had overlooked the fact that in a subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop Usher’s edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to “that form of the Epistles.” [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the writers referred to, says:  “Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:  tum aliquas esse supposititias:  verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio.”  He then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more decided opinion to express than:  “ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit.” [67:3]

The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it as follows:—­

“The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:—­“’[Wotton, Praef.  Clem.  R. Epp. 1718]; J. Owen, Enquiry into Original Nature, &c., Evang.  Church, Works, ed.  Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin, Comm. de Script.  Eccles. &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, Comm. analyt. ex Evang.  Joan. 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, Hist.  Crit. de Manichee, &c. 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, N.  Theol.  Biblioth. 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, De Rebus Christ. p. 159 f.]; Weismann, Introd. in Memorab.  Eccles. 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, Conspect.  Reipub.  Lit. 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, Chr.  Kirchengesch. 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach, Opuscula Academ. 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmueller, Hist.  Interpr.  Libr.  Sacr. in Eccles. 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, Paraphr. in Epist II.  Petri. 1784, Praef.; Kestner, Comm. de Eusebii H.E. condit. 1816, p. 63; Henke, Allg.  Gesch. chr.  Kirche, 1818, i. p. 96; Neander, K.G. 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11; Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrb. chr.  Dogmengesch. 1832, p. 83; cf. Comp. chr.  Dogmengesch. 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, Gesch. chr.  K. p. 196; Thiersch, Die K. im ap.  Zeit. p. 322; Hagenbach, K.G. i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, Vind.  Ign.  Append.; Ziegler, Versuch eine prag.  Gesch. d. kirchl.  Verfassungsformen, u.s.w. 1798, p. 16; J.E.C.  Schmidt, Versuch ueb. d. gedopp.  Recens. d.  Br.  S. Ignat., in Henke’s Mag. f.  Rel.  Phil. u.s.w. [1795; cf. Biblioth. f.  Krit. u.s.w., N.T. i. p 463 ff. Urspr. kath.  Kirche, II. i. p. 1 f.]; Handbuch Chr.  K.G. i. p. 200.’

    “The brackets are not the author’s, but my own.