( Z2 )

Dispute had been a Comparison , the latter Partthereof as ripas would have been expressed, as inall other Instances of this Sort, in both Testa-ments. Thus when David, Psal. Ixxvii. 13.meant to declare the Supremacy of the God ofIsrael in the interrogative Way, he does notbarely fay, Who is so great a God I But drawsthe Comparison at full Length, and fays, Who isso great a God, as our God ? In like Manner,had St. ‘Paul intended such a Comparison asDr. Mills supposes, in the Passage before us, hewould have said clearly, Who are so sufficient forthese ‘Things as •use ? And even in such a Case,that Hebrew of the Hebrews would have had noOccasion for the disputed Particle v<ms, but pro-bably would have expressed himself thus. KalTrgps <rtc urm ’nuts ly&voi (Is For so David,

according to the Letter of the Hebrew , fays onlyWhat God is great as our God ? And the LXX.tjs «Sto's [Jigysis cus S'gos yfjsov, Psal. Ixxvii. 13. Up-on the whole, Dr. Mills s Reasons for the Ge-nuineness of the Latin Reading of 2 Cor . ii. 16.are insufficient: The Epiphonema is no Compa-rison j and if it had, »tos, the Word in Dispute,would not have been expressed ; so that on eitherSupposition the old Reading is to be preferred,and ought to have been preserved.

XI. Heb. xii. 18. Ov yoip TTQjiaiXnKv^ra.'a

<pUfJ(fVCO CJ3« X. T. A.

The Editor leaves out op«, though found inall the Greek MSS. save two, and in the Vulgarand in Chrysojioms Text, and though necessaryto the Antithesis between this and the 2 rd Ver.

of