of such a man as Hegesippus.'

And again [35:2]:--

'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the
testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly,
regarding the Gospels _and the Apocalypse_ [35:3], would not have
neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus,
for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with
any opportunity.'

And again [35:1]:--'As Hegesippus does not [35:2] mention any
Canonical work of the New Testament etc.' And in the second
volume he returns to the subject [35:3]:--

'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned [35:4] our
Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would
have been recorded by Eusebius.'

Similarly he says of Papias[35:5]:--

'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate [35:6] the works of the New
Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend [35:7] that
Papias knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.'

And again, in a later passage [35:8]:--

'Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition [35:9] of the Fourth
Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this
silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the
Johannine Gospel.'

And a little lower down [35:10]:--

'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not
mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
Gospel in the work of Papias.' [35:11]

So again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth [35:12]:--

'No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New
Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still
extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the
Epistles which have perished [35:13], which he certainly would not
have omitted to do had they contained any.'

And lower down [36:1]:--

'It is certain that had Dionysius mentioned [36:2] books of the New
Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.'

Of this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, the author
has no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely certain about it. It
is with him _articulus stantis aut cadentis critices_. We shall
therefore do well to test its value, because, quite independently of the
consequences directly flowing from it, it will serve roughly to gauge
his trustworthiness as a guide in other depa