controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than
this. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in
one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided
on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and
Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and
Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.
But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The
misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to
think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the
Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the
Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian
Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case,
for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]
and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like
Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have
observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention
to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position
was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters,
in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tuebingen views of early
Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life
and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian
Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be
accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far
back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.
Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen
by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius,
Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up
the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from
the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception
by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of
Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at
one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his
former opinion on both questions alike [64:8].

But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his
own notes elsewhe