_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a
reference to his remarks.

_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly
reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that
the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a
passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
as in the Long Recension."

This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with
Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this
case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is
_in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have
the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that
ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is
somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of
Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian
Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.

_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies
oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not
satisfied with either existing recension."

Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and
still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles
can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,
without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds:
"The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine