of Polycarp, to which
he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_,
which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by
Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch
unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But
no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and
unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author
speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations
from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.

I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St
Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal;
almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the
resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies
in his preface:--

I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ I. p.
483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I
used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of
Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I
trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1].

Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the
words:--

Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the
Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more
definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions
[192:2].

But the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the assertion 'as
elsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he
leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to
c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately
ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and
very far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was
quite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were
meant, as I assumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to
the First Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The
charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which
no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own
explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he
regrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled
me to bring out the important fact