C 3? )

the Case os its Antecedents as the current Impres-sions have it, to one where it is regularly go-verned by the following Verb , as the new Textrepresents it. So that the single Authority of theAlexandrian Copy prevailed on our Editor tomake this Change. And yet at other Times,where two Readings are equally probable inthemselves, he rejects the Alexandrian One, tho'back’d by many other Authorities. It seemstherefore as if his violent Attachment to the Rulesof Grammar had produced this Emendation, asto the same Cause probably was owing the sin-gular Reading of the Alexandrian MS., in thisPlace.

VI. Joh. iv. 5 !' Ot S'yXoi avTH dmvm\cra.v cc’utmA dimyfei AaKj hfyovtes on o rmis ca £5?'

X,« in the new Text is changed into aW«, onthe Vouchmcnt of the Alexandrian and one moreMS. the Vulgar and Armenian Versions, whilstall the other MSS. and Versions, as also Chry~softom reads ca, with Stephens. Besides, this wayof speaking is frequent in the New Testament ..See Mar. iii. n. Matt. vii. 23. Joh. x. 3 6.Lastly, If we examine the two Readings by theusual Rules for distinguishing genuine Ones fromEmendations, we shall certainly conclude thenew Text to be of the latter Sort. For ca,being the more perplexed Reading, bids fairestto be genuine: Whilst dvrS has all the Appearanceof being corrected to make it answer to aura, and;«ut£, which go before in the same Verse .

F 2 VII,