his quotation in words from which a later
generation could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have
communicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not,
there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the passage.

So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I
drew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But
elsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he
boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following passage:--

The only inference which I care to draw from, the silence of
Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both
from his promise and his practice, I am entitled to deduce. When
any ancient writer 'has something to _tell about_' the Gospels,
'any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record
it. This is the only information of the slightest value to this
work which could be looked for in these writers [183:1].

What? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have
quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the
Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing
on the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of
that Gospel--because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting
its composition?

So again a few pages later, he writes--

Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were
used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however,
record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the
legitimate inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is
that Hegesippus did not say anything about them [183:2].

Yes; 'did not say anything _about_ them,' in the sense of not recording
any traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of
times and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares
to draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words
would suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference
which will assist his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores
another distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and
practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets
down some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews'