Two connected Queries may be founded upon this statement:--(1.) Is not Mr. Cureton undoubtedly in error with respect to the year 1495? for, if we may believe Orlandi, Maittaire, Fabricius (_B. G._), and Ceillier, the three Latin Epistles above named had been set forth previously at Cologne, in 1478. (2.) By what mysterious species of arithmetic can it be demonstrated that "nearly _seventy_ years" elapsed between 1498 and 1557? The process must be a somewhat similar one to that by which "A.D. 360" is made equivalent to "five-and-_twenty_ years after the Council of Nice." (Pref., p. xxxiv.) In the former instance "_seventy_" is hardly a literal translation of Bishop Pearson's "_sexaginta_:" but whether these miscalculations have been already adverted to, and subsequently amended, or not, I cannot tell. (41.) In the same Preface (p. xxiv.) a very strange argument was put forward, which, as we may learn from the last _Quarterly Review_, p. 79., where it is satisfactorily refuted, has been since repeated by Mr. Cureton. He maintains that the Syriac text of the Ignatian Epistles cannot be an epitome, because that "we know of no instances of such abridgment in any Christian writer." To commence with the West,--is not Mr. Cureton acquainted with the manner in which Rufinus dealt with the _History_ of Eusebius? Have we here no specimens of abbreviation; no allusion in the prologue to "omissis quae videbantur superflua?" Has Mr. C. never looked into that memorable combination of the independent works of three contemporaries, entitled _Historia Tripartita?_ and, not to wander from the strictest bounds of bibliography, will any one presume to boast of having a copy of this book printed prior to that now near me, (a spectacle which De Bure could never get a sight of), "per Iohannem Schueszler regie vrbis Augustensis ciuem," anno 1472? But let us go to the East in search of compendiums. Did not Theodorus Lector, early in the sixth century, reduce into a harmony the compositions of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret? How does Assemani speak of the first two parts of the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Rhetor, supposed to have been written _in Syriac_, about the year 540? "Prima est _epitome_ Socratis, altera Theodoreti." (_Biblioth. Orient._, tom. ii. cap. vii.) On this occasion, manifestly, ancient records are encountered in an abridged Syriac form; a circumstance which will not strengthen the Curetonian theory relative to the text of the Ignatian Epistles. Again, bearing in mind the resemblance that exists between passages in the interpolated Epistles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, with the latter of which the _Didascalia_ of Ignatius seems to have been commingled, let us inquire, Did not Dr. Grabe, in his _Essay upon the Doctrine of the Apostles_, published in 1711, unanswerably prove that the _Syriac_ copy of this _Didascalia_ was much more contracted than the _Arabic_ one, or than the _Greek_ Constitutions of the Apostles? Is it not