each of those several Gospels in turn, until the required number has been reached,) will be found to contain the parallel record in the other three Gospels. All this is so purely elementary, that its very introduction in this place calls for apology. The extraordinary method of the opposite party constrains me however to establish thus clearly the true relation in which the familiar labours of Eusebius stand to the unknown work of Ammonius. For if that earlier production be lost indeed,(225)—if its precise contents, if the very details of its construction, can at this distance of time be only conjecturally ascertained,—what right has any one to appeal to “_the Sections of Ammonius_,” as to a known document? Why above all do Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the rest deliberately claim “Ammonius” for their ally on an occasion like the present; seeing that they must needs be perfectly well aware that they have no means whatever of knowing (except from the precarious evidence of Catenæ) what Ammonius thought about any single verse in any of the four Gospels? At every stage of this discussion, I am constrained to ask myself,—Do then the recent Editors of the Text of the New Testament really suppose that their statements will _never_ be examined? their references _never_ verified? or is it thought that they enjoy a monopoly of the learning (such as it is) which enables a man to form an opinion in this department of sacred Science? For, (1st.) _Where_ then and _what_ are those “Sections of Ammonius” to which Tischendorf and Tregelles so confidently appeal? It is even notorious that when they _say_ the “Sections of Ammonius,” what they _mean_ are the “Sections of _Eusebius_.”—But, (2dly.) Where is the proof,—where is even the probability,—that these two are identical? The Critics cannot require to be reminded by me that we are absolutely without proof that so much as _one_ of the Sections of Ammonius corresponded with _one_ of those of Eusebius; and yet, (3dly.) Who sees not that unless the Sections of Ammonius and those of Eusebius can be proved to have corresponded throughout, the name of Ammonius has no business whatever to be introduced into such a discussion as the present? They must at least be told that in the entire absence of proof of any kind,—(and certainly nothing that Eusebius says warrants any such inference,(226))—to reason from the one to the other as if they were identical, is what no sincere inquirer after Truth is permitted to do.