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 kechrêntai]);

"(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 tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any
_anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded.