( 17 )

Secondly) Dr. Mills s Opinion, that the Word was originally a Scholion , seems ill-grounded.For Scholia were designed to sill up seeming Va-cancies in the Text: Whereas the Sense os thePlace before us is clear and full, without theWord (TieASar. It is more probable therefore,that some Transcriber either passed it over thro’Inadvertency, or designedly drop’d it as Plec-nastical. Besides, I very much question, whe-ther the new Reading e^ct'ni^aAa.vBxpva.Cdv las’Av-'no^ela.s be proper New Testament Greek . Insuch a Case it should be as ’At^io^axv, which isvery customary Language. But l^a.^ogi^av laswithoutaigAOff, or some such Word between, ne-ver occurs. That cTigASftV is the genuine Readingof this Place is the more probable, because wehave just such another Instance of Redundancyin this Book, c. xvii. <v. 14- r Ylavhcv ll'ot.A—aKctvc£ a&A<poJ 'rrvpeueSrati las \nv t bj) S - aAct(r<rav‘ Thusthe new Text stands; the Editor having rightlychanged as of Stephens's Text into las, whichMills also thinks to be the better Reading, c Prol.973, Lastly, -IhsAOttl- las, as in the former Im-pression, is frequently found in the New Testa­ ment , insomuch that whenever S'is aG«V is thereinput for going to a Town or City, if any Parti-cle intervene between it and the proper Name,eas is constantly the Word. For all these Rea-sons I cannot help thinking the old Text of AUsxi. 22. to be genuine.

VII. Aids -XX. iv. 23. Ttipa&ou, t riauAoj'.

The new Text reads mp&Srcu dulor, as also dosix MSS. the Vulgar and Coptick Versions. Dr.

D Mills,