It is time, however, that I should plainly declare that it happens to be no matter of opinion at all whether the lost Sections of Ammonius were identical with those of Eusebius or not. It is demonstrable that they _cannot_ have been so; and the proof is supplied by the Sections themselves. It is discovered, by a careful inspection of them, that they _imply_ and _presuppose the Ten Canons_; being in many places even meaningless,—nugatory, in fact, (I do not of course say that they are _practically_ without _use_,)—except on the theory that those Canons were already in existence.(227) Now the Canons are confessedly the invention of Eusebius. He distinctly claims them.(228) Thus much then concerning the supposed testimony of Ammonius. It is _nil_.—And now for what is alleged concerning the evidence of Eusebius. The starting-point of this discussion, (as I began by remarking), is the following memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.:—“Thus far did Eusebius canonize;”(229) which means either: (1) That his Canons recognise no section of S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, (which number is commonly set over against ver. 8:) or else, (which comes to the same thing,)—(2) That no sections of the same Gospel, after § 233, are referred to any of his X Canons. On this slender foundation has been raised the following precarious superstructure. It is assumed, (1st.) That the Section of S. Mark’s Gospel which Eusebius numbers “233,” and which begins at our ver. 8, _cannot have extended beyond_ ver. 8;—whereas it may have extended, and probably did extend, down to the end of ver. 11. (2dly.) That because no notice is taken in the Eusebian Canons of any sectional _number_ in S. Mark’s Gospel subsequent to § 233, no _Section_ (with, or without, such a subsequent number) can have existed:—whereas there may have existed one or more subsequent Sections all duly numbered.(230) This notwithstanding, Eusebius, (according to the memorandum found in certain ancient MSS.), may have _canonized_ no further than § 233.