[183:3]; but,
as our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our
four Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his
procedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note
every single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he
deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical
Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single
instance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenaeus, he
singles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas
[184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very
considerable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles?

But the passage which I have just given is not the only one in which the
unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two
meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several
instances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last
edition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying
the letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he
writes of Dionysius [184:3]--

EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION [184:4].
|
It is certain that, had Dionysius | It is certain that had Dionysius
_mentioned_ books of the New | _said anything about_ books
Testament, Eusebius would, as | of the New Testament, Eusebius
usual, have stated the fact. | would, as usual, have stated the
| fact.

And again of Papias [184:5]--

EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION.
|
Eusebius, who never fails to | Eusebius, who never fails to
_enumerate the works of the New | _state what the Fathers say about
Testament to which the Fathers | the works of_ the New Testament,
refer_, does not pretend that | does not mention that Papias
Papias knew either the Third or | knew either the Third or Fourth
Fourth Gospels. | Gospels.

These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression,
'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by
the author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts.

Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly
ignored. Thus he still writes--

The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius