( 150

’Tis probable from the Annotator’s Silence con-cerning this well-known Expedient , that he despair-ed of being able to set it aside. But if any Doubtremains with him, as to the Probability of Omis-sions ordinarily happening this Way, I have it inmy Power to remove it by a very home Instance.

He himself in transcribing from Mills's variousReadings, has committed just such another unde-signed Mistake, as we suppose an ancient Copijl tohave done, i John v. 7, 8. The Doblor, in hisNotes on Gal. iii. 12. sets down the Authorities foromitting thus: Alex. Clar. Gr. Lat.

Germ. Lat. pnto & Grœc. And thus far our An-notator has copied right. But then looking atMills for the rest, he casts his Eyes accidentallyupon the Readings on the next Verse , where thefame Words pnto & Grœc. occur again, and hethence transcribes all that follows, viz. Colb. 7. Lin.Vulgate , Æthiopic , Irenœus , Ambrose , Jerom , andthe Scholiast , as if they had all omitted ay 8 f>u 7 r(§*in the twelfth Verse , whereas in their proper Place,they are so many Vouchers for the Omission ofafter r yiyej'. 7 Tj, in the thirteenth Verse ; and three :of them, viz. the two Greek MS, and probablyIrenœus , insert LDoo}ir@^. This, I fay, is an exact :Parallel to the supposed Case of 1 John v. 7, 8. Eoras the ancient Copijl began with the seventh Verse , ,

and the next Time of looking upon his Original , <

accidentally struck into the eighth Verse , where the :lame Words occurred, and by this Means run the -two Verses into one. So our Annotator did by thevarious Readings on Gal. iii. 12., 13. he began right jwith the Authorities for the Omission of ocvsu 7 r@^ »in the twelfth Verse , but was misled by similar Ex- -

pressions 1