2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing instance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the following single issue:—Let me be shewn how it is rationally conceivable that AMMONIUS can have split up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into _three distinct Sections_; and S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17, into _six?_ and yet, after so many injudicious disintegrations of the sacred Text, how it is credible that he can have made but _one_ Section of S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which nevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly requires even _repeated_ subdivision?... Why EUSEBIUS did all this, is abundantly plain. His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the _former_ half of ver. 12,—the _latter_ half of verses 15, 16, 17—to his IXth Canon, where S. Luke and S. John are brought together; (ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παρακλήσια εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the _latter_ half of ver. 12,—the _former_ half of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the _last eight verses_ of S. John’s Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to each of the four Evangelists is set down, (ἐν ᾧ περὶ τίνων ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἰδίως ἀνέγραψεν.) But AMMONIUS, because he confessedly _recognised no such Canons_, was under no such constraint. He had in fact _no such opportunity_. He therefore simply _cannot_ have adopted the same extraordinary sectional subdivision. 3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit the argument in a more convincing form:—The Canons of EUSEBIUS, and the so-called “AMMONIAN _SECTIONS_,”—(by which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is _meant_ but the Sections of EUSEBIUS,)—are discovered mutually to imply one another. Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from the Sections,—for the sake of which they were clearly invented. Those Sections, whatever convenience they may possess apart from the Canons, nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons throughout: to be manifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon them for their very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the eccentricity of their arrangement, except when explained by the requirements of the EUSEBIAN Canons. I say—_That_ particular sectional subdivision, in other words, to which the epithet “AMMONIAN” is popularly applied,—(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest license,)—proves on careful inspection to have been only capable of being devised by one _who was already in possession of the Canons of _EUSEBIUS. In plain terms, they are demonstrably _the work of _EUSEBIUS_ himself_,—who expressly claims _The Canons_ for his own (κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author of the Sections also. Wetstein (_Proleg._ p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the “Monitum” prefixed to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the matter; and Mr. Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 51) evidently inclines to the same opinion.