[190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account;
the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have
been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the
results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be
regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to
ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical
insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth.
But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject.
The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and
Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some
earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript
in which it occupied this position.

But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius
respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his
earlier editions:--

As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we
must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds
[191:1].

In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to
produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and
I emphasized the statement, that '_Eusebius in no instance which we can
test gives a doubtful testimony_.' I warned him that, if I were not
proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter.
In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my
article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.

Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he
has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted
above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I
offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion
here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14,' and I wrote:--

The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note
relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the
First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter