Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--
"No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac epistles than this." [59:1]
It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however, Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles may be added those of Milman, Bohringer, de Pressense, and Dr. Tregelles, which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity prefer the Curetonian version. The Tubingen school are not unanimous on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek, for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the priority of the Curetonian "im hochsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar, Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:
"The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as ill.u.s.trating this point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2]
Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but, whilst now a.s.serting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added: "An dem relativ grossern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenuber der kurzeren griechischen halte ich ubrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt uberzeugt, da.s.s der Syrer in zahlreichen Fallen den relativ ursprunglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
meine Nachweise in "Niedner"s Zeitschr." S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.
Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by a.n.a.lysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier pa.s.sage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems to pa.s.s through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is as follows:--
"These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have p.r.o.nounced them to be the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier doubts, and a large ma.s.s of critics recognise that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions.(4)" [62:1]
In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Bohringer, Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot proceeds to a.n.a.lyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both to call more immediate attention to the point:
THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT"S STATEMENT.
| _Many of the ablest critics have | "These references, it will be p.r.o.nounced them to be the only | observed, are given to ill.u.s.trate authentic Epistles of Ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that that even these are genuine letters | writers "_who do not admit that emanating from Ignatius, _still | even these_ (the Curetonian prefer them_ to the version of | Epistles) _are genuine letters seven Greek Epistles, _and consider | emanating from Ignatius, still them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of letters_ which we possess. | seven Greek Epistles, and consider | them the most ancient form of the | letters which we possess."" [62:2]
It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main statement of the text which the note ill.u.s.trates, and then "throws light" upon the point by the following remarks:--
THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT"S STATEMENT.
| _Cureton, Bunsen, Bohringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. | condemns the Ignatian letters _Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some in any form. Of the Vossian | uncertainty while inclining to Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die | Bunsen"s view; the other eight Echtheit dieser Recension ist | distinctly maintain the keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian priority of the Curetonian "in the | letters." [63:1]
highest degree probable." | | _Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles, | as I have already said, but | maintains the priority of the | Syriac. |
Dr. Lightfoot"s statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but would receive from such positive a.s.sertions an impression that my note was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.
Continuing his a.n.a.lysis, 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 pa.s.sages which were found in the Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at that time known. Rivet replies to Campia.n.u.s 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 doc.u.ments 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 t.i.tulo 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 "d.a.m.ns 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:--
"But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are quoted. "Similar doubts" could only, I think, be interpreted from the context as doubts "regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius."" [65:2]
As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is "the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the whole of the subsequent a.n.a.lysis of the references in question, he persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute cla.s.sifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large cla.s.s--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, ill.u.s.trate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts, more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.
Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook p.r.o.nounces them "either supposit.i.tious or shamefully corrupted." So far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed "_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,"
Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he "rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not necessarily involve the authenticity of a doc.u.ment. With regard to Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop Usher"s edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to "that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: tum aliquas esse supposit.i.tias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus ill.u.s.tribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3]
The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it as follows:--
"The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--""[Wotton, _Praef.
Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c., Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. a.n.a.lyt. ex Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichee_, &c. 1734, i.
p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._ 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmuller, _Hist.
Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr.
in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E.
condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11; Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf.
_Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._ p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i.
p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfa.s.sungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch ub. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._, in Henke"s _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f.
Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i.
p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200."
"The brackets are not the author"s, but my own.
"This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years" reading. It is important to observe, however, that every one of these references, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton"s "Vindiciae Ignatianae," where the pa.s.sages are quoted in full. Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his notes a ma.s.s of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1]
I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might suffice, under some circ.u.mstances, to compile a note, although it is here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot"s criticisms are made. I ask every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and thus "imported into my notes a ma.s.s of borrowed and unsorted references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton"s appendix, I should have been perfectly ent.i.tled to take references from it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly indicate Cureton"s work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note "seems to represent the gleanings of many years" reading," it certainly does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in a.n.a.lysing the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they ill.u.s.trate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_,"
continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot"s further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in which they are known since Usher"s time, are not yet entirely removed.
For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1]
Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite."
Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty_, p.r.o.nounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."
[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name in order.
_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_ the genuine epistles of Ignatius."
_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l"authenticite des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas veritables, elles ne laissent pas d"etre fort anciennes; et l"opinion, qui me paroit la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont ete interpolees."
_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these and other difficulties is to affirm that all the pa.s.sages which cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as difficult to prove which are the interpolated pa.s.sages." In fact it would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.
_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
but to make sufficient extracts to ill.u.s.trate this would occupy too much s.p.a.ce.
_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 p.r.o.nouncing "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been cla.s.sed 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 pa.s.sages 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.
He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour, and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose"
of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he a.n.a.lyses the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement which he altogether disregards:--
| DR. LIGHTFOOT.
| "Further examination and more | "References to twenty authorities comprehensive knowledge of the | are then given, as belonging to subject have confirmed earlier | the "large ma.s.s of critics" who doubts, and a large ma.s.s of critics | recognise that the Ignatian recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles "can only be considered none_ of these Epistles _can be | later and spurious compositions.""
established_, and that they can | [73:1]
only be considered later and | spurious compositions." |