may believe them genuine, but I cannot. I should like first to see the Latin original, for I cannot understand the Greek version. With the exception of these martyrs (of whose trials a record is preserved, but probably not written at the time), there is no mention of any intercourse between the Roman and Gaulish Churches for these four centuries. The letter of Cyprian, therefore, is the more valuable, particularly as the information it gives is so important.* Marcian, bishop of Arles, had adopted Novatian's tenets. This had given offence to Faustinus, bishop of Lyons, and his suffragans; and they had sent a synodal letter to Stephen, giving him the information, and apparently desiring that he would procure his deposition. For some cause not stated, Stephen is said to have taken no notice of it. They, therefore, wrote once and again to Cyprian, saying that they had told Stephen, but he had paid no attention to their letter, and, I suppose, urging Cyprian also to write to him. The letter of Cyprian to Stephen is preserved; in which, having told him that it is the duty of all bishops to interfere, he urges him to send a very plain and peremptory letter to the province and people of Arles; as well excommunicating Marcian, as ordering them to appoint a successor; and then begs him to let him know who is appointed. Whether Stephen did write is not said. But Stephen (we are to understand) was applied to for such a letter by both Faustinus and Cyprian, and, * Epist. 68. therefore, obviously considered by them as having a special right to exercise that sort of interference; and that, with the inevitable inference which every reader must draw from it, was all that the real author of Cyprian's letter wanted to suggest. The Roman writers refer with great triumph to this letter. It acknowledges the power of excommunicating a metropolitan bishop, and of ordering a new election. They gravely tell us that no doubt Stephen wrote, as Marcian's name is not found in the diptychs of that Church. I will venture upon another solution of that silence. There never was such a bishop. The diptych was made before Stephen's dilatory letter had reached them. § 4. ASIA MINOR. BUT these letters, so full of singular information of matters in the West, are invaluable as respects another country Asia Minor. There is only one other notice (soon to be reviewed), during the first four centuries, of any relation between the Churches of Rome and the Churches of Asia Minor. This darkness is happily dispersed by a very unexpected proceeding of Cyprian's. He sent a deacon all the way to Asia Minor, to Cæsarea in Cappadocia. No object for this long and unexampled journey is stated; it seems to have been a mere message, as the man would hardly wait for the reply. But luckily he did wait, and we have got it; and the information it conveys as coming from the party leaves no doubt of its truth. It is curious, but it is to the same effect as all the others. By some extraordinary accident they all tell of Roman supremacy. Here Firmilian states that Stephen was boasting that he was sitting on the chair of Peter, and had excommunicated the primate of Cappadocia and the neighbouring nations, and the Churches beyond him. This is supported by a letter of equal veracity written by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Sixtus II., Stephen's successor. And here must be noticed another singular circumstance that renders these eight years so memorable in the Church history of these four centuries. Although two Alexandrian bishops had fled into the West (Athanasius, about A.D. 345, to Treves in Gaul; and Peter, about A.D. 373, to Rome) to save their lives during persecution, still no intercourse between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria is known to have taken place during the period embraced in this volume, except just at this time, when the curtain being momentarily raised, we see the same active intercourse and proceedings taking place between Rome and Alexandria as are going on between Rome and Carthage. Dionysius, the bishop, is doing nothing but writing. I have tried several times. to enumerate the names of his compositions, but have never yet succeeded. Letters without end are going to Rome. Like Cyprian, he writes not only to the bishops, but to the clergy, orthodox and heretical, to the Confessors, and even to Novatian himself. He is seen also, as Cyprian, consulting the Roman prelate, and communicating information. In short, Alexandria is another Carthage, another offshoot of Rome; they all seem to know each other perfectly: and yet in spite of all this intimacy, when this bright period is gone, the same impenetrable darkness again occurs for a century and a half. Now I wish the reader to reflect upon these facts. Let common sense interpose and examine them. There is no account, during the period embraced by this volume, of any intercourse between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Asia Minor (with one exception), and Alexandria, except during this period of eight years. During that short space of time, information pours in upon us like a flood, and all of the same tendency; all showing the supremacy of the Church of Rome, and yet (what seems utterly inconceivable, if they are true) the assumed facts of these eight years are unknown to, and unsupported by, any genuine writings. There is nothing, I believe, anywhere, on which reliance can be placed, to corroborate either them or the supremacy they infer. I cannot help asking what is the verdict of common sense upon their character? The records of the fifth century will explain these proceedings, but nothing in Cyprian's letters savours of the third century. § 5. EXAMINATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LETTERS HAVING examined these letters, and seen that they are open to very great suspicion, let us now review the external evidence which can be brought forward to support them. They are noticed previous to the fifth century in a professed translation of the "Chronicle" of Eusebius by Jerome, in Jerome's book on "Ecclesiastical Writers," in a Dialogue stated to be written by Jerome against the disciples of Lucifer, bishop of Carali, and in a work that goes under the name of Pacian. I will describe the "Chronicle " of Eusebius and its translation by Jerome for the benefit of those readers who may not know the work, The "Chronicle " of Eusebius has not descended to us as a whole. There is a translation of it, made by Jerome, but with his additions. The "Chronicle" itself, however, existed for many centuries, and was made use of by later Greek chronologists, especially by George, who occupied the position of Syncellus to Tarasius, bishop of Constantinople, at the close of the eighth century. My belief is, that in his work we have the whole of that portion of the "Chronicle" of Eusebius which comprised the three first centuries of the Christian era, with interpolations made by himself or others, out of the "Ecclesiastical History" of the same writer. What portion therefore of the work of George Syn |