I. The style of the Epistles is certainly not above suspicion.  On the ground of style alone, it is, unquestionably, somewhat hazardous to pronounce a decisive judgment upon any document; but, if such an element is ever to be taken into consideration, it cannot, in this case, be overlooked.  It is well known that, of the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius, there was one which scholars of the highest reputation always regarded with extreme dubiety.  In style it appeared to them so different from the rest of the letters, and so unlike what might have been expected from an apostolic minister, that some who were prepared to admit the genuineness of the other documents, did not hesitate to declare it a forgery.  We allude to the Epistle to Polycarp.  Even Archbishop Ussher and Cardinal Bona [415:1] concurred in its condemnation.  It so happens, however, that it is one of the three letters recently re-edited; and it appears that, of the three, it has been the least altered.  If then such a man as Ussher be considered a safe and sufficient judge of the value of an ancient ecclesiastical memorial, the Epistle to Polycarp, published by Dr Cureton, must be pronounced spurious.  Their editor urges that the letters to the Ephesians and Romans, as expurgated in the Syriac version, now closely resemble the Epistle to Polycarp in style; and if so, may we not fairly infer that, had they been presented, in their new form, to the learned Primate of Armagh, consistency would have bound him to denounce them as also forgeries?

II.  The way in which the Word of God is ignored in these Epistles argues strongly for their spuriousness.  Every one acquainted with the early fathers must have observed their frequent use of the sacred records.  A considerable portion of a chapter is sometimes introduced in a quotation. [416:1] Hence it has been remarked that were all the copies of the Bible lost and the writings of these fathers preserved, a large share of the Holy Volume might thus be recovered.  But Ignatius would contribute nothing to the work of restoration; as, in the whole of the three letters, not a single verse of Scripture is given at length.  They, no doubt, occasionally use Bible phraseology, as without it an ecclesiastical document could not well be written; but not one promise is quoted, and not one testimony from the Word is repeated for the edification of the faithful. [416:2] An apostolical pastor on his way to martyrdom would have written very differently.  He would have reminded his brethren of the “lively oracles,” and he would have mentioned some of those precious assurances which now contributed to his own spiritual refreshment.  He would have told them to have “no confidence in the flesh;” [416:3] to take unto themselves “the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God;” [416:4] and to lay aside every weight and the sin which did so easily beset them, “looking unto Jesus.” [416:5] But, instead of adopting such a course, this