were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
at least, limited to Eusebius.

The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
Eusebius:--

"This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
neglected to do." [46:1]

Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--

"If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
[46:2]

I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
representations made in the above passages are a very strange
exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When wr