Paulinus to the see of Antioch is alluded to. Birds of a feather flock together.

But there was one individual in the fourth century who had possessed himself of these letters, and knew them thoroughly. In fact he overplayed his part. He evidently wrote his letters to tell us how much he delighted in " my Cyprian" as he calls him. And who is he? On the titlepage is the name of Pacian; and on referring to Jerome, who is here perhaps unpolluted, we read: "Pacian, bishop of Barcelona, in the Pyrenees, celebrated for his chastity and eloquence, for his way of life and speech, wrote several small works, one called Képbos, and another against the Novatians. He is already dead, in extreme old age, in the reign of Theodosius;" that is, within twelve years of the time Jerome was writing.

The work to which I am alluding is said to be this book against the Novatians. But I have learnt to believe, and I think the reader will be convinced also if he has the patience to weigh my proofs, that attention is to be paid to the titles of the books which Jerome quotes. My impression is, that he had seen every book which he mentions, except in cases where he distinctly tells us that he had not; and that he, whatever may have been the case with his interpolator, was very exact in transcribing the titles. But the book in question has no such title as "against the Novatians;" it is intituled, "Three Letters to Sympronian." There is nothing to show that the writer was Pacian, nor where he lived, nor

to whom he was writing; and the internal evidence is, that the writer was an African. It is a very absurd story that introduces the Cyprian documents. The parties are strangers, or almost so, and live thirty days' journey apart; and Sympronian, whom Pacian addresses as "my lord," "most illustrious lord," and then "brother," sends a messenger with his letters to Pacian, telling him that no one throughout the whole world had convinced him of the error of his opinions; but yet seeking to argue with Pacian. As it turns out, however, (and if this letter is a specimen of his usual method of conducting a controversy, there is not much wonder that he had yet been unanswered,) he had forgotten, although he had sent a man a month's journey with his letter, to state distinctly what his opinions were. So Pacian, in the first letter, argues as if his correspondent was a Montanist, introducing Cyprian however; and, after a few observations, says he would have entered more at large into the subject, only (as usual) the servant was waiting. This is a very significant excuse, as it pervades so many of these suspicious documents. But as a thirty days' journey lay between him and his correspondent (although Pacian carefully conceals the place of Sympronian's residence, calling it "the city"), it might have been thought that the messenger could have waited a day longer. At the same time, if the messenger had waited for the first letter as long as it would seem he had to wait for the second, forty days,

he might have some reason for being in a great hurry at last.

The second and third letters are evidently intended to bolster up the Cyprian letters, by quoting the peculiar facts contained in them, such as the name, character, and proceedings of Novatus, the African presbyter, under pretence of warding off the attacks of a Novatian. It is impossible that Pacian's character for learning could have induced a stranger to send so far to hear the truth from his lips. A man who proves that "Catholic " means, "as the more learned think, 'obedience to all the commands,' that is, of God,' by the text, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,'" is not likely to have been the subject of fame, or to have received Jerome's panegyric. The allusion to the Apollinarians as well-known heretics, classing them among the Phrygians and Novatians, of itself is a fair presumption that Pacian was not the author of the letters. He died in extreme old age, about the time when that heresy was first condemned in the East, its birthplace; and it is very unlikely, even if the heresy had penetrated the Pyrenees, that a man of his years, and he does not write like an old man, would have been at that time writing a book; or if he had been, and had noticed the new heresy, that he would not have said something about its peculiar tenets.

These are the only authorities for the existence

of these letters, known (for so I interpret the words of Jerome) wherever the rays of the sun fall, for one hundred and fifty years after they are said to have been written. And the reader must remember that I by no means say they were well known, or known at all, even then. For several reasons I postpone to another volume what I have to say upon the writings of Augustine.

But before I conclude this inquiry into the external evidence, I have another fact to relate, very fatal, in my opinion, to the character for genuineness of these letters. It has been shown that they appear, and most suspiciously, where it could not have been expected. It can also be shown that they do not appear where their absence is equally unsatisfactory. Optatus, bishop of Milevi, in Africa, wrote a work in six books* against the Donatists, in the reigns of Valentinian and Valens, that is, between A. D. 364–375. One of the greatest complaints which the Catholics had against the Donatists was, that they re-baptized Catholics going over to them. It was the insult of a sect. Optatus devotes one of the books of his work to this subject. Now, in the fifth century, we are told that the Donatists very much relied on the authority of Cyprian for a justification of this practice, which was very natural for them to do. It was a case in point; and such an au

*Seven have descended to us.

thority was a tower of strength to any party. Augustine is therefore seen refuting two of his compositions sentence by sentence. But if this was the state of the controversy in the fifth century, it could not have been otherwise thirty or forty years earlier. The Donatists must have been equally aware of these letters, and equally have valued them in the days of Optatus as in the days of Augustine. Yet it is a very remarkable fact, that Cyprian's authority is never once alluded to in this work of Optatus. It has been grievously tampered with, in the two first books, to support Peter's chair, and Cyprian's name is introduced in connection with that fable. But there is not the slightest notice of his letters on rebaptism; which induces the very natural conclusion, that, at that period, neither Donatist (as Optatus's work is a reply to the Donatist bishop of Carthage) nor Catholic had ever heard of them; and Carthage was the place of their birth. I view this fact as very conclusive evidence against their previous existence.

Having now arrived at the close of the examination into these letters of Cyprian, I ask the reader to review what has been said, and I think that when he has recalled to his mind that, previous to A.D. 250, nothing (with one exception, and that is presumed to be equally spurious) is known of any connection between the Roman and the other Churches; and that, all at once, these Churches are found, some of them in constant and almost

N