Places. Secondly , That he has inclosed withinParentheses 182 Pastages, as so many suspectedInterpolations. Thirdly , That 518 of his newReadings are deemed genuine by Dr. Mills.Fourthly^ That 143 of the suspected Interpola-tions are esteemed such by Dr. Mills. Fifthly yThat of the remaining 182 Corrections, notcountenanced by Mills , fifty are against his ex-press Judgement in Favour of the Old Text.Sixthly , That of the remaining Thirty-nine su-spected Interpolations, not declared such by Mills yseven are, on the contrary, affirmed by him tohave been originally Part of the sacred Text .Seventhly , That the Editor has retained in hisText more than 1100 Readings of the old Textjudged to be faulty by the said Doctor, in hisNotes and 'Prolegomena to the New Testament.

New the Doctor pronounces upon Readings,not from their being found in more or fewer MSS.or Versions, but chiefly on the Strength of cer-tain, Critical Rules. So that if those Rules begood, our Editor is highly to blame, when hewas making a new Text, that he had not takeninto it every Reading pronounced genuine byMills. If on the other Hand, those Rules ap-peared weak and incompetent, he is utterly un-justifiable, for correcting so often after them, ashe has done. As to the Reason of his Actingsherein, we are left quite in the Dark, and canonly guess upon what Principles he proceededin this Affair.

Here then it would be natural to suppose, thatour Editor corrected his original Text, withoutany Regard to Milk 's Maxims, but as his Title-

B 2, Page