established even without such evidence. I think that in such
cases, we must look chiefly to the historical testimony of facts;
and you will forgive me for saying that I think your arguments are
based upon presumptive evidence, negative evidence, and the
evidence of appropriateness--all of which, however valuable, must
tumble to the ground before one single fact. You notice that
Archbishop Ussher doubted the Epistle to Polycarp. But why? simply
because its style (not having been altered by the forger) was
different from the rest. But you know he says there was more
_historical_ evidence in its favour than for any of the rest.
It thus becomes an argument in support of the Syriac text instead
of against it. Can you explain how it happens that the Syriac text,
found in the very language of Ignatius himself, and transcribed
many hundreds of years before the Ignatian controversy was thought
of, now it is discovered, should contain only the _three Epistles_
of the existence of which there is any historical evidence before
the time of Eusebius, and that, although it may contain some
things which you do not approve, still has rejected all the
passages which the critics of the Ignatian controversy protested
against? You go too far to say that Bentley rejected the Ignatian
Epistles--he only rejected them in the form in which they were put
forth by Ussher and Vossius, and not in the form of the Syriac.
So did Porson, as Bishop Kaye informed me--but he never denied that
Ignatius had written letters--indeed, the very forgeries were a
proof of true patterns which were falsified.

A great many of the ablest scholars in Europe, who had refused to
accept the Greek letters, are convinced of the genuineness of the
Syriac. But time will open. Believe me, yours faithfully,
WILLIAM CURETON.