineness. The Preface of Jerom tblames some Translators for omitting it, but till the t

Days of Erasmus , the Insertion of it was never 1

deemed a Fault. c

And now, upon comparing the Editor’s Lift of BFestimonies for the disputed Text in S t.John with 0mine, how grosty partial must he appear in the 1Eyes of every Reader? It will be no Excuse for his oiomitting so many Authorities, both Greek and La- p

tin, to fay that he thought them either false in R

Fa SI, or else impertinent in the Application. For I

he pastes the fame Judgment on others, which he soyet vouchsafes to produce. His > Suppression there- thfore of the most important Evidences for the Text win Question, can no way be accounted for, but anfrom a Consciousness, that no just Reply could be , tel

made