even must be rejected: and when the short
text of these epistles was published, [396:3] about the middle of the
seventeenth century, candid scholars confessed that it still betrayed
unequivocal indications of corruption. [396:4] But even some Protestant
writers of the highest rank stoutly upheld their claims, and the learned
Pearson devoted years to the preparation of a defence of their
authority. [397:1] His "Vindiciae Ignatianae" has long been considered
by a certain party as unanswerable; and, though the publication has been
read by very few, [397:2] the advocates of what are called "High-Church
principles" have been reposing for nearly two centuries under the shadow
of its reputation. The critical labours of Dr Cureton have somewhat
disturbed their dream of security, as that distinguished scholar has
adduced very good evidence to shew that about three-fourths of the
matter [397:3] which the Bishop of Chester spent a considerable portion
of his mature age in attempting to prove genuine, is the work of an
impostor. It is now admitted by the highest authorities that _four_ of
the seven short letters must be given 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 pre