between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
Presbyters who were acquainted with John.

It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
of Eusebius."

I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who