( *59 )

pure between the Orthodox and Hereticks. Toboth these I have already spoken, and (hewn,that the former of them, viz. s Xm r ’hja-Sy, IJohn iv. z. was no wilful Addition, but a Scho-hon, that became accidentally a Part of the Text,in some ancient Copies. As to the second, whichis the contested Passage of x John v. 7. we insist:upon it as a genuine Text of Scripture , and noInterpolation. And we have further to fay in itsBehalf, that it was alluded to by Tertullian , andPart of it expressly cited by Cyprian , long beforeArianifm , and therefore stands utterly clear of allSuspicion, that it was interpolated to do Serviceagainst that Heresy. It may be proper here to.consider at once, what he further imputes to theOrthodox under that Word.

Orthodox , their Calumny againfl the Arians .The Case here referred to is the Opinion of someWriters, that the Arians expunged the 'Text of1 John v. 7. and again of others, that they inter-polated it. But why is this laid upon the Orthprdox in general, most of whom diselaim both these.Opinions; The latter, I think, is maintained by Fa-: ther Simon only.

Orthodox , their Forgeries. The first Instance ofthis is the Sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodi-cea, which I have proved to be no Forgery, buta real Act of that Council, which itself also was real.and not forged, as he would persuade us; see above,p. 92, &c. And the second is the Passage 1 John v.7, which he charges twice on the Orthodox , first as| an Interpolation, and again as a Forgery. But wetrust it appears to be genuine Text. The two re-; maining Forgeries are, that of the ‘Prologue aseri-& bed