[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.

[45:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (Ibid. p. 32 ff.)

[45:2] S. R. i. p. 212.

[46:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 172 [ibid. p. 36].

[46:2] Ibid. p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].

[48:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 173 [ibid. p. 38].

[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (S. R. i. p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear.

[50:1] Cf. H. E. iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.

[50:2] Ibid. ii. 15, vi. 14.

[50:3] Ibid. v. 8.

[50:4] Ibid. vi. 25.

[51:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 181 [ibid. p. 48].

[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.

[51:3] Ibid. p. 181

[51:4] H. E. iii, 24.

[52:1] H. E. ii. 23.

[52:2] Ibid. iii. 11.

[52:3] Ibid. 16.

[52:4] Ibid. 19, 20.

[52:5] Ibid. 32.

[52:6] Ibid. iv. 8.

[52:7] Ibid. 11.

[52:8] Ibid. iv. 22.

[53:1] H. E. ii. 15.

[53:2] Ibid. vii. 25.

[54:1] H. E. iii. 18.

[54:2] Ibid. 19, 20.

[54:3] Ibid. 20.

[54:4] Ibid. 20.

[54:5] Ibid. 23.

[54:6] Ibid. 24.

[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (S. R. i. p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.

[55:2] H. E. iii. 39.

[56:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].

[57:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [ibid. p. 59 ff.]

[58:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 339 [ibid. p. 62].

[59:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 340 [ibid. p. 63].

[59:2] S. R. i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of reference.

[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint " (p. 63, n. 2). Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.

[60:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 341 [ibid. p. 64].

[61:1] Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens, p. 7, Anm. 1.

[61:2] Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his Apostolic Fathers (part ii. vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.

[61:3] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 841 [ibid. p. 65].

[62:1] S. R. i. p. 259 f.

[62:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342 [ibid. p, 65 f.]

[62:3] S. R. i. p. 259.

[63:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters [ibid. p. 66].

[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (Inst. Chr. Rel. i. 13, § 29).

[64:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342.

[64:3] Op. Theolog. 1652, 11, p. 1085.

[64:4] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342 [ibid. p. 66]. Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's Vindiciae Ignat. p. 28 (ed. Churton).

[65:1] Exam. Concilii Tridentim, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).

[65:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 343 [ibid. p. 67].

[67:1] Critici Sacri, lib. ii cap. 1; Op. Theolog. 1652, ii. p. 1086.

[67:2] Vind. Ignat. 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, Patr. Apost. i. p. xxxviii.

[67:3] Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch. v. 8 § 1, edit. Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.

[68:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 343 f. [ibid. p. 67 f.]

[70:1] Die Kirche im ap. Zeit. p. 322.

[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. xxx.

[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. xxxi; 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 assertion 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 entitled 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.

[103:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 350 f. [ibid. p. 77].

[104:1] S. R. i. p. 268, note 4.

[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of Trajan."--Hist. of Christianity, 1867, ii. p. 103.

[106:1] K. G. 1842, i. p. 171.

[106:2] Ibid. i. p. 172, Anm.

[108:1] Hist. of Christianity, ii. p. 101 f.

[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 352 [ibid. p. 79].

[109:2] Ibid. p. 353 f. [ibid. p. 80].

[109:3] Ibid. p. 352 [ibid. p. 79 f.].

[110:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 353 f. [ibid. p. 81].

[110:2] Ignatius v. Ant. p. 66, Anm. 3.

[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards translated to Antioch.

[112:1] Ruinart, Acta Mart. pp. 59, 69.

[112:2] Ignatius v. Ant. p, 68.

[112:3] Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December. (Mart. Rom. pp. 87, 766 ff.)

[112:4] Ignatius v. Ant. p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.

[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is nothing else to establish it.

[114:1] St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note. Cf. Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 358 f. (Ibid. p. 88)