s 115 )

take in, if not all the Varieties of this Kind, how-ever all that are of Moment. But the Editor ofthe New Testament seems scarcely to have knownwhat various Readings mean. For his Collectionconsists chiefly of Lections , that are rather concur-rent than various , i. e. of such as confirm hisEmendations , and justify his Suspicions shout inter-polated stallages. Nor has he given us a compleatLift of this Sort; but at least two-thirds of hisnew Readings are left quite defenseless. Amongwhich there often happen to be stallages of Noteand Concern-, whilst others of less Moment arethought worthy of a particular Regard. Lastly,as to those Readings of his, which are properly'various , they are so few and so ill chosen , thatthey can serve no useful Purposes whatever.

But besides these general Faults in the variousReadings of our Editor, I shall point out someparticular ones, arising partly from Negligence ,partly from Ignorance , and sometimes from hisPartiality to the Interests of Infidelity and He­ resy .

First in his various Readings, as he calls them,transcribed entirely from Dr. Mills , he has negli-gently omitted some Authorities for particular va-rious Readings. E. G.

In his Note on i Cor. vii. 5. he pastes by the Vul-gar and ferom.

1 Cor. xv. 47. He takes no Notice of Hippolytusand Athanafius.

Gal. ii. 14. He is silent about the Leicefier MSS.marked L. in. Mills Collection.

Eph. iii. 9. He leaves out Ambrofiaster,

Oz

Col