wie vor fest." [61:1] In
the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt ueberzeugt, dass der Syrer in
zahlreichen Faellen den relativ urspruenglichsten 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.