( 2-5 )

Ton do not approach to any 'Thing corporeal,which contradicts what the Apostle fays after-wards, viz. That they had approached to theChurch of the First-born, and to Jesus , bothwhich are corporeal. I shall dismiss this Palfage,after I have observed to the Reader, thatDr. Mi Us is mistaken in his Notes on Heb. xii.18 . in saying that Chrysoflorn takes no Notice ofthe Word set in his Commentary , though he hasit two several Times in the Text. For he be-gins his Explication thus. Tl yip «ro 'ZivaL 7rpjs r

QiigftVOV j TI 'ID -^ilAcClpMfJLSVOV HIUp TTgstS T

qnAv Svov ; Here I fay Chrysoflorn plainly sup-poses opei to have been in the Text, though hedoes not express it in the Commentary. ForFirs , ’Ogps is evidently understood aster theWords iD Xiv£, otherwise the Article would nothave been prefixed to the proper Name, which isno Part of the Text. Secondly, Had op« beenwanting in Chrysoflorn s Copy, he would havebegun his Exposition with ti to -^yiteqrxpievov mpand would have left out the former Clause,which would have no Pertinence but with rela-tion to opet in the Text. * Upon the Whole theold Reading is well attested by outward Evi-dence, and is on many Accounts necessary, andtherefore the new Editor has altered here muchfor the worse.

* So little Reason had Dr. Mills in his Prol. N a . 1071, toreckon Chrysoflorn among the Authorities for omitting In

the same Place, and to the lame Purpose, he mentions theVulgar as wanting the Word in uetuflioribus Edit. But sure Iam that in the Paris Edit. by R. Stephens, Anno 1559. I findMontem, and no various Reading in the Margin . Nor is thereany various Reading of this Sort in the Collection at theEnd of the last Vol. of Walton s Polyglots,

E XII.