[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed.  Mangey), where the phrase is however [Greek:  isos angeloi (gegonos)].

[129:1] S.R. i. p. 304 sqq.

[130:1] Ev.  Justin’s, p. 157.

[135:1] Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).

[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony.  The phenomena of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different Gospels.  But the data will need a closer weighing before this can be determined.

[138:1] Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 169 sqq.

[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot’s, and is, I believe, in the main sound (Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).

[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of S.  R. that the argument from silence is practically waived.  If the silence of Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving that the Gospels in question were acknowledged.  The matter may well be allowed to rest thus:  that, so far as the silence of Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them.  I agree with the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ that the point is not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of by other writers, e.g.  Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed Dr. Lightfoot’s point on p. xxiii.  What Eusebius bears testimony to is, not his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but its undisputed canonicity, i.e. a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c.  If I say that Hamlet is an undisputed play of Shakspeare’s, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare’s myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare’s time downwards have believed it to be his.]

[140:1] H.  E. iv. 22.

[141:1] S.  R. i. p. 436.

[141:2] Einleitung, p. 103.

[141:3] Das Nachapost.  Zeit. i. p. 238.

[141:4] Beitraege, i. p. 401.

[141:5] Nov.  Test. extra Can.  Recept. Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.

[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek:  aphiete, hina aphethae humin (kai aphethaesetai humin)].

[144:1] Contemporary Review, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf.  Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, i. p. 281 ad fin.