If the silence of Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged.

The matter may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them.

I agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of by other writers, e.g.Strauss and Renan.

[The author has missed Dr.Lightfoot's point on p.xxiii.What Eusebius bears testimony to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e.a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c.

If I say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it to be his.] [140:1] _H.