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_, pronounce 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 défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité
des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles
ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit