( '53 )

Text, unless our Adversary can prove profound Si-lence to be the same Thing with Exclamation.Besides, Maximus, a Greek Father of the seventhCentury, is an express Voucher for the Lext. Andwhat is more, the entire Greek Church, an Agebefore this, in her Apoflolos, read it publickly asgenuine Scripture. Again, all the Greek MSS. ex-cept the Iris one, do not want the Pasiage.Valla t Cardinal Ximenes , Erasmus , Robert >Ste-phens, Beza, and Father Amelote, had each seen itin one or more Greek MSS. some of which werevenerable foe Antiquity. And at this very Day, be-sides the Iris) one, another Greek MS. is extant atBerlin, with the Passage in the Body of the Lext.fthirdly , The Text is not missing in all the ancientVersions. Possibly the old Italick originally had thePasiage, and scrams, Vulgar now reads it in mostCopies, and in all Editions. Besides which, theancient Armenian Version affords the disputed Text.But the most extravagant Assertion, advanced inthis wanton Paragraph, is that which affirms thatall the hatin Fathers unanimously exclaim againstthe controverted Text. Whereas it is notorious,that Lertullian and St. Cyprian , the earliest LatinFathers that cite Lejlimonies from Scripture , attestto the Pasiage, and that every Age since, exceptingone single Century, affords Vouchers of this Sort tothe Text in Dispute. Lastly it is not true, that themost ancient Latin MSS. of the New Testament ,want the celebrated Pasiage of i John v. 7. For theBible of Charlemagne revised and corrected by thelearned Alcuin , has that Text by the Confession ofour Adversaries, and they have not been able toproduce an older MS. where it is missing. The on-

X ly