ose 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.

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