[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in Tertullian’s reading of John i. 13, which he referred to Christ, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because they had the ordinary reading (cf.  Roensch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s, pp. 252, 654).  Compare also p. 24 above.

[73:2] Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, Fasc. ii. p. 69.

[74:1] c. v.

[74:2] S.  R. i. p. 250 sqq.

[76:1] Lardner, Credibility, &c., ii. p .23; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 50, n. 5.

[77:1] Since this was written the author of ’Supernatural Religion’ has replied in the preface to his sixth edition.  He has stated his case in the ablest possible manner:  still I do not think that there is anything to retract in what has been written above.  There would have been something to retract if Dr. Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.  As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand thus.  On the one side are certain improbabilities—­I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind—­which are met about half way by the parallel cases quoted.  On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted in its turn by Irenaeus.  Now I cannot think that there is any improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be outweighed by this external evidence.

[81:1] Cf.  Hilgenfeld, Nov.  Test. ext.  Can.  Rec., Fasc. iv. p. 15.

[81:2] Cf. ibid., pp. 56, 62, also p. 29.

[82:1] But see Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 838, from which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date to be rather 155 or 156.  Compare Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, Der Maertyrertod Polycarp’s in Z. f. w.  T. 1874, ii. p. 180 f.

[82:2] Adv.  Haer. iii. 3, 4.

[83:1] Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche, p. 586; Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, p. lxxx.

[84:1] Cf. S.  R. i. p. 278.

[84:2] Ent. d. a.  K. pp. 593, 599.

[84:3] Apostolical Fathers, p. 227 sq.

[84:4] Ursprung, pp. 43, 131.

[85:1] [Greek:  mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.]

[89:1] Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 1. p. 138, n. 2.

[89:2] Einleilung in das N. T. p. 66, where Lipsius’ view is also quoted.

[89:3] Cf.  Westcott, On the Canon, p. 88, n. 4.

[89:4] As appears to be suggested in S.  R. i. p. 292.  The reference in the note to Bleek, Einl. p. 637 (and Ewald?), does not seem to be exactly to the point.