[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian letters.
[66:3] See Pearson's Vindiciæ Ignatianæ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's Vindiciæ Ignatianæ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted by Jacobson, are taken.
[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error in the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p. 260 in that edition.]
[69:1] See Jacobson Patres Apostolici I. p. xlvi, where the passage is given.
[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his references. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however 'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.]
[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858).
[70:2] Fortnightly Review, January, 1875, p. 9.
[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at Constantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; Corp. Ign. p. xvi.
[72:1] I. p. 264.