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.
Pages:
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258