does not betray any knowledge of them, but the “silence of Eusebius,” the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.  Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how changed their position would have been!  The Epistles referred to would have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has conferred upon the rest..  The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the “prae-” and “post-Eusebian,” making him the turning-point of the controversy.  Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits:  “The testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them.” [82:1] The argument (2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian Epistles.

The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice.  It is this:—­

“It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way.  These Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal honour.” [82:2]

I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot’s comment on this, in contrast with the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and orthodoxy—­Dr. Tregelles:—­

DR. LIGHTFOOT.          |       DR. TREGELLES.
|
(4) “It is not strictly true that | “It is a mistake to think of seven
the seven Epistles are mixed up   | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having
with the confessedly spurious     | been transmitted to us, for no
Epistles.  In the Greek and Latin  | such seven exist, except through
MSS., as also in the Armenian     | their having been selected by
version, the spurious Epistles    | editors from the Medicean MS.
come after the others; and the    | which contains so much that
circumstance, combined with the   | is confessedly spurious;—­a fact
facts already mentioned, plainly  | which some who imagine a
shows that they were a later      | diplomatic transmission of
addition, borrowed from the Long  | seven have overlooked.” [83:2]
Recension to complete the body    |
of Ignatian letters.” [83:1]      |

I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement.  Cureton says: