III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of EUSEBIUS was entirely different in its structure and intention from the work of AMMONIUS. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent that it is nothing short of impossible that there can have been any extensive correspondence between the two. According to EUSEBIUS, S. Mark has 21 Sections(548) _peculiar to his Gospel_: S. Luke, 72: S. John, 97.(549) According to the same EUSEBIUS, 14 Sections(550) are common to S. Luke and S. Mark _only_: 21, to S. Luke and S. John _only_. But those 225 Sections can have found _no place_ in the work of AMMONIUS. And if, (in some unexplained way,) room _was_ found for those parts of the Gospels, _with what possible motive can _AMMONIUS_ have subdivided them into exactly 225 portions_? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he did so. Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious living Critic as a “ground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections as well as the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former while they omit the latter.”(551) He considers it to be certainly indicated thereby “that in the judgment of critics and transcribers, (whatever that judgment may be deemed worth,) the Ammonian Sections had a previous existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an independent purpose.” But I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences. I also learn with surprise that “those who have studied them most, can the least tell what use the Ammonian Sections can serve, unless in connection with Canons of Harmony.”(552) However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical text are observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount. They are observed to fulfil _exactly the same office_ as our own actual division of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165 subdivisions are (for certain purposes) somewhat less convenient than 3780;—but on the other hand, a place in the Gospels would be more easily discovered, I suspect, for the most part, by the employment of such a single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a Reader first to find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its Arabic figure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion as to the _supreme convenience to a Reader_, whether ancient or modern, of knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is subdivided into exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy which is likely to come in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may depend on finding every one of those sections invariably distinguished by the self-same number.