The sum of the Sections therefore, in _Syriac_ MSS. instead of being between 1181 and 1162,(563) is found to be invariably 1389. But here, the question arises,—Did the Syrian Christians then retain the Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their own ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the elementary principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but substitute for the Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of reference, at the foot of every page? The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to Assemani’s engraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables from a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library.(564) The student who inquires for Assemani’s work will find that the numbers in the last line of each of the X Tables is as follows:— _Matthew_ _Mark_ _Luke_ _John_ Canon i 421 283 390 247 Canon ii 416 276 383 ... Canon iii 134 ... 145 178 Canon iv 394 212 ... 223 Canon v 319 ... 262 ... Canon vi 426 288 ... ... Canon vii 425 ... ... 249 Canon vii ... 290 401 ... Canon ix ... ... 399 262 Canon x 424 289 402 271 The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity, not only subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than were in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables which—identical as they are in _appearance_ and in _the principle_ of their arrangement with those with which Greek MSS. have made us familiar,—yet differ materially from these as to _the numerical details_ of their contents. Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When the extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is considered, may it not almost be made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the smaller number of Sections? But however _that_ may be, more palpably precarious than ever, I venture to submit, becomes the confident assertion of the Critics that, “just as EUSEBIUS found these Verses [S. Mark xvi. 9-20] absent in his day from the best and most numerous [_sic_] copies, _so was also the case with _AMMONIUS when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century.”(565)To speak plainly, the statement is purely mythical. VI. Birch [_Varr. Lectt._ p. 226], asserts that in the best Codices, the Sections of S. Mark’s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8. Tischendorf prudently adds, “_or_ ver. 9:” but to introduce _that_ alternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to,