It will be perceived from this, that EUSEBIUS subdivides these three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections (“§§;”)—of which three belong to S. Matthew, viz. §§ 20, 21, 22:—three to S. Mark, viz. §§ 9, 10, 11:—four to S. Luke, viz. §§ 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, EUSEBIUS distributed over four of his Canons: referring three of there to his IInd Canon, (which exhibits what S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common); four of them to his VIth Canon, (which shews what S. Matthew and S. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which contains what is common to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found what is peculiar to each Evangelist.) Now, the design which EUSEBIUS had in breaking up this portion of the sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,) after so arbitrary a fashion, into ten portions; divorcing three of those Sections from S. Matthew’s Gospel, (viz. S. Luke’s §§ 29, 30, 31); and connecting one of these last three (§ 30) _with two Sections_ (§§ 219, 222) _of S. John;_—is perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself explains,) to shew—not only (_a_) what S. Matthew has in common with S. Mark and S. Luke; but also (_b_) _what S. Luke has in common with S. John_;—as well as (_c_) what S. Luke has _peculiar to himself_. But, in the work of AMMONIUS, _as far as we know anything about that work_, all this would have been simply impossible. (I have already described his “Diatessaron,” at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections of the other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of _S. Matthew_, AMMONIUS would not if he could,—(and he could not if he would,)—have dissociated from its context S. Luke’s account of the first miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning of our LORD’S Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to S. John’s account of the _second_ miraculous draught of fishes which took place after the Resurrection, and is only found in S. John’s Gospel. These Sections therefore are “EUSEBIAN,” not _Ammonian_. They are _necessary_, according to the scheme of EUSEBIUS. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but actually impossible, in the AMMONIAN scheme.