the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles by bringing forward such
witnesses as Lucian and his hero Peregrinus, we believe he is very
much mistaken. The argument is not original, for it is pressed
with great confidence by his predecessor Pearson, and by others
more recently. But its weakness is transparent. Professor Harnack,
whilst admitting the weight of much of the evidence adduced in
these volumes, scornfully refuses to acknowledge its relevancy.
"Above all," says he, "Lucian should be struck out. I confess
I cannot imagine how writers go on citing Lucian as a witness
for the Epistles." [12:1] There is, however, an old adage,
"Any port in a storm:" and before the close of this discussion
it may perhaps be found that Lucian is as good a harbour of
refuge as can be furnished for the credit of the Ignatian Epistles
in the whole of the second century.

It is obvious that, even according to his own account of the
history of his present work, Dr. Lightfoot has not entered on its
preparation under circumstances likely to result in a safe and
unprejudiced verdict. "_I never once doubted_," says he in the
preface, [13:1] "that we possessed in one form or another the
genuine letters of Ignatius." This is, however, the very first
point to be proved; and the bishop has been labouring throughout
to make good a foregone conclusion. No wonder that the result
should be unsatisfactory. If he has built on a false foundation,
nothing else could be expected. There is not, we are satisfied, a
particle of solid evidence to show that Ignatius of Antioch left
behind him any writings whatever. This may be deemed a very bold
statement, but it is deliberately advanced. I hope, in a
subsequent chapter, to demonstrate that it is not made without due
consideration.