rition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of
the real epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in
search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery
creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the Epistles,
so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is boldly said
that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. [414:1] But Truth
still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for
her approbation. The internal evidence of these three epistles
abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they
are only the last shifts of a grave imposture. [414:2]

The candid investigator, who compares the Curetonian version of the
letters with that previously in circulation, must acknowledge that
Ignatius, in his new dress, has lost nothing of his absurdity and
extravagance. The passages of the Epistles, which were formerly felt to
be so objectionable, are yet to be found here in all their unmitigated
folly. Ignatius is still the same anti-evangelical formalist, the same
puerile boaster, the same dreaming mystic, and the same crazy fanatic.
These are weighty charges, and yet they can be substantiated. But we
must enter into details, that we may fairly exhibit the spirit, and
expose the falsehood of these letters.

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