A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays Part 13
[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]
[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.
[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].
[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.
[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].
[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.
[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.
[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.
[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. x.x.x.
[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)
[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.
[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.
[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].
[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].
[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.
[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]
Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, _Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111."
[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.
p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.
[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.
[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.
[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.
[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.
[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.
[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.
[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. x.x.xi; cf. p. lxii; Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._, Amstel. 1646.
[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.
[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.
[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.
p. xix f.
[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.
[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.
[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second note, but accidentally left out of note 3.
[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call attention to the a.s.sertion opposed to what I find in the note.
[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an extended form. The work I quote is ent.i.tled _Kirchengeschichte der ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth century.
[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to 'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different object of the two notes.
[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.
[97:1] P. 213.
[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which reference was necessary.
[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.
[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._ 1631, p. 152.
[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.
[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].
[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].
[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.
[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.
[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.
[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.
[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.
Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._, 1873, p. 517 ff.