supply this clew, Mr. Cureton discovered, among a most important collection of Syriac IMSS., procured for the British Museum by archdeacon Tattam, in the year 1843, from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara of the Syrians, in the Desert of Nitria, three entire epistles, which he published in the year 1845. This publication naturally excited great attention on the part of those who felt an interest in the subject, and called forth se- vere strictures from some who seemed to consider that to remove any part of the seven epistles of Ignatius was to take away so much from the foundations of episco- pacy. The form which the controversy now took led to the publication, in 1849, by Mr. Cureton, of the Corpus Ignatia7unn, in which the editor brought together a com- plete Collection of the Ignatian Epistles — genuine, inter- p)olated,and spm-ious; together vitli mimcrous Extracts from them, as q?ioted by Ecclesiastical Writers doicn to the Tenth Century, and accompanied by a full historj' of the controversy from its commencement. Mr. Cureton's conclusion was that the three epistles which he pub- lished were the only genuine productions of Ignatius in the series bearing his name. If this did not " take away so much from the foundations of episcopacy," it is be- cause the supposed testimony of a most venerable apos- tolic father is not one of its foundations, for certainly the three letters are as bare of prelatic allusion as any of Paul's. But the matter did not rest here. Several crit- ical reviews of this position appeared, tlie most important of which was by Uhlhorn, in the 21 st volume of the Zeit- schriftf d.hist. TheoL, in which a long and learned ex- amination of the question, under the title Das Verhdlt- niss d. syrischen Recension d. igncttianischen Briefe zu d. lilrzern gnechischen, u. d. Authentie d. Briefe iibcrhavpt (translated into English, in a somewhat condensed foi-m, by the Rev. Henry Browne, in the Theol. Critic [1852]), is entered into, which finally asserts that " the seven let- ters, according to the shorter Greek recension, are the genuine productions of Ignatius of Antioch." Another Translation of the Epistles of Ignatius (together irith Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, and the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertidlian'), wit]\ notes, and an account of the present state of the question respecting the epistles of Ignatius, by the Rev. Temple Chevallier, B.D. (8vo), appeared in 1852. In 1859 the question was again open- ed, and again in the Zeitsch.fur hist. TheoL, by Dr. E. A. Lipsius, who, in a paper entitled Ueber die A echtheit der syrischen Recension dcr ignatianischen Brife, goes over the ground again with all the leamuig of his pre- decessors in the same field, but more at length, examin- ing in detail, and with great critical acumen, the argu- ments which have been adduced by both sides in this discussion. Dr. Lipsius adopts all the reasoning of the learned editor of the Corpus Ig^iatianum, and arrives at the same conclusion, namely, that the three letters to Polycarii, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans, in the form in which they appear in the Syriac recension, arc the genuine letters of Ignatius, but that the present re- cension of the seven letters are from a later hand, in Avhich the three genuine letters have been remodelled, and to these three four new ones added. It is a circum- stance not to be overlooked that this full adoption of Blr. Cureton's views has appeared in the same jomnal which gave to the world Uhlhorn's lucubrations, and speaks highly for the honest desire of its conductors to promote tlie cause of truth, and that only. Bunsen also adopted the views of Cureton in his Die drei echten mid vier unechten Briefe des Ignatius (Hamburg, 1847, 8vo), and his conclusions have been admitted by some eminent Presbyterian authorities (see Bibl. Rejios. July, 1849) ; but Dr. Killen, the Irish Presbyterian, in his Ancient Church (Belfast and N. Y. 1859, 8vo), condemns all the epistles as Avorthless and spiu-ious. He remarks that " it is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin that upwards of three hundred years ago he passed a sweep- ing sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles. At the time many were startled by the boldness of his language, and it was thought that he was somewhat pre-
IGNATIUS
493
IGNATIUS
cipitate in pronouncing such a decisive judgment. But he saw distinctly, and he therefore spoke fearlessly. There is a far more intimate connection than many are disposed to believe between sound theology and sound criticism, for a right knowledge of the M''ord of God strengthens the intellectual vision, and assists in the detection of error wherever it may reveal itself. Had Pearson enjoyed the same clear views of Gospel truth as the reformer of Geneva, he would not have wasted so many precious j'ears in writing a learned vindication of the nonsense attributed to Ignatius. Calvin knew that an apostolic man must have been acquainted with apos- tolic doctrine, and he saw that these letters must have been the production of an age when the pure light of Christianity was greatly obsciu-ed. Hence he denounced them so emphatically; and time has verified his deliv- erance. His language respecting them has been often quoted, but we feel we cannot more appropriately close our observations on this subject than by another repeti- tion of it, ' There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is in circulation under tlie name of Igna- tius.' " Dr. Killen's positive arguments against the gen- uineness of aW the epistles are, 1. The style is suspicious ; 2. The epistles ignore God's Word, which is never done by any of the genuine writings of the early fathers; 3. They contain chronological blunders ; 4. They use words in meanings which they did not acquire tiU long after the time of Ignatius; 5. They abound in puerilities, va- poring, and mysticism ; G. They manifest an unhallowed and insane desire for martyrdom. Baur and Hilgenfeld also hold them all not to be genuine, but think that the seven of the shorter (rreek recensions were the first to be forged after A.D. 150, and that the Syriac three are simply fragmentary translations from the Greek. With Uhlhorn agree also many able and sound critics of the Romanists and Protestants, as Mohler, Hefele, and Gie- seler.