of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the text of St.Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as already explained, is _not_ the text of Isaiah?
4.

Further,--I discover in this place a minute illustration of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St.Matthew it is invariably [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies of St.Mark,--except to be sure in (_a_) Codd.

B and D, (_b_) copies of the Old Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Peshitto (all of which are confessedly corrupt in this particular,)--it is invariably [Greek: outos ho laos].

But now,--Is it reasonable that the very copies which have been in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St.Mark vii.
6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of St.Matt.xv.

8?
And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd.