support, however, suppose that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?  Simply as complete as it well could be:  Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels.  The reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of Supernatural Religion would be affected even if he established much more than he has asserted.

We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot’s argument itself.  He carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words, merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his statement into three paragraphs.  He says: 

    “Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
    in two different ways.  This is the cardinal point of the passage.

    “(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
    ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class ([Greek: 
    tines hopoiais kechrentai]);

“(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only professes to mention them when such a writer has something to tell about them ([Greek:  tina peri ton endiathekon eiretai]).  Any anecdote of interest respecting them, as also respecting the others ([Greek:  ton me toiouton]), will be recorded.

    “(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
    allude to mere quotations, however numerous and however precise.”
    [48:1]

In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we can differ, I will first refer to the third.  Did Eusebius intend to point out mere quotations of the books which he considered undisputed?  As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot.  That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down as much to oversight as intention.  On the other hand, that he did mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise.  Although much might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing it.  If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations of the