daily intercourse; that Africa and Alexandria are represented like Roman offshoots; that nothing is done, especially in Africa, but information of it is immediately sent to Rome; that the people of Rome, Africa, and Alexandria seem almost one Church; and that, after the short space of eight years, all in a moment is again as silent as the grave, and so continues till nearly two centuries have expired; and when he has also remembered the suspicious contents of the Cyprianic letters, which profess to have been written during these eight years, all tending to show the supremacy of the Roman see; and when he further considers the spurious additions or interpolations in the historical documents, all manifestly introduced to support them, as if they needed authority; and that in the course of nearly two centuries after their date only two works are known, and they to all appearance spurious, in which the contents of the Cyprianic letters are to be found; while on the other hand there is no mention of them in the book of Optatus, where, if genuine, we are morally certain they must have appeared, he will feel with me, I think, that they are not only fairly open to the greatest possible suspicion, but that they cannot be supported.

There is yet, however, one more argument to be brought against them; and, if true, a most conclusive one. These letters consist of one from Novatian, two from the Roman clergy, two from Cornelius the Roman bishop, one from Celeri

nus, a Roman confessor, and a reply of Lucian to Celerinus; one from the Roman Confessors; one from Caldonius, bishop in Africa; one from Felix and others (Africans); one from Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; one from Lucius and others (Africans), one from Nemesianus and others (Africans), and the rest from Cyprian himself to various persons: that is to say, there are twelve different writers, and they belong to three different parts of the globe, Italy, Africa, and Asia Minor. Yet I will venture any character for acuteness that the reader may kindly attribute to me, upon the truth of the following statement, — that all the letters were written by one and the same individual, although some two or three are a little disguised. They all contain, as far as their special subject allows them, the same sentiments, they are written in the same language, adopt the same phrases, and even possess the same lingual peculiarities. I challenge the closest investigation. I have analysed them thoroughly; and the more I have sifted them, the more I have been convinced. And in addition to this (which may be called the external part of the internal evidence afforded by the letters themselves) I must add, that no parties concerned in a real correspondence of this character could have written such unreal letters.

At the time when the Cyprianic letters remove the curtain, and show such busy doings between Rome and Carthage, the history of Eusebius would lead us to suppose that similar passings and

repassings were taking place in the Mediterranean between Rome and Alexandria. It is very singular, certainly, but so it is. There is no end of letter writing just at that time. As a fitting termination to this Novatian series, I will present a part of the contents of a presumed letter of Cornelius to Fabian, bishop of Antioch, and of another from Dionysius, of Alexandria, to Stephen.

According to Eusebius's "Church History," " Cornelius told Fabian of the very great Roman synod, of the Italian and African synods, and of the synods held in the other Western provinces, which, however, are not named. To prevent any doubt being felt of the reality of these synods, Eusebius tells us that Cornelius had appended to his letter the names of all the bishops who had attended his synod, and the names of their sees. Not only so, but the names of all the other bishops who, not being present at Rome, had yet assented to its decree, with the names of their sees; which implies that all the other synods had, like the African, sent their synodal letters to Cornelius. At the same time, how Cornelius could have obtained the knowledge of the African sees, and what enabled him to appropriate the right see to the right bishop, is not clear; as, judging from the synodal letters extant from that Church, it was not their custom to add their sees to their names. They ran in this way-" Thomas, James, William, Philip, another James, George, another Thomas,

vi. 33.

&c., to brother Cornelius." Even with the help of the court roll, with which Cyprian had been so kind as to furnish Cornelius, it must have been impossible to distinguish the duplicate Jameses and Thomases. But be that as it may, Cornelius is said to have sent a list, (which must greatly have edified the bishop of Antioch, who had, probably, never heard of any Western see beside Rome,) of all the Western prelates, from all the provinces of Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Italy; and after all this trouble (though, to be sure, we do not see the list, and Eusebius, except in peculiar cases like the present, is very particular in noting such facts) we must be very sceptical indeed if we doubt about the matter.

Now let us turn to Dionysius.* In this story, Fabian, the bishop of Antioch, is assumed to have been inclined to patronise Novatian; but as Novatian is nowhere said to have had any followers about Antioch, or those parts, it was necessary soon to put an end to the schism; and, therefore, Dionysius is introduced as writing to Stephen to say, that all the prelates, everywhere, were rejoicing in unexpected peace and unity; that Demetrian at Antioch (Fabian being dead), Theoctistus in Cæsarea, Mazabanes in Elia, Marinus in Tyre (Alexander being dead), Heliodorus in Laodicea (on the death of Thelymidrus), Helenus in Tarsus, and all the Churches of Cilicia, Firmilian and all Cappadocia (he only named the more noted

*Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 5.

prelates, not to be tedious), also all the Syrias and "Arabia, which you are always assisting, and to whom you are now writing, and Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Bithynia, and in short all, were praising God everywhere for their unity and brotherly love."

Let us now look at what these statements imply. They imply, certainly, that in the West nothing else could well have been talked about during the year or years of synods, but Novatian, and that the Western bishops must have been in very considerable excitement and motion throughout the different provinces. Nothing that had yet occurred in the Church had at all equalled it. But the same, and even worse, must have been oc

curring in the East. There was fearful disunion in those countries. We are told that, from the Hellespont to Egypt, there was but one scene of contention. Synods were held in every part of Asia Minor: at Antioch, in Palestine, in Arabia, Mesopotamia, and other places now unknown; for Dionysius, although gifted with great epistolary powers, is tired of enumerating them. And as the bishops had, from being disunited, become united, there must, I think, have been not only particular synods, but some one grand synod of a most comprehensive kind, at which, to their great astonishment and delight, they had recovered their unity; that is (for so vague is the statement, it is disputed), they had unanimously rejected the tenets of Novatian.

Now let the reader look at both East and West,