Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus, while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters. It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these [67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all. Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them 'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624) denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2]. Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a prudens et justa suspicio that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.
The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:—
[Wotton, Præf. Clem. R. Epp., 1718]; J. Owen, Enquiry into original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan., 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, Credibility, etc., Works, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, Hist. Crit. de Manichée, etc., 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, N. Theol. Biblioth., 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, de Rebus Christ., p. 159 f.]; Weismann, Introd. in Memorab. Eccles., 1745, p. 137; Heumann, Conspect. Reipub. Lit., 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, Chr. Kirchengesch., 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach, Opuscula Academ., 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, Hist. Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles., 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, Paraphr. in Epist. ii. Petri, 1784, Præf.; Kestner, Comm. de. Eusebii H.E. condit., 1816, p. 63; Henke, Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche, 1818, i. p. 96; Neander, K.G. 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 357, anm. 1]; Baumgarten-Crusius. Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch., 1832, p. 83, cf. Comp. chr. Dogmengesch., 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, Gesch. chr. K., p. 196; Thiersch, Die K. im ap. Zeit, p. 322; Hagenbach, K.G., i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, Vind. Ign. append.; Ziegler, Versuch ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen, u.s.w., 1798, p. 16; J.E.C. Schmidt, Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat. in Henke's Mag. f. Rel. Phil., u.s.w. [1795; cf. Biblioth. f. Krit., u.s.w., N.T., i. p. 463 ff., Urspr. kath. Kirche, II. i. p. I f.]; H'buch Chr. K.G., i. p. 200.
The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe however, that every one of these references, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's Vindiciæ Ignatianæ, where the passages are quoted in full. Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional references on which it has no bearing?
Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions directly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance [69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly, and at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer the Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and genuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly' by Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only doubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to regard the Curetonian as excerpts. Of the rest a considerable number, as for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus [69:2].
The next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian Epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite opinion. Gfrörer declares that the substratum (Grundlage) of the seven Epistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long Recension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension [70:1]. Schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either existing recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote before the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase commits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I have been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are quoted by our author.
I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which—if I may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself responsible—'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.' [70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the work, and their effect on its reception has been far from inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was therefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind. If it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more irksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer, might well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in Supernatural Religion is quite unique, so far as my experience goes, in works of any critical pretensions.
In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost entirely on Cureton's preface to his Ancient Syriac Version, to which indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already mentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its publication. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later work, the Corpus Ignatianum, appeared, and therefore was unknown to him [71:1]. Its bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;—(1) This Armenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together with other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous Syriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by Cureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the Corpus Ignatianum, though he failed to see their significance. (2) This Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian letters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of letters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the latter is a priori more probable; and therefore a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an account.
I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has followed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since studied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question or not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:—