( US )

Heb. i. z. He reckons the Æthiopic , Cyril andEuthalius, as wanting the Words it kouirS, where-as they really exhibit a '■carious Reading, viz. iiairs, per ipjum.

But besides the Faults aforenamed, which pro-ceed from false reading or transcribing after Mills ,the Editor now and then betrays much Ignorance among his various Readings.

Thus Gal. iv- 2.5. Dr. Bentley thinks the WordsEivci Wiv cv riif a, should be omitted, asnot originally belonging to the "Text , but a Marginnal Scholion only; and Mills declares that was itnot for the universal Agreement of the Copies, inthe present Reading, he would boldly pronouncethe other Lection genuine. The Annotator sneersat him for being so serupulous. As if, fays he, therewas any MS. so old, as common Sense . No, mostassuredly. And therefore, if he can {hew uponclear and allowed Principles , that the Words inDispute render the Passage before us repugnant tocommon Sense , we will immediately give them up,nor stay for the Authority of a single MS, Versionor Father. But it is not sufficient for this Purposeto fay, that the Words perplex the Sense , and areforeign to the Argument. For, ’tis the Characterof St. Paul’s Style, to abound with this Sort ofParentheses. And if every Clause , not absolutelynecestary to his Sense or his Argument , was with-out more ado to be thrown out as a Scholion ^there would be no End of Erasement. Besides thepresent Text is capable of being made good Sense and good Reasoning , as Dr. Mills very judiciouslyproves, in his Notes on the Place, and therefore, common Setife is utterly out of the Question here,

unless

3