A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished with the Eusebian _Sectional_ notation, may be considered to correspond generally with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the Eusebian _Canons_ at the beginning, with numerical references thereto inserted in the margin throughout, does but superadd something analogous to the convenience of our _Marginal References_,—and may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably) be dispensed with. I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially expedient to leave its purchaser to decide whether he would or would not submit to the additional expense (which in the case of illuminated MSS. must have been very considerable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the commencement of his Book,(553)—without which _the References_ thereto would confessedly have been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pass, (as Mr. Scrivener points out,) that “not a few ancient MSS. contain the _Sections_ but omit the _Canons_.” Whether, however, the omission of References to the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the sectional numbers, is to be explained in this way, or not,—AMMONIUS, at all events, will have had no more to do with either the one or the other, than with our modern division into Chapters and Verses. It is, in short, nothing else but a “vulgar error” to designate the Eusebian Sections as the “Sections of AMMONIUS.” The expression cannot be too soon banished from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained, to _reason about_ the lost work of AMMONIUS from the Sections of EUSEBIUS (as Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical Truth which no one who values his critical reputation will probably hereafter venture to commit. IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of considerable interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice, but which evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics.(554) As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian Tables of Canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious and a cumbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a remedy. They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient would be to note at the foot of every page of a Gospel _the numbers_ of the Sections of that Gospel contained _in extenso_ on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers, to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections in the other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an apparatus at the foot of the page, are known to exist.(555) For instance, in Cod. 262 (= Reg. 53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at foot of the first page (_fol._ 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:— [[Illustration: Apparatus Table From Cod. 262.]]