us, the Rev. Mr. Cureton has done much, if not to settle the agitated points, at least to throw much light upon them, and thus ease the labor of ultimate decision. In the prolegomena which Mr. Cureton has prefixed to the work, and in which he makes us acquainted with its nature and design, he has given also a succint and lucid review of the controversy in connection with the efforts of others before him, that led to his own labors. It had been the constant hope indeed of those who admitted the shorter Epistles of the Greek text as genuine, to obtain a copy of the ancient Syriac or Chaldee version from the East; and this idea, first suggested by Archbishop Usher, was ardently cherished by Dr. Fell, Dean of Christ Church, and afterwards Bishop of Oxford. After muh correspondence between Robert Huntington, afterwards Bishop of Raphoe, and the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, Stephen Peter, and John Lascaris, Archbishop of Mount Sinai, the seventeenth century passed away without any definite result; the eighteenth century also passed, and the Syriac Epistles had not yet come forth to the light. The collection of Oriental manuscripts brought from the Syrian monastery in the desert of Nitria, and deposited in the Vatican, by J. S. Assemani, was reasonably supposed to contain the Epistles, and Mr. Cureton was assured of it by the statement of the Assemani. On inquiry, however, he was told that there was no such book in the Vatican. Certainly a most curious result. Thus it was not until 1839 and 1842, that our author was able to obtain copies of the desired Epistles, and that not from the Vatican, but from those that had recently come into the possession of the British Museum. This collection had been deposited in the Museum by the Rev. Henry Tattam, who was subsequently commissioned to make another visit to the desert of Nitria, which was crowned with full success. From the ancient Syriac manuscripts thus obtained, Mr. Cureton has published the extracts from the Ignatian Epistles, collected from different earlier authors, together with the three entire Epistles extant in the Syriac, viz., to St. Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans. These he transcribed, translated, and has thus given to the public. They form a neat volume of no great bulk, but possessing much to excite and interest, not only in the Apostolic man, to whom it refers, but also in the study of Oriental literature in general.

On a candid review of the Epistles that are generally considered genuine, we can hardly resist the impression that notwithstanding the expurgation of the Pseudo-Ignatius,

there are still parts and passages that belong only to the lat ter. Mr. Cureton's Syriac Ignatius tends to confirm this impression. It not only furnishes ground for various readings in the Greek text, but omits those very parts which are liable to objections.

These omissions in the Syriac reduce the Epistles to dimensions which strike us on the very face of them as more suited to the time, the circumstances, and the sainted martyr. Neither do they affect the argument based upon the testimony of Ignatius, unless it be only to make that testimony the stronger from its more incidental introduction. One such incidental witness is worth a dozen who betray their cause by a fulsome precision. Mr. Cureton thus shows that we may, without prejudice to any of the points which the Epis tles favor, correct the present Greek text, and thus restore the Epistles to their original limits. He has, accordingly, added the Greek text, reduced to the limits of the Syriac, and subjoined the parts and passages omitted, from the Greek of the so-called genuine Ignatius, as we find them in Smith's or Cotelier's edition. For his arguments in favor of the Syriac as the true representative of the genuine Ignatius, we must refer the reader to the work itself; but we can not rise from it without the conviction that it forms altogether a new period in the Ignatian controversy, and not without the hope of approaching a canon to settle definitely what belongs to the genuine, and what does not. We believe that much has been done towards this object by the labors of Mr. Cureton. Although Mr. Cureton places the Syriac as low as the beginning of the sixth century, we can not but think that with some various readings, the version is much older. Indeed, it it seems natural to expect a version nearly co-eval with the original, and, in the absence of all positive testimony on this point, we may reasonably ask, whether Ignatius was not considerably influenced in style, by the prevalent Syriac idiom? The Church of Antioch was a Syrian Church, and though Greek was generally spread over the east, after the days of Alexander, the oriental vernacular still remained. Ignatius must have officiated in both languages, and one would insensibly affect the other. We know the Greek did affect the Syriac, from the many words adopted from the Greek, and the Greek idiom could not pass without a tincture of the Oriental, where it was not guarded by a literary culture. We here subjoin a few instances, as deviations from pure Greek usage.

The word yvwun in the beginning of the Epistle to Poly,

Πάντων

carp, may better suit the Syriaci reyon, than the Greek vas for which it is intended. IIpodiva w opou, though intelligible, is more oriental than Greek. Εκδικεί τον τοπον seems a misapplication of a Latinism, for vindica locum, assert thy place or post. There is no proper Syriac for it in the text. The antithetical expressions, sagg and vea, with their derivatives, would savor of a foreign idiom to a Greek. τας νόσους βασαζε, is a familiar phrase in the oriental dialects, but is not so in Greek. The expression, xoλaxsuns, is not pure Greek, for what it is intended. We would refer the expression, sec. v, sav yvwoon Theov TOU ETICXOTOU, to a Syriac idiom. Translated literally, we are at loss to see what it has to do with the connection. But if we refer it to the Syriac, we get some light. To know, often means to recognize, and the passage thus means, "if he be recognized apart from, i. e., exclusively of the Bishop." It does not refer so much, in this instance to notoriety, as to the recognition of the marriage without the cognizance of the Bishop. Marriage should have the sanction of religion as well as the State. The Syriac, lebar, seems to imply that the translator read xpis, or understood sov in that sense.

The expression, aveluxov ey, is a favorite with Ignatius. We can hardly suppose he used it in the common sense of Greek usage, but in the higher, involving his own salvation. In the Epistle to the Romans, near the beginning, the words και σιωπήσητε απ' εμου, are Greek, but the phrase is more allied to the eastern dialects. So λs is often used for paλλov. In the expression, τρια μυσήρια κραυγης, occurring near the end of the Epistle to the Ephesians, we may explain an obscure passage by reference to the Syriac. The latter reads 20 JASO? watholotho razin dekaatho, rendered by Mr. Cureton, the three mysteries of the Shout; better thus, the three mysteries of a shout, i. e., by a Syriac phrase, the three astonishing mysteries, so wonderful that they would cause an outcry, or exclamation at the very mention of them. Munpia xpauyns is the genitive of the attribute, and is explained by some,-"mysteria vociferatione digna."

These examples of foreign idiom might be enlarged, but they suffice to show an influence exerted on the style of Ignatius, without a reference to which, we can not understand his Greek.

On a comparison of Mr. Cureton's translation with the Syriac, we believe it to be both accurate and literal, leav

ing, however, room for difference of opinion on the import of some expressions. Thus in the very title of the Epistle to Polycarp, Mr. Cureton, who, in other places renders the Syriac word i Mari, by its appropriate, Lord, or my Lord, here gives it by the word Saint. It appears to us as if, in this instance, the learned and respected translator felt an incongruity in the application of a title so modern in sound, to an Apostolic man, and which, if translated in the title of the very first Epistle, would raise a needless prejudice. Besides, the title Mar does not appear to have been generally applied to Saints, and Bishops, and leaders of the Church before the fourth century, if we may judge from the life of St. Ephraim, in Assemani's Bibliotheca Orientales. In the beginning of the Epistle, the words d'makbul olai, are translated acceptable to me. Epistle to the Ephesians. But the Syriac as a passive participle, means strictly, not what is acceptable, but what is received, or what may be received, and hence in a secondary sense, what may be accepted; hence the Lexicons give acceptabilis as well as acceptus. It means, therefore, simply, "because your name has reached me." The participle is here construed with sal; where it takes the sense, acceptabilis, it is construed with S.

llaos?

So also in the

oso makbul,

Page 5, we read the translation, "if thou love the good disciple, thou hast no grace." The word grace is here intended for a taibo. But the Syriac here means thanks. The author had justly rendered in a previous passage b'taibotho, by the grace; but in the present instance both the Syriac, and the Greek yapıs, signify thanks, evidently in allusion to our Lord's expression," what thank have ye."

On the same page li legezoro "for the cutting" is more correctly rendered "for the flock." The Greek rapoğuruous, meaning, irritations or irritable cases, seems to have influenced the translation.

ܡܫܕܠ Instead of rendering

meeshdal, flatter, we should prefer, entice or allure. The Greek xoλaxsuns, is also undoubtedly meant to express the same idea though it literally signifies "flatter."

These few suggestions have occurred to us, in the reading of the work, as deserving attention; some others we

might add as matter of taste or opinion; but more anxious to agree than to disagree, we shall leave all such differences as unimportant, only to express some views on the value of the publication to our literature, criticism, and ecclesiastical system.

In a literary point of view it is of value for the renewed interest that it awakens in the genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Father and Martyr, coming like a voice from remote antiquity to aid us in marking the bounds of the genuine and the spurious, and thus imparting certainty to what might yet be considered, by many, a doubtful possession. This critical and literary value of the Syriac Ignatius, we are aware, will be differently estimated by opposite parties. The friends of what have been called the genuine Epistles, sustained by such authority as Ussher, Pearson, Beveridge, Vossius, Minard and Cotelier, will be loth to give up more than has been yielded to the Pseudo-Ignatius, or be prone to take the alarm, lest greater concessions should involve the loss of all. The opponents, glad perhaps to find their more reasonable objections countenanced by this ancient version, may anticipate the same results from contrary motives; and thus, whatever be the testimony of Irenæus, of Origen, of Eusebius, to mention no more, both admirers and adversaries may predict the annihilation of these ancient Epistles. But the alarm on the one side, and the exultation on the other, are equally groundless. That spurious Epistles are extant, we know; that they, at first, received the sanction of great names, we also know; (see Mr. Cureton's Preface, and Cotelier:) and that these have been sifted and cleared of a mass of interpolations, we also know. The learned Ussher, after the attempts of Videlius, with the aid of what is called the Old Latin Vulgate, (version,) made the greatest advances in the work of purgation, and the commonly received Greek text is chiefly the result of his labors. But Ussher himself rejected one of the seven received Epistles, viz. that to Polycarp and looked forward to the discovery of the Syriac, to settle more definitely the original limits of the genuine Ignatius. It is more than two centuries since that great and learned man published his edition of the Epistles, and expressed the hope of more light from oriental manuscripts. It has been reserved for these days to realize this hope, and it certainly argues no wisdom, either to turn away or to be alarmed at this critical apparatus, because it requires a new expurgation, or reduces our Ignatius to much more narrow limits. The former was certainly to be expected, on the re

;