themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the
important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century
after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and
there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious
Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The
confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven
Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven
Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long
Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms
which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their
composition." [81:2]

Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are
advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to
its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly,
if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first
reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical
admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles
are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius,
does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius,"
the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely
receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.
Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how
changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would
have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has
conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the
controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the
"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the
controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The
testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument