( 2-3 )

of the same Chap. For these Reasons Dr. Milk in his Notes on the Place, declares for the cur-rent Reading : But he afterwards altered hisSentiments, as appears c Prol. 1071. His Reasonsare, Firsts That ’tis scarce probable any antientScribe would omit opa. Secondly , That 'tis morelikely some Reader, observing the dpojlle totreat of the sensible and burning Fire, whichwas seen in Mount Sina, set down op& in theMargin , or between the Lines of his Copy, thatthere might be somewhat to answer to op« inthe 2 2d Verse ; and that at length this Scholioubecame Part of the Text. But here Firs , WhatDifficulty is there in conceiving, that a Scribe ,through Carelessness or mere human Infirmity,should omit so short a Word as opa ? Who isthere that writes much without sometimes com-mitting the fame Fault? But I rather think theWord was first omitted by Design. Obscurity ofSense, by Dr. Milk 's own Account, oft made aWay for new Readings. Possibly therefore someCopifts not knowing what to make of ^vXcc<pa)fiÆraop«, and thinking the Participle would makebetter Sense if made to refer to mie/s, purposelyleft out opa. To this Cause perhaps was owingthe Transposition of these Words in ChrysosomsCopy, who twice puts op& before J.sAapwpii'fitf.For by this Expedient Liberty was given for■^■nAacpMpLfi/u to belong to jroel, and foChrysoftomexpounds the Words. I believe .most equalJudges will think this Account more probable,than that the Writer of this Epistle, intending anOppostion between the Promulgation of the Lawand the Gospels should drop all Mention of the

Morn 7