3

>7

s£

A.

'S

it

I

( I5i )

preffions among the Authorities for a various Read-ing in the thirteenth Verse, to proceed with whathe found there, and to blend two distinct: Para-graphs together.

At length the Annotates sums up the Evidenceagainst the controverted Text. “ In a Word, fays“ he, if this Evidence is not sufficient to prove that“ the controverted Text in St .John is spurious , by" what Evidence can it be proved, that any Text " in St .John is genuine? " I answer, That thereis certainly stronger Evidence for some Texts in St.John, than for others; but that every Text in himand in every other sacred Writer is most probablygenuine , which has no plain Marks of Interpola-tion , and which is vouched for by Fathers , byGreek and Latin MSS, by ancient Verjions andLeCtionaries ; against such Texts it is no validObjection, that the Generality of Greek Fathers aresilent about them, and that the Majority of GreekMSS disclaim them, provided a sufficient Accountcan be given, how they came to be wanting there.But from what I have laid, I think it appears, thatthe Text of i John v. 7. has all these Marks ofGenuineness, Its Adversaries indeed have endea-voured to prove it originally a mere Scholion uponwhat is now the eighth Verse of that Chapter;but in vain. For Scholia were generally either ex-planatory of the Text, or Corollaries from it; where-as 1 John v. 7. is neither the one nor the other , butcontains a Sense distinct from that of the eighthVerse, and plainly opposed to it. Besides, in theoldest Authorities the disputed Text still precedesthe eighth Verse, contrary to the natural Order of"Explanations and Deductions, which still follow the

Passages