C 1 9 )

IX. I Cos. viii. 2 . ’Ei Z tt« <Toxe< &$ivxi -77) iS'Livu)hS'h tyi'OtiKS X t. A.

Here the Editor leaves out iJ>h, as also doeight Greek and Latin MSS. Clem. Alexandrinns,Lertullian , St. Cypr. Austin , Fe/. &/W. sub nom.Hieron. Theodores and the Vulgar. To whichMills might have added ’Pfeitdambrofe. Thisshews that was early omitted in some GreekCopies. But then it is found in the Spiack , andconsequently was extant as early in other Copies.Besides the Arabick Version has the Word, andChrysojiom both in Text and Commentary, aswell as a vast Majority of Greek Manuscripts.Authority therefore seems equally divided betweenthe two Readings. But Mills, Trol. 653. is po-sitive that iS'h was added on occasion of thepreceding 17, for Emphasis Sake. And we haveequal Reason to be positive, that it was firstomitted as* superfluous: There being as many In-stances of such Omissions , as there are of suchAdditions. But if we consult the Genius of theLanguage, in which the New Testament was'ori-ginally written, we shall certainly decide in Fa-vour of the old Text. For, First, The doublenegative is most agreeable to the Greek Idiom ingeneral, which delights thus to. express strongNegations. Secondly , It is particularly suitableto the Style of the New Testament , in whichdouble Negatives are frequent. Thirdly , Whatmakes most for our Purpose is, that iS'k zrw is al-ways followed by iJ'eis in the sacred Books, whenthe Sense will admit it, and in such a Case nevesstands sinsle. See Luke xxiii. 53 . Job. xix. 41,

D 2 The