9. We have not thought it needful to insert in this place either a list of the τίτλοι of the Gospels, or of the κεφάλαια of the rest of the New Testament, or the tables of the Eusebian canons, inasmuch as they are all accessible in such ordinary books as Stephen’s Greek Testament 1550 and Mill’s of 1707, 1710. The Eusebian canons are given in Bishop Lloyd’s Oxford Greek Test. of 1827 &c. and in Tischendorf’s of 1859. We exhibit, however, for the sake of comparison, a tabular view of “Ancient and Modern Divisions of the New Testament.” The numbers of the ῥήματα and στίχοι in the Gospels are derived from the most approved sources, but a synopsis of the variations of manuscripts in this respect has been drawn up by Scholz, Prolegomena N. T. vol. i. Cap. v, pp. xxviii, xxix(84). A computation of their number, as also of that of the ἀναγνώσματα, is often given in the subscription at the end of a book. 10. On the divisions into chapters and verses prevailing in our modern Bibles we need not dwell long. For many centuries the Latin Church used the Greek τίτλοι (which they called _breves_) with the Euthalian κεφάλαια, and some of their copies even retained the calculation by στίχοι: but about A.D. 1248 Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, while preparing a Concordance, or index of declinable words, for the _whole Bible_, divided it into its present chapters, subdividing them in turn into several parts by placing the letters A, B, C, D &c. in the margin, at equal distances from each other, as we still see in many old printed books, e.g. Stephen’s N. T. of 1550. Cardinal Hugo’s divisions, unless indeed he merely adopted them from Lanfranc or some other scholar, such as was very probably Stephen Langton the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury, soon took possession of copies of the Latin Vulgate; they gradually obtained a place in later Greek manuscripts, especially those written in the West of Europe, and are found in the earliest printed and all later editions of the Greek Testament, though still unknown to the Eastern Church. They certainly possess no strong claim on our preference, although they cannot now be superseded. The chapters are inconveniently and capriciously unequal in length; occasionally too they are distributed with much lack of judgement. Thus Matt. xv. 39 belongs to ch. xvi, and perhaps ch. xix. 30 to ch. xx; Mark ix. 1 properly appertains to the preceding chapter; Luke xxi. 1-4 had better be united with ch. xx, as in Mark xii. 41-44; Acts v might as well commence with Acts iv. 32; Acts viii. 1 (or at least its first clause) should not have been separated from ch. vii; Acts xxi concludes with strange abruptness. Bp. Terrot (on Ernesti’s Institutes, vol. ii. p. 21) rightly affixes 1 Cor. iv. 1-5 to ch. iii. Add that 1 Cor. xi. 1 belongs to ch. x; 2 Cor. iv. 18 and vi. 18 to ch. v and ch. vii respectively: Col. iv. 1 must clearly go with ch. iii.