up as spurious; and the remaining three, which are addressed respectively to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans, and which are found in the Syriac version, are much shorter even than the short epistles which had already appeared under the same designations.  The Epistle to Polycarp, the shortest of the seven letters in preceding editions, is here presented in a still more abbreviated form; the Epistle to the Romans wants fully the one-third of its previous matter; and the Epistle to the Ephesians has lost nearly three-fourths of its contents.  Nor is this all.  In the Syriac version a large fragment of one of the four recently rejected letters reappears; as the new edition of the Epistle to the Romans contains two entire paragraphs to be found in the discarded letter to the Trallians.

It is only due to Dr Cureton to acknowledge that his publications have thrown immense light on this tedious and keenly agitated controversy.  But, unquestionably, he has not exhausted the discussion.  Instead of abruptly adopting the conclusion that the three letters of the Syriac version are to be received as genuine, we conceive he would have argued more logically had he inferred that they reveal one of the earliest forms of a gross imposture.  We are persuaded that the epistles he has edited, as well as all the others previously published, are fictitious; and we shall endeavour to demonstrate, in the sequel of this chapter, that the external evidence in their favour is most unsatisfactory.

When discussing the testimonies from the writers of antiquity in their support, it is not necessary to examine any later witness than Eusebius.  The weight of his literary character influenced all succeeding fathers, some of whom, who appear never to have seen these documents, refer to them on the strength of his authority. [398:1] In his “Ecclesiastical History,” which was published as some think about A.D. 325, he asserts that Ignatius wrote seven letters, and from these he makes a few quotations. [398:2] But his admission of the genuineness of a correspondence, bearing date upwards of two hundred years before his own appearance as an author, is an attestation of very doubtful value.  He often makes mistakes respecting the character of ecclesiastical memorials; and in one memorable case, of far more consequence than that now under consideration, he has blundered most egregiously; for he has published, as genuine, the spurious correspondence between Abgarus and our Saviour. [399:1] He was under strong temptations to form an unduly favourable judgment of the letters attributed to Ignatius, inasmuch as, to use the words of Dr Cureton, “they seemed to afford evidence to the apostolic succession in several churches, an account of which he professes to be one of the chief objects of his history.” [399:2] His reference to them is decisive as to the fact of their existence in the early part of the fourth century; but those who adopt the views propounded in the “Corpus Ignatianum,” are not prepared to bow to his critical decision; for, on this very occasion, he has given his sanction to four letters which they pronounce apocryphal.