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,