did not
mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1].

I have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on
this side.

Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus--

It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say
particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by
Eusebius [185:2].

I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is
all the other way.

I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may
indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or
even a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the
writer himself. But _magna est veritas_. My paper on the Silence of
Eusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel
confident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of
_Supernatural Religion_, and unexpected as they may be to many others,
they must be ultimately accepted in the main.

The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the
use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one
way or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject.

Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have
been preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into
less than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to
five books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we
find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek.

As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate.
They may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they
will not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and
Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in
the preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's
record, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the
author of _Supernatural Religion_ in thinking that the inference is not
warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the
purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the
overthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears
to have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least
there is no other passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently
be referr