Abbot, a Unitarian, writes of Eusebius that "He has nowhere quoted the passage." And yet repeated mention of ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ("the God over all") negates ὁ Χριστὸς . . . ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ("Christ . . . who is God over all")? Surely if Abbot believes that ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς means "God over all," then he should also understand that ὁ Χριστὸς . . . ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς means, "Christ . . . who is God over all." Unless he's forgotten altogether that the participle is present in Romans 9:5, next to an article referring back to Christ, he's essentially exposing his own anti-Trinitarian bias. This is not surprising, as he dismisses the quotation by Hippolytus based upon a conjectural emendation of the text, reasoning that it is hardly possible he could call Christ "the Great God."
It is because he has no writer in his favor that he needs to lead his portion of negative evidence with writers that do not even quote the passage, or dismiss them with emendations.