Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light on 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."(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:--
"Those three Syriac epistles hive 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, still 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
{xxviii}
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, Dallseus, 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 recognize that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions.(4)"(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.lyze 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 Text. 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, still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1)
Dr. Lightfoot"s Statement.
"These references, it will be observed, are given to ill.u.s.trate more immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers "who do not admit that even these (the Curetonian Epistles) are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.""(2)
It must be evident to any one who reads the context(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
{xxix}
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:--
Dr. Lightfoot"s Statement:
"The reader, therefore, will hardly be prepared to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters as spurious. Bleek alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty while inclining to Bunsen"s view; the other eight distinctly maintain the genuineness of the Curetonian letters.""
The Truth:
Cureton, Bunsen, Bohringer, Ewald, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss maintain both the priority and genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. Bleek will not commit himself to a distinct recognition of the letters in any form. Of the Vossian Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die Echtheit dieser Recension ist keineswegs sicher." He considers the priority of the Curetonian "in the 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
1 "Contemporary Beview," February, 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian Epistles.
Certainly they are so, but in the right place, two pages farther on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters
{x.x.x}
to Ignatius, and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared them to be spurious,(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."(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.(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 folly 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, do." "(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: ".... et multas habent non contemnendas sententias, presertim sicut Graece leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non referunt gravitatem Apostolicam.
1 Calvin"s expressions are: Nihil moniis illis, quro sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt. Inst. Chr. Bel. i. 13, p39.
{x.x.xi}
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: transformatse enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum regni Pontificii."(l) 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. jolt.; 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.""(2)
As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognizes 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
{x.x.xii}
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. Google 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
{x.x.xiii}
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, so 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 Ushers edition of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to "that form of the Epistles."(1) This fact is also mentioned by Pearson, and I ought to have observed it.(2) Petau, the last of the writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: turn 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"(3)
The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the
{x.x.xiv}
preceding for convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it as follows:
"The next note, p. 260, is as follows:--(See scanned page. Ed.)
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 _Vindicia 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?"(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
{x.x.xv}
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
{x.x.xvi}