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.