The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious | Page 4

any of his other publications. He can see support for his views
in words and phrases where an ordinary observer can discover nothing
of the kind; and he can close his eyes against evidence which others
may deem very satisfactory. Even when appraising the writers who
have taken part in this controversy, he has presented a very one-sided
estimate. He speaks of those who reject the claims of these Epistles as
forming "a considerable list of second and third rate names;" [6:1] and
he mentions Ussher and Bentley among those who espouse his
sentiments. According to our author, there cannot be a "shadow of
doubt" that the seven Vossian Epistles "represent the genuine Ignatius."
[6:2] "No Christian writings of the second century," says he, "and very
few writings of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well
authenticated." [6:3] He surely cannot imagine that Ussher would have
endorsed such statements; for he knows well that the Primate of
Armagh condemned the Epistle to Polycarp as a forgery. He has still
less reason to claim Bentley as on his side. On authority which Bishop
Monk, the biographer of Bentley, deemed well worthy of acceptance, it
is stated that in 1718, "on occasion of a Divinity Act," the Master of
Trinity College, Cambridge, "made a speech condemning the Epistles
of S. Ignatius." His address created a "great ferment" in the university.
[7:1] It is further reported that Bentley "refused to hear the Respondent
who attempted to reply." We might have expected such a deliverance
from the prince of British critics; for, with the intuition of genius, he
saw the absurdity of recognising these productions as proceeding from
a Christian minister who had been carefully instructed by the apostles.
Bentley's refusal to hear the Respondent who attempted to reply to him,

was exactly in keeping with his well-known dictatorial temper. Does
Dr. Lightfoot bring forward any evidence to contradict this piece of
collegiate history? None whatever. He merely treats us to a few of his
own conjectures, which simply prove his anxiety to depreciate its
significance. And yet he ventures to parade the name of Bentley among
those of the scholars who contend for the genuineness of these letters!
He deals after the same fashion with the celebrated Porson. In a letter to
the author of this review [7:2], Dr. Cureton states that Porson "rejected"
these letters "in the form in which they were put forth by Ussher and
Vossius;" and declares that this piece of information was conveyed to
himself by no less competent an authority than Bishop Kaye. Dr.
Lightfoot meets this evidence by saying that "the obiter dictum even of
a Porson," in the circumstances in which it was given, might be "of
little value." [7:3] It was given, however, exactly in the circumstances
in which the speaker was best prepared to deliver a sound verdict, for it
was pronounced after the great critic had read the Vindiciae of Pearson.
It would be hopeless to attempt to settle a disputed question of criticism
by enumerating authorities on different sides, as, after all, the value of
these authorities would be variously discounted. We must seek to arrive
at truth, not by quoting names, but by weighing arguments. Not a few,
however, whose opinion may be entitled to some respect, will not be
prepared to agree with Bishop Lightfoot when he affirms that those
who reject these Ignatian letters are, with few exceptions, only to be
found in the "list of second and third rate names" in literature. [8:1] We
have seen that Bentley and Porson disagree with him--and he can point
to no more eminent critics in the whole range of modern scholarship. If
Daillé must be placed in the second rank, surely Pearson may well be
relegated to the same position; for there is most respectable proof that
his Vindiciae, in reply to the treatise of the French divine, was
pronounced by Porson to be a "very unsatisfactory" performance. [8:2]
"The most elaborate and ingenious portion of the work" is, as Bishop
Lightfoot himself confesses, "the least satisfactory." [8:3] Dr Lightfoot,
we believe, will hardly pretend to say that Vossius, Bull, and Waterland
stand higher in the literary world than Salmasius, John Milton, and
Augustus Neander; and he will greatly astonish those who are
acquainted with the history and writings of one of the fathers of the

Reformation, if he will contend that John Calvin must be placed only in
the second or third class of Protestant theologians. In the presence of
the great doctor of Geneva, Hammond, Grotius, Zahn, and others
whom Dr. Lightfoot has named as his supporters, may well hide their
diminished heads.
In the work before us the Bishop of Durham has pretty closely followed
Pearson, quoting his explanations and repeating his arguments. Some
of these are sufficiently