his early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words,
it is a _petitio principii_. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on
any showing, was written before the date which our author himself
assigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70,
or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the
later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century.
If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it
could _a fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.

VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.

_Continued._

[OCTOBER, 1875.]

It has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone
survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew
and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different.
Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our
author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer.
I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1],
that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that
the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles
which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2],
while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes
a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a
test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only
pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give,
traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is
not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer
to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by
name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of
times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel
not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would
not have cared to record the fact.

All this I have proved, and the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is
unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he
does indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am
quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it
is there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction
which underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between
_traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _