information?  And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?  Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot’s article proves it.  Eusebius had not only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had to say about the Gospels.  Even if he had been careless, his very reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims of the rest.  There are, however, special reasons which render it still more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth Gospel,—­and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have had something, to tell about it,—­Eusebius would have recorded it.  The first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the words of the Presbyters, “what John or Matthew or what any other of the disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say.” [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles, evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly distinguished by the designation of Presbyter.  Eusebius states that this proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the name of John.  Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.  What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted with both!  His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or fourth Gospels.

I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning equally applies to his case.  I have, therefore, only a few more words to say on the subject of Eusebius.  Not content with what he intended to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the constructive and, “as a sober deduction from facts,” makes the following statement, which he prints in italics:  “The silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour.” [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean?  It means, not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century, classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does not undertake to mention.  The value of his opinion at so late a date is very small.