matter, that an inequality in the hierarchy does not break the unity of the episcopate, or, at least, if it does so, then the unity of the episcopate has never existed at all.

Another interpretation, favored by Anglicans, is that given in the Oxford translation of St. Cyprian:

"The Episcopate is one; it is a whole in which each enjoys full possession."

This brilliant idea is thoroughly Anglican, and as illogical and untenable as are most "brilliant ideas" emanating from that source regarding these subjects. If it has any meaning at all, it signifies that every bishop, simply by virtue of his consecration, possesses universal jurisdiction, and cannot be confined within any limits whatever. If he be so confined, it is a matter of practical convenience. That tremendous potentate, the "Bishop of Gibraltar," has a perfect right to exercise his episcopal functions (and) does so), both in Rome and Constantinople, whether the lawful occupants of those sees like it or not. And if his appalling jurisdiction is nominally confined to the whole of the ancient Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria, leaving that of Jerusalem (and, we presume, Antioch) to the "Bishop of the Church of England in Jerusalem," that is, simply because the powers of the above-mentioned awe-inspiring prelate are finite, and not even he can be everywhere, to exercise his universal jurisdiction at once!

For ourselves, we find it impossible to believe that St. Cyprian meant anything so preposterous as this; for, when we remember that a bishop is not merely an ordaining machine, but an officer set to govern the Church of Christ, we must surely see clearly that a thousand such governors, all endowed with plenary jurisdiction, would render all government impossible. Anglicans, surely, are the last persons to uphold such a theory, for, while they do indeed give the Bishop of Gibraltar three Patriarchates for his modest diocese, they cry out at the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster as a schismatic! If this theory were really true, then Novatian was no anti-Pope, but had just as much right to exercise jurisdiction in Rome as Cornelius himself.

Referring to this passage, the learned Father Ballerini says: “The episcopate is one, in the opinion of Cyprian, just as the Church is one, and therefore a part of the episcopate is held in trust for the whole by each individual bishop (pars episcopatus in solidum tenetur ab unoquoque episcopo), inasmuch as his own individual church is ruled by the individual, or his own particular flock, which is a part of the whole Church. But the Supreme Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, although, as a bishop, he rules the particular Roman flock, yet, nevertheless, from his Primacy, by

virtue of which he presides over the whole Church, he is, according to the opinion of Cyprian, the centre and origin of the whole unity of the Church."

This interpretation of Ballerini seems, as Doctor Murray observes, to sum up the whole mind of St. Cyprian, as exemplified in all his writings, as well in the "De Unitate Ecclesiæ," as in his various treatises and epistles, in all of which he is ever the most energetic upholder of the compact organic unity of the Church. And the centre of this unity he places in Peter ("one Church founded upon Peter, on the principle and law of unity," Ep. lxx., ad Januar.), and in Peter's see (" The chief Church, whence the unity of the priesthood takes its rise," Ep. lv., ad Cornel.). And from Peter through the bishops it flows to the universal Church. "How firmly," says St. Cyprian, “ought we bishops, especially, who preside in the Church, to hold and defend its unity, in order that we may prove the episcopate also to be one and indivisible. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by deceit; let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, a part of which is held by individuals in trust for the whole. The Church, also, is one which is spread abroad, far and wide, into a multitude by the increase of fruitfulness. Just as there are many rays of the sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree, but one strength based on its tenacious root, and since from one spring flow many streams; although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree, when broken it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus, also, the Church." In these words he plainly affirms the same kind of unity concerning the episcopate as he affirms concerning the Church—but not of the Church as something abstract or theoretical merely, something to be dreamed about as Anglicans dream singing

We are not divided, (!)

All one body we,

when they know well that the facts of the case are quite the contrary, but as viewing it in the concrete, as something real and present, as a body of men, he declares it to be one. Other passages

from the holy Bishop's writings strengthen this view, such as: "And since the one church has been divided by Christ throughout the world into many members, so the one episcopate has been

1 "Una Ecclesia super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundatur."

2 "Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est."

diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops," etc. (Ep. lii., ad Anton.) And again: O God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the people are one, joined together into the solid unity of the body (in solidum?) by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be divided,' nor can a body which is one be separated by a division of its structure."

My readers will probably remember a certain famous passage in the treatise of St. Irenæus "Against Heresies" relative to the Roman Church. In this passage, it is noteworthy that necesse est does not signify a mere moral obligation, but an absolutely unavoidable necessity, by virtue of which every church, as a condition of its forming part of the Church Catholic, must agree with the teaching of the Church of Rome. Precisely the same idea is present in the above words of St. Cyprian, except that he is viewing the matter from the standpoint of the Church's indissoluble unity. He declares that the Church is one,-one in the metaphysical sense, and he affirms and maintains the simple fact that an entity which is one cannot be divided and yet remain one. But inasmuch as this. oneness is a divinely appointed note of the Church, it must be perpetually visible in her; therefore, he argues, the Catholic Church. cannot be divided.

We think that when we consider the above passages in their entirety we cannot fail to see the utter falsity of the Oxford translation as a true rendering of St. Cyprian's words, while at the same time we are enabled to gather for ourselves his true signification. Doctor Murray paraphrases the passage thus: "The unity of the episcopate or of the bishops is the same as the unity of the Church; individual bishops indeed have their own particular shares, they rule their own flocks, but, nevertheless, in such a way that they should all unite at once in effecting an entire and solid body."

There are various other interpretations of this passage. Bouix3 mentions three. The alternative to the one above given which Doctor Murray seems to prefer, is that set forth by Charlas, according to which St. Cyprian affirms that “a part of the episcopate is held by any bishop, not in common with others, but alone (or viewed as a 'corporation sole'), or so as to be the only bishop in his own particular diocese who should have the power of ruling, and that he himself should be the one pastor, nor should there be any other pastors," that is, having full jurisdiction, "in the same. diocese."

1 66 Unitas scindi non potest."

2 Book iii., ciii. "For with this Church (the Roman) on account of its more powerful principality every church must (necesse est) agree.”

De Episcopo. Part i., sect' 2, c. 4, 8 2.

VOL. XI.-9

Now either of these renderings is perfectly consistent with St. Cyprian's words elsewhere, and with the general tenor of his whole life; the Anglican interpretation is not. We maintain, therefore, that the latter is untenable.

And now we come to the celebrated speech of St. Cyprian at the Council of Carthage. Space will not permit us to enter at length upon a detailed account of the controversy concerning which this Council was convened; the circumstances of the baptismal controversy are familiar, doubtless, to most readers of this REVIEW; suffice it to say that a widespread opinion prevailed among the African bishops that baptism was not valid outside of the Catholic Church, that is to say, that baptism administered by heretics was nugatory and required iteration. This point the Pope strenuously denied, maintaining vigorously, but not, however, ex cathedrâ, that every one who was baptized with the proper form, matter and intention, was ipso facto baptized into the Catholic Church. This doctrine. was afterwards confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Nicea.

The words under review, which form part of St. Cyprian's address to the bishops assembled in the council, at which he himself presided as primate, run as follows:

"For no one of us constitutes himself a bishop of bishops or by tyrannical terror constrains his colleagues to the necessity of obeying, since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can judge another. But let us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, one and alone, has the power of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”1

It is maintained by the opponents of the Holy See that these words constitute on the part of St. Cyprian a denial of any universal jurisdiction inherent in the Roman Pontiff, a proof, say they, that the holy bishop was either ignorant of or rejected the idea of Papal supremacy.

It has often occurred to us, when reading the words of the above passage as they lie imbedded in the Acts of the council, or in the shape of some smart objection from the pen of a Littledale or a Ewer, that we should like to buttonhole some mild, ingenuous Anglican (such as we knew in days of old), and force him to sit down with this passage of St. Cyprian before him, and say to him: “Now, my good honest man, just look at those words, read them carefully, and tell me candidly whether upon mature consideration you think that St. Cyprian really meant them to be understood in their prima

1 Acts of the Council of Carthage.

facie literal sense. If you think that he did, then (sit venia verbo) you must suppose St. Cyprian to have been a fool, not only contradicting, in a moment of irritation, the principles of a lifetime, but deliberately making observations which he, and all those who heard him, must have known to be undiluted nonsense."

"No bishop can be judged by another any more than he can judge another." If by this St. Cyprian intended what you understand, what on earth did he mean by writing to Pope Stephen: "Wherefore it behooves you to write a very copious letter to our fellow bishops appointed in Gaul, not to suffer any longer that Marcianus should insult our assembly. Let letters be directed by you (a te) into the province and to the people at Arles, by which (quibus, i. e. the Pope's letters) Marcianus being deposed, another may be substituted in his place."

This Marcianus was Bishop of the Metropolitan See of Arles, generally supposed to have been situated outside the jurisdiction. of the local Roman Patriarchate. He had made open cause with the Novatians, and it was for this reason that the Bishop of Carthage calls upon the Holy See to send apostolic letters deposing him from his bishopric. A peculiar commentary, certainly, upon your understanding of St. Cyprian's speech at the Council!

"But let us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, one and alone, has the power of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."

The literal signification of these words, you say, is that a bishop is utterly irresponsible, and accountable to no man for whatever actions he may choose to perform; that no one can call him to account but our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that not in this life.

Now, unless (we would say), our good Anglican, you have surrendered yourself entirely to fanaticism and senseless folly, we cannot believe that even you would maintain that this could have been St. Cyprian's real meaning. The whole of the eighty-six bishops who were assembled with him in this synod knew as a matter of daily occurrence that it was not true. They knew that our Lord Jesus Christ had not, personally and without any intervening human agency, perferred them in their bishoprics; they knew perfectly well, and so do you, that since our Lord's ascension this could be predicated of no one, with the possible exception of St. Paul, and even of him it is significantly told us that he went up to Jerusalem "to see Peter"; they knew perfectly well that if one of their number fell into heresy, or otherwise misbehaved himself, he was not left alone until he was relieved of his bishopric by death,

1 Ep. lxvi., 2, 3. Ante-Nicene Library.