he disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
statement into three paragraphs. He says:

"Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.

"(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
tines hopoiais kechrentai]);

"(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
about them_ ([Greek: tina peri ton endiathekon eiretai]). Any
_anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
others ([Greek: ton me toiouton]), will be recorded.

"(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
[48:1]

In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
could have