Chapter VIII: Conclusions (3)

Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but, whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added: "An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl. meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.

Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is as follows:--

"These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest
scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider
them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As
early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were
expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed
to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and
Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully
shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,
more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth
century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although
the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller
examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have
confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise
that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,
and that they can only be considered later and spurious
compositions.(4)" [62:1]

In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer, Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both to call more immediate attention to the point:

THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. | _Many of the ablest critics have | "These references, it will be pronounced them to be the only | observed, are given to illustrate authentic Epistles of Ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that that even these are genuine letters | writers '_who do not admit that emanating from Ignatius, _still | even these_ (the Curetonian prefer them_ to the version of | Epistles) _are genuine letters seven Greek Epistles, _and consider | emanating from Ignatius, still them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of letters_ which we possess. | seven Greek Epistles, and consider | them the most ancient form of the | letters which we possess.'" [62:2]

It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws light" upon the point by the following remarks:--

THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. | _Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. | condemns the Ignatian letters _Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some in any form. Of the Vossian | uncertainty while inclining to Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die | Bunsen's view; the other eight Echtheit dieser Recension ist | distinctly maintain the keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian priority of the Curetonian "in the | letters." [63:1] highest degree probable." | | _Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles, | as I have already said, but | maintains the priority of the | Syriac. |

Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury. Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.

Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3] This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:

"The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz
did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the
contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says
that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen
the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4]

Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them: "... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus: transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he "damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.

Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as follows:

"(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
&c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."

Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--

"But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they
are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted
from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the
Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2]

As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is "the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts, more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.

Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed "_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether," Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he "rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to Rivet the case is different. I 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 Manichée_, &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; Rosenmüller, _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 üb. 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.

"This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have
made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it
stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the
by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the
gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe,
however, that every one of these references, except those which I
have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's
'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus
two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten
minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the
quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in
Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his
notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought
fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the
rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1]

I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note "seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_," continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1] Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus." [70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name in order.

_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves
are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a
question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens
of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have
shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult
question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely:
"it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_
the genuine epistles of Ignatius."

_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité
des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles
ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit
la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées."

_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for
the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them
suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and
anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon
the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these
and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which
cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are
interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent
observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as
difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it
would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly
doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.

_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy
too much space.

_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from
the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History
given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief
German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the
original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing
"in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been
classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian
Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who
merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom
of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose
the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the
impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who
is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical
purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he
still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian
Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and
then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of
Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me
for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which
presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me
with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state
additional grounds for disbelief.

_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven
Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the
extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note
he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to
agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably
the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being
more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years
later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet
concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the
Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the
shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations
(_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious
statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in
the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material
of the letters cannot be ascertained.

Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.

He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour, and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose" of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement which he altogether disregards:--

| DR. LIGHTFOOT. | "Further examination and more | "References to twenty authorities comprehensive knowledge of the | are then given, as belonging to subject have confirmed earlier | the 'large mass of critics' who doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered none_ of these Epistles _can be | later and spurious compositions.'" established_, and that they can | [73:1] only be considered later and | spurious compositions." |

There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may have been based. I will analyse the six references.

_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a
previous note) expresses no definite opinion."

Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek
directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions.
I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some
difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin
of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He
refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the
Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he
does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The
authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and,
next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this
Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek
is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree
probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences
in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how
the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these
Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which
we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their
authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him
here at all.

_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a
reference to his remarks.

_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly
reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that
the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a
passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
as in the Long Recension."

This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with
Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this
case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is
_in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have
the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that
ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is
somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of
Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian
Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.

_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies
oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not
satisfied with either existing recension."

Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and
still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles
can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,
without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds:
"The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine
substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his
Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from
Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."

_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."

If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what
that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he
says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion
of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not
fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and
least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even
if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they
would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the
second century." These last words are a clear admission of his
opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.

_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in
favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,
but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable
to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been
able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal
improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed
journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself
can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler
does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;
and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the
possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the
inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly
justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be
established.

Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of "misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1]

There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with unhesitating boldness:

"One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention,
from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that
this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been
felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has
raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author)
maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially
bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most
formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the
world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later
work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown
to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all,
or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian
question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of
Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not
less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_."
[78:2]

Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.

As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines, [79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele [80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar, Tischendorf, Böhringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into the controversy at all.

The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the following lines:

"But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven
Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text
is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac
idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply
proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must
have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the
Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,
and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3]

Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.

Passing on to another point, I say:

"Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1]

Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon this he writes as follows:--

"This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius
with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented
themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the
important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century
after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and
there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious
Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The
confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven
Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven
Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long
Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms
which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their
composition." [81:2]

Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius," the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret. Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the "prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument (2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian Epistles.

The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is this:--

"It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
honour." [82:2]

I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:--

DR. LIGHTFOOT. | DR. TREGELLES. | (4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_ the seven Epistles are mixed up | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having with the confessedly spurious | been _transmitted_ to us, for no Epistles. In the Greek and Latin | such seven exist, except through MSS., as also in the Armenian | their having been selected by version, the spurious Epistles | _editors_ from the Medicean MS. come after the others; and the | which contains so much that circumstance, combined with the | is confessedly spurious;--a fact facts already mentioned, plainly | which some who imagine a shows that they were a later | diplomatic transmission of addition, borrowed from the Long | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2] Recension to complete the body | of Ignatian letters." [83:1] |

I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement. Cureton says:

"Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us
to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of
St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient
Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles
presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed
up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious.
Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same
footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only
ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been
the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of
any mention of the others." [83:3]

"The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour
of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the
Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which
have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both
Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two
distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to
Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two
recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the
circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its
reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies
of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College,
Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ...
In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the
former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and
there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of
the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed
one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice
result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to
Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others
in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological
order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi,
at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had
despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence
of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the
recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the
rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained."
[84:1]

Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod. Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third (C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646. [84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14. [84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles:

A. | B. | C. | D. |
FABER STAP. | VAL. PACAEUS. | USHER | VOSSIUS. |
| | | |
1. Trallians | _Mar. Cass._ | Smyrn. | Smyrn. |
2. Magn. | Trallians | Polycarp | Polycarp |
3. _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Ephes. | Ephes. |
4. _Philip._ | _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Magnes. |
5. Philad. | _Philip. | Philad. | Philad. |
6. Smyrn. | Philad. | Trallians | Trallians |
7. Polycarp | Smyrn. | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ |
8. _Antioch._ | Polycarp | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ |
9. _Hero_ | _Antioch. | _Tarsians_ | _Tarsians_ |
10. Ephes. | _Hero_ | _Antioch._ | |
11. Romans | Ephes. | _Hero_ | |
12. | Romans | _Mart. Ign._ | |
13. | | Romans | |

I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression, "embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.

I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations. Dr. Westcott says:--

"I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite
capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his
while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings,
arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many
cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress
the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics
are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by
evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1]

Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time, therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add, that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott, however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.

Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to investigate. He says:

"Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion
which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than
this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One
example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1]

Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care. The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be unfair. The example selected is as follows:

"'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at
all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December,
A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by
the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)"
[87:2]

"'The references in support of these statements are the following:--

"'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3,
p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl.
N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach,
_K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff,
_Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40,
50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i.
pp. 121 f., 136.

"'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.;
_Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tüb. Zeitschr. f.
Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i.
p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die
ält. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._
1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p, 214.'"

Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks:

Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot
but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are
quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their
testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1]

Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3, although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book. The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or 115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3, therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references [89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.

NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116.