y from the best and most
numerous copies (_sic_), _so was also the case with Ammonius_ when he
formed his Harmony in the preceding century."(220)

(The opposite page exhibits an _exact Fac-simile_, obtained by
Photography, of fol. 113 of EVAN. COD. L, ("Codex Regius," No. 62,) at
Paris; containing S. Mark xvi. 6 to 9;--as explained at pp. 123-4. The Text
of that MS. has been published by Dr. Tischendorf in his "Monumenta Sacra
Inedita," (1846, pp. 57-399.) See p. 206.)

[[Illustration: Codex Regius facsimile page.]]

(The original Photograph was executed (Oct. 1869) by the obliging
permission of M. de Wailly, who presides over the Manuscript Department of
the "Bibliotheque." He has my best thanks for the kindness with which he
promoted my wishes and facilitated my researches.)

(It should perhaps be stated that _the margin_ of "Codex L" is somewhat
ampler than can be represented in an octavo volume; each folio measuring
very nearly nine inches, by very nearly six inches and a half.)

A new and independent authority therefore is appealed to,--one of high
antiquity and evidently very great importance,--Ammonius of Alexandria,
A.D. 220. But Ammonius has left behind him _no known writings whatsoever_.
What then do these men mean when they appeal in this confident way to the
testimony of "Ammonius?"

To make this matter intelligible to the ordinary English reader, I must
needs introduce in this place some account of what are popularly called
the "Ammonian Sections" and the "Eusebian Canons:" concerning both of
which, however, it cannot be too plainly laid down that nothing whatever
is known beyond what is discoverable from a careful study of the
"Sections" and "Canons" themselves; added to what Eusebius has told us in
that short Epistle of his "to Carpianus,"--which I suppose has been
transcribed and reprinted more often than any other uninspired Epistle in
the world.

Eusebius there explains that Ammonius of Alexandria constructed with great
industry and labour a kind of Evangelical Harmony; the peculiarity of
which was, that, retaining S. Matthew's Gospel in its integrity, it
exhibited the corresponding sections of the other three Evangelists by the
side of S. Matthew's text. There resulted this inevitable inconvenience;
that the sequence of the narrative, in the case of the three last Gospels,
was interrupted throughout; and their context hopelessly destroyed.(221)

The "Diatessaron" of Ammonius, (so