in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is
unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic
times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of
our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.
Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence
of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these
Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal
to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any
circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and
a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."
[132:1]

Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has
made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his
essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling
attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have
been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these
canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which
he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has
adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after
all, with many it is quite as effective.

It may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for
such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be
done very simply from our own Gospels:

"Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its
due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,
discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,
to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it