(?)

compiling the new Text before us. Chance orWhim chiefly influenced the Author to reject orretain Readings. And this Consideration great-ly abates our Astonishment at the want of a.Ratio operis , which is usually premised to newEditions of antient Authors. For who can be sounreasonable as to expect, that our Editor shouldlay before the Reader a consistent Scheme of anew Text that was put together at Random.

CHAP. II.

Shewing that the new Text, all ‘Thingsconsidered, is not better than the oldor common Text.

S TILL it may be thought that a Text con-fessedly amended aster Mills\ Judgment inabove 500 Instances, though in others somewhatdefective, is preferable to the current Impressions.But to this I can by no Means agree; For First,The Readings introduced into the Text of thisnew Edition, with the greatest Appearance ofReason, are no more than probably genuine,- andbesides are often utterly insignificant, neither mend-ingthe Sense of Scripture nor the Language. Second-ly, Others of the New Readings are no better sup-ported by Criticism or Authority, than those ofthe former Impressions, whose Place they supply.Lastly , Some of our Editor’s pretended Correcti-ons