temper. Does Dr. Lightfoot bring forward any evidence to
contradict this piece of collegiate history? None whatever.
He merely treats us to a few of his own _conjectures_, which simply
prove his anxiety to depreciate its significance. And yet he
ventures to parade the name of Bentley among those of the scholars
who contend for the genuineness of these letters! He deals after
the same fashion with the celebrated Porson. In a letter to the
author of this review [7:2], Dr. Cureton states that Porson
"rejected" these letters "in the form in which they were put forth
by Ussher and Vossius;" and declares that this piece of
information was conveyed to himself by no less competent an
authority than Bishop Kaye. Dr. Lightfoot meets this evidence by
saying that "the _obiter dictum_ even of a Porson," in the
circumstances in which it was given, might be "of little value." [7:3]
It was given, however, exactly in the circumstances in which
the speaker was best prepared to deliver a sound verdict, for it
was pronounced after the great critic had read the _Vindiciae_ of
Pearson.

It would be hopeless to attempt to settle a disputed question of
criticism by enumerating authorities on different sides, as, after
all, the value of these authorities would be variously discounted.
We must seek to arrive at truth, not by quoting names, but by
weighing arguments. Not a few, however, whose opinion may be
entitled to some respect, will not be prepared to agree with
Bishop Lightfoot when he affirms that those who reject these
Ignatian letters are, with few exceptions, only to be found in the
"list of second and third rate names" in literature. [8:1] We have
seen that Bentley and Porson disagree with him--and he can point
to no more eminent critics in the whole range of modern