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:—­