[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)
[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.
[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.
[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]
[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.
[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.
[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.
[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.
[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.
[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.
[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.
[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.
[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.
[124:4] i. p. 463 f.
[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.
[125:2] i. 236 ff.
[125:3] Note.
[125:4] Note.
[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ -- 53, -- 45; ibid. 173 f.
[130:1] I. p. 210 f.
[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.
[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.
[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.
[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.
[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.
[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.
[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.
[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito, Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_, and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable to those who have none.
[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.
[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.