quite capable of testing the worth of the evidence relative to the
time of the martyrdom; and his endorsement of the statement of
Eusebius must be accepted as a testimony entitled to very grave
consideration. Some succeeding writers assign even a later period
to the death of Polycarp. It is a weighty fact that no Christian
author for the first eight centuries of our era places it before
the reign of M. Aurelius. The first writer who attaches to it an
earlier date is Georgius Hamartolus, who flourished about the
middle of the ninth century. Dr. Lightfoot confesses that what he
says cannot be received as based on "any historical tradition or
critical investigation." [38:2] It is, in fact, utterly worthless.

The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array of
evidence opposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does not
attempt to show that it is improbable in itself, or that there are
any rebutting depositions. He leaves it in its undiminished
strength; but he raises such a cloud of learned dust around it,
that the reader may well lose his head, and be unable, for a time,
to see the old chronological landmarks. [39:1] He rests his case
chiefly on a statement to be found in a postscript, of admittedly
doubtful authority, appended to the letter of the Smyrnaeans
relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He argues as if the
authority for this statement were unimpeachable; and, evidently
regarding it as the very key of the position, he endeavours, by
means of it, to upset the chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, the
_Chronicon Paschale_, and other witnesses. As the reader peruses
his chapter on "The Date of the Martyrdom," he cannot but feel
that the evidence presented to him is bewildering, indecisive, and
obscure; and it may occur to him that the author is very like an
individual who proposes to determine the value of two or three