substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his
Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from
Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."

_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."

If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what
that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he
says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion
of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not
fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and
least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even
if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they
would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the
second century." These last words are a clear admission of his
opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.

_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in
favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,
but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable
to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been
able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal
improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed
journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself
can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler
does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;
and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the
possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the
inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly
justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be