( 122 )

For the Rule on which this hopeful Emendationrests, is neither good in itself, nor pertinent here.For a continued Likeness of Speech is no wherenecessary The Apostle must begin to change Ex-pression somewhere, and why not where he doesaccording to the present Reading ? Besides, shouldthis Principle be valid in the main, it can have noPlace in the Pastage before us. Because the Cor-respondence had already been broken off in the im-mediately preceding Branch. For mv 6 is a ve-ry different Mode of Speech from uv c. Theproposed Emendation therefore would contradict thevery Rule that should support it. For it breaks offCorrespondence with the next preceding Words,and resumes a Mode of Speech that had been al-ready once interrupted. Another Objection againstthe 'Transposition contended for is, that the Sense tobe made thereby, had been strongly and frequentlyimplied before. For that the true God was theGod of the Jews , was plainly couched under theExpression of uv n sQsa-la. So Grotius understandsthose Words. And the same may, in a good Mea-sure, be said of the following Prerogatives of Israel.When therefore the Relation between God andhis People, had been plainly supposed under eachof the Privileges aforegoing, it would have beencontrary to all Rides of good Writing , to make atlast express Mention of it, as must be done if theEmendation takes Place. On all these Accounts, Ithink the proposed I’ranspojition is not so much asan ingenious Emendation, and that even many MSSso reading, ought not to prevail for its Admissioninto the Text.

In his Note on I Job. iv. 3. He represents Dr.

Mills

i

1

F

1

ii

v

o

' o!

is

le

lii

c

01

G

V,

I;

ti;

4

T

»e

I