assertion are Stephens's margin and Beza's note. The appeal to Stephens's edition, when the question is, whether that edition be erroneous or not, is too gross a banter upon common sense. Nor can Beza's testimony be of any weight, till you can prove that he had the actual use of Stephens's MSS. But this you cannot prove, without making Stephens a thief and a liar. And when you have ruined his character, we will consider how much credit is due to his evidence.

You play your old game, when you say, "that the charge against Stephens is, that he collated his MSS. unfaithfully;" and afterwards, "that we accuse R. Stephens and T. Beza of a deliberate falsification of Scripture." I have told you over and over, that I only suppose R. Stephens to have committed an easy, and to appearance a small mistake. And I suppose, with Wetstein, that Beza adopted the mistake. Ista typothetæ aberratio fraudi fuit T. Beza. If it be a deliberate falsification of Scripture to err in noting the various readings, God help the wicked! For there never was a more abandoned set of men than the greatest part of editors and collators. The word unfaithfully is capable of two senses. If it means negligently, imperfectly, erroneously, I agree that Stephens collated his manuscripts unfaithfully; but, if it means fraudulently, I have acquitted him of that imputa

tion.

Supposing that I surrendered Stephens's No. 7, what 133 would you gain by it? Nothing, unless you could shew that Nos. 4, 5, and 10, are different from the numbers

[If Sacke and Sugar bee a fault, Heaven helpe the Wicked: Shakspere's 1st P. of K. Henry IV. p. 59. ed. pr. repr.]

marked

marked by Le Long as corresponding. But this you have not attempted to shew of No. 4; nor can you shew it of No. 5, and 10, without retreating to your strong-hold, the infallibility of Stephens and his compositors. And if you call this arguing, you may argue till doomsday. You are indeed in a distressing situation; for, if one only of the MSS. quoted by Le Long be one of the MSS. quoted by Stephens, your cause will be as effectually ruined, as if the whole seven were found. If you can confute the single proposition, that the King's MS. formerly 2871, now 106, is Stephens's No. 4, you will perform more service to your darling verse, than you have performed in your whole book and your last incomparable letter. For Le Long, Wetstein, Mr. Griesbach, and the compilers of the catalogue of the King's MSS.* are in a provoking agreement concerning this MS. and, what is more provoking, are not contradicted by Stephens's infallible margin. Attempt then this confutation without delay. Silence will be a proof of con scious impotence. And attempt it with candour and seriousness. Tinselled phrases and empty sarcasms will have no effect but to double the load that now lies heavy upon yout. In the mean time I abide by my first position, that the MSS. numbered 4, 5, 7, 10, by R. Stephens, are the same with the French King's MSS. which, in the time of Le Long, were marked 2871, 3425, 2242, 2870. You have said nothing in answer to these affirmations of Le Long and Wetstein, that has not furnished fresh proofs of

* Quartus ex eorum numero quos Robertus Stephanus adhibuit, T. II. p. 19.

This fustian, with much more to the same purpose, may be found in Mr. Travis's peroration, p. 125, 369.

the

the assertion which I formerly made, "that you possess not even the rudiments of criticism*."

I have now, Sir, I think, with wonderful patience and politeness, replied to all your objections. I might indeed have excused myself from the task. If, however, you continue, as you threaten, to abuse Mr. Urban's indulgence, I shall not condescend to honour you with a second reply, unless you submit to a certain previous condition, which, to me, appears reasonable.

In every controversy, the disputants on either side ought, before they resume the subject by way of defence or offence, to acknowledge all the mistakes of which they have been convicted by others; and all in which they have detected themselves. Now, Sir, I have fairly staked my veracity on several points, which materially affected your cause and your character. Since you have neither defended your assertions, nor confessed your mistakes; you ought to look upon the attention I have here paid you as a signal exertion of humility. You are a culprit at the bar of the publick. You have no right to an hearing till you have purged yourself from the former accusations. These I shall now state again, and leave them to the judgement of the reader. You asserted 1. that the Latin copies in 1 John, v. 8. read (with so few exceptions as not to merit notice added in the 2d ed.) tres in unum sunt. 2. That they invariably retain the clause. 3. You assert, by implication, that most of the Greek MSS. which omit the seventh verse, retain v Tηi yn in the eighth; 4. that Wetstein allows six MSS. to retain the disputed verse. I asserted, and I still assert, 1. that no Latin copy whatever, retaining the [p. 38. Lett. to Tr]

clause,

clause, reads tres in unum sunt, but all simply tres unum sunt; 2. that a very great number (as far as I can guess a considerable majority,) omits the clause. 3. That no Greek MS., which omits the seventh verse, retains év Tyni in the eighth; and 4. that Wetstein affirms four of the six MSS., to which you appeal, to omit the disputed verse; and professes to believe the same of a fifth. Besides these particular charges, I scattered a general accusation through my letters; that you had borrowed the greater part of your book from Martin, taking upon trust his facts and quotations. That this blind adherence to Martin had led you into many errors, some owing to the original, and some to the English translation. Unless you make haste to defend or confess, the publick will not fail to condemn your obstinacy, and take your silence for the certain token of a rotten cause and a guilty conscience.

CANTABRIGIENSIS.

P.S. In Vol. LIX. p. 515, [=p. 77. Lett. to T.] for 4, 5, 7, 10, 15, read 4, 5, 7, 9, 10.

Five to three in the Louvain editions, and about three to two in above fifty copies that I have collated.

ADDENDA.

ERRATA. ADDENDA. CORRIGENDA.

N. B. It would be advisable to intermix the additions, alterations,, and corrections of my cwn mistakes, as well as those of the press, in their proper places, before this volume is looked over, otherwise the second Index will be of little use.

P. 2.

2. v. 12. Would yet he had lived. Shakspere, Meas. for Meas. iv. iv.

P. 3. v. 3. Soph. Αnt. 650. 10. οἰκοῦσι χωρὶς ἀρεταὶ τῶν Sov. Phrynichus 2. П. 72. v. 17. read, Tex i dy' T.— ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν, ἀποθνήσκει νέος.—or, as it is somewhere cited, ὃν γὰρ φιλεῖ τὸ θεῖον, ἀποθνήσκει νέος. So wise, so young, they say, do never live long. Shaksp.'s Richd. III. 111, i. Short summers lightly have a forward spring. Ibid.

P. 10. 1. 4. ***

P. 13. 1. 14. Lucian. ii. 680. ἐγὼ γὰρ, ὡς ὁ Κωμικὸς ἔφη, ἄγροικος είμι, τὴν σκάφην σκάφην λέγων. vide supra, p. 54. We call a nettle, but a nettle; Shaksp.'s Coriolanus, A. 11. Sc. i. Mundungus, having occasion for a spade, called out, Slave, bring me my upheaver of the earth."

P. 15. 1. 15. "That bawl"-Milton's sonnet x11, 9. ed. T. Warton-as in R. P.'s Letters to Travis, p. 379. "Who would be w."-" That"-edd.

P. 18. 1. 2. Ter. Andr, 1. v, 18. ibid. 1. 7. Shakspere's King John, A. 111. Sc. iii.

P. 19. 1.5. Apud Demosth. in Neæram, et Athen. XIII, 612. F. [P. P.D.] s ovx v. Grotii Excerp. pp. 737. 845. R. B. Millio, p 77. ed. Cantab. Tad' oux v. Gataker. Opp. posth. c. xii. Grot. Excerp. 441. ibid. 1. 14. Shaksp. Much ado about nothing, 111. 3. give Heaven thanks, and make no boast of them-As you like it, 111, 5. ibid. 1. 18. In Feby 1806 I was

2 B