“This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to be unsound.  A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he piled up his fabric to this height.  This our author has altogether neglected to do.” [46:1]

Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his belief that his “main conclusions are irrefragable,” he further says:—­

    “If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
    of the argument in Supernatural Religion has crumbled to pieces.”
    [46:2]

I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the representations made in the above passages are a very strange exaggeration.  I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever, and which in themselves have scarcely any value.  When writers, after an amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, proved that I have omitted to dot an “i,” cross a “t,” or insert an inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it was.  Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be withdrawn without affecting the case.  The object of my investigation is to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers regarding our Gospels.  In the fragments which remain of the works of three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,—­the works mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark.  Whether I am right or not in this does not affect the present discussion.  It is an unquestioned fact that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have we any statement from any other author to that effect.  The objection of Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was the purpose of Eusebius to record.  To give Dr. Lightfoot’s statements, which I am examining, the fullest possible