( z8 )

us, both as a 'Parallel Way of speaking, and alsoas cL'aKov ayfeXov seems to refer to hx ayTehovhere, and in some Measure supposes it. I shallonly add, that at least one Copift , as appearsfrom the 'Baroccian Reading on -Rev. xiv. 6 .had either by Mistake or Deiign put cctrcV foruyseA oy, whereas no clear Instance can be givenof ayUhv being put for as-rS.

XIV. Rec. xii. I8. Kal l^xhhjj \<m ihjj xutxop

The new Edition reads as if the Beast

mentioned in the 17th Ver. stood on the SeaShore. But is it possible that when St. John hadjust before represented the Beast as gone in aRage to make War, (Jc. He should immediatelymake him stand inactive and speculating on theSea Shore? Whereas, if St. John be supposed tospeak of himself as standing on the Sea Shore ,and seeing, as it follows in the next Chapter, allis agreeable to common Methods. For thus E-zekiel saw a Vision by the Wat er-fide ^ Ezek.i. 1.And when the Subject of the Vision is somethingascending out of the Water, as is the Cafe beforeus, the Person who sees it is still represented asstanding by the Water-side. See Gen. xli. 1, 17.Besides the old Reading is much better supportedby Authority of MSS. For all, save the Alex-?andrian , are with it t, yet Dr. Mills pronouncesthat i9x.hu was the genuine Text, and that it waschanged into iswS'wr, because the following Verb is of the first Person. But this it is to applyCritical Principles out of Season. For then onlycan they have Place, when the Readings to be