of the cause which he defends.  In spite of hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr. Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at all weakening my position.  These objections, I may say, refer solely to details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such words as “misstatements” and “misrepresentations” along the line may have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.

The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by Dr. Lightfoot regarding the “SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS.” [45:1] I had called attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers, under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot’s opening comment upon this as singularly descriptive of the state of the case:  “In one province more especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place.”  Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this “mysterious oracle,” and he considers that “the response elicited will not be at all ambiguous.”  I might again agree with him, but that unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for the Gospels.  Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only the eloquence of—­silence.  I have not yet met with the argument anywhere that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and authoritative.  Dr. Lightfoot’s argument from Silence is, for the present at least, limited to Eusebius.

The point on which the argument turns is this:  After examining the whole of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not contain any.  But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main argument of my work.  The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions.  Dr. Lightfoot says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of Eusebius:—­