We have, says our author, direct intimation that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. "He was one of the contemporaries of Justin--a Palestinian Jewish Christian. In order to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Church, he travelled widely, and came to Rome when Anicitus was bishop. _Subsequently he wrote a work of historical memoirs in five books_, and thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of Christianity. This _work is lost_, but _portions have been preserved by Eusebius_, and one other fragment is _also extant_." It must have been written after the succession of Eleutherius to the Roman bishopric (A.D. 177-193), as that event is mentioned in the book. "The testimony of Hegesippus is of _great value_, not only as a man born near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as that of an intelligent traveller amongst many Christian communities" (p. 430). Hegesippus says, in the fifth book of his Memoirs, that "these words ('Good things prepared for the righteous neither eye hath seen nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man,' from 1 Cor. ii. 9) are vainly spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the Divine writings and to the Lord saying, 'Blessed are your eyes that see, and your ears that hear,'" &c. This fragment is preserved by Stephanus Gobarus, a learned monophysite of the sixth century. "Nothing is more certain," says our author, "than the fact that, in spite of the opportunities for collecting information afforded him by his travels through so many Christian communities, for the express purpose of such inquiry, Hegesippus _did not_ find any New Testament Canon, or, that such a rule of faith did not exist in Rome in A.D. 160 and 170." I ask, _How in the world can our author be certain of this, when only portions of Hegesippus are extant?_ This applies generally to his argument that the _silence_ of the early writers is of "as much importance as their supposed allusions to the Gospels." Such a mode of reasoning is aptly commented upon by the Rev. Kentish Bache, in his letter to Dr. Davidson on the Fourth Gospel. He says: "When but small portions of a work have been preserved to our use, it is no wonder that these portions should make no mention of many circumstances interesting and important, which the writer must certainly have known and told of. If I tear a few leaves from the middle of my English History book, I shall find on _them_ (the few leaves) no record of the Norman Conquest or of the Battle of Waterloo. Would it thence be a fair conclusion that these events are unhistorical and fictitious?"