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, Boehringer, 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, Boehringer, 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.