This distinction Dr.Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination of the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements with the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant, and where we are able to verify his procedure.

After thus testing the references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian Epistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, Dr.Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the conclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations from any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_ that it shows the book in question to have been generally acknowledged by the early Church.

Instead of being a proof that the writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is silent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of the Church, receive it.

Eusebius only records what seems to him specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out of the Canon has itself to be vindicated.
But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground.

Eusebius expressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou ...