gilded cover. We must give the people good books, but it is also necessary to show them the merit of books, and enable them to distinguish gold from pinchbeck, and to detect impositions.

The great library cannot exist alone. It must have smaller local libraries to prepare the way, and these to thrive must not only have books, but make them known, appreciated and enjoyed. A pleasant room with a little music, and a half hour's reading of some good author will draw people. This system has been tested in Cleveland and proved successful. It has not yet been tried by Catholics, but it is really the idea of St. Phillip Neri, and can scarcely fail among our people. Those who attend will talk of what they hear, others will come, and of those who cannot some will have their interest aroused sufficiently to get the book and read for themselves. In the deluge of trash showered on the land, and almost forced upon people, persons who wish to read cannot always tell what to take up. Worthless, bad books are read because they are at hand, and easily got; read in ignorance of their real character. A library making good books known can also effectively warn against evil as well as propagate what is sound. This local education by living libraries will be all the more necessary to excite the interest which is absolutely required to maintain heartily and generously a great central Catholic Library.

ST. CYPRIAN AND THE ROMAN SEE.

MONG the many strange misconceptions current among the members of the Anglican communion, relative to the constitution of the early Church, none is more remarkable than the curiously distorted view given in all their theological works, whether text books of ecclesiastical history, or treatises of a dogmatic or controversial nature, of the character and life-work of St. Cyprian, and of his relations to, and dealings with, the Apostolic See. He is represented as a man entirely ignorant of any peculiar headship existent in the See of Rome, or, if the germ of any such idea is contained in his mind at all, it is merely that he regards the Roman Bishop as primus inter pares-first among equals-an accident of position, due, doubtless, to the secular dignity of his episcopal city as the metropolis of the civilized world. We propose to examine four of the principal passages from the Saint's writings which Anglicans are in the habit of citing as arguments against the "Romanism" of St. Cyprian's Catholicity. Let us see whether the words of the holy bishop of Carthage can really be brought up as witnesses against the faith, for which he so earnestly contendedcan, indeed, be utilized by those whose aim is to break and destroy that unity of the Church in whose defence he expended the supreme efforts of his eloquence.

We are convinced that the only reason why Anglicans should suppose, as they profess to do, that these passages from St. Cyprian are, in the face of so many undoubted testimonies of that saint to the Roman primacy, inimical to the Petrine supremacy, is, because they have not seriously considered them, either as regards the causes of their being written, their surrounding circumstances, or even their grammatical construction. We propose, on the present occasion, to do so as briefly as we can.

use

In the first place, those who know anything about St. Cyprian, who he was, and what his character was, must see plainly that the which is being made of his words by the opponents of the Church of Rome, is anything but complimentary to him. For, if St. Cyprian really intended what Anglicans would represent him as meaning, then he was guilty of using words which had no intelligible signification, which were simply nonsense, and of contradicting besides, while in a state of anger and excitement, the 'principles of a lifetime.

Now, whatever the opinion of Anglicans regarding St. Cyprian

may be, we, as Catholics, venerate him as a saint, and we are not prepared to charge him with folly and self-contradiction, simply for making use of expressions which are capable of an interpretation perfectly consistent with his other utterances and with common

sense.

One would think that Anglicans must surely agree with us so far as to allow that, when a good and holy man gives vent to words which are, at least, capable of two interpretations, one of which violates common sense and the evidence of surrounding facts, and, moreover, flatly contradicts the principles enunciated with the greatest emphasis in his other carefully thought-out works; and the other of which is perfectly consistent with sense and facts, and with his own words and sentiments uttered elsewhere, it is a matter of common justice to such a man to adopt the latter, and not in such a case to insult his intelligence and his consistency by utilizing the former, merely in order that we may make a catspaw of him for our own purposes.

The first passage cited by Anglicans in this connection, to which we shall here allude, will be found in Epistle LXXI:

"For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim to assume anything arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the Primacy, and should rather be obeyed by those who were lately and newly come."

It is a singular fact that this particular use of St. Cyprian's words is, by no means, new, nor confined to Anglicans and schismatics of this century. Precisely the same contention was raised by the Donatists, fifteen hundred years ago; and we know of no better reply to the former than that which the great St. Augustine himself addressed to the latter :

"The authority of Cyprian," says he, "does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr, Cyprian, but is it anything greater than that of the apostle and martyr, Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows, in his epistle to Quintus: For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first,' etc. [as above]. Here," continues St. Augustine, “is a passage, in which Cyprian records what we read also in Holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles shines with so excellent a grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he had adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth. If it was, therefore, possible for Peter in some point to walk not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, -if Peter, I say, could compel the Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church

afterwards held,-why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh? I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian, in comparing him with Peter, in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For, who can be ignorant that the Primacy of his Apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate in the world?"

And, somewhat further on, referring to St. Cyprian's speech at the Council of Carthage, he says:

"Now, let the proud and swelling necks of heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. Ye mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the Holy Church, that ye may receive health therein, what have ye to say, in answer to this? You are wont to bring up against us the letter of Cyprian, his opinion, his council; why do you claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the unity of the Church?"

It will be seen that the point in the passage we are considering, as St. Augustine understands it, which St. Cyprian wishes to emphasize, is this: That, although holding the Frimacy, St. Peter was so gentle and meek that, knowing himself to be in the wrong, he did not assert his superior authority in the presence of St. Paul, but humbly allowed himself to be rebuked by him, thus following the example of his Divine Master, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (āpraɣpòv, a thing to be clutched at) to be equal with God, but debased himself, taking the form of a servant."

That Anglicans, the keynote of whose religion is self and selfassertion, should be unable to understand the grace of humility, is a matter of course, we are profoundly convinced that, in the case of the extreme Ritualists, it is the one thing which holds them back from becoming Catholics,-and, consequently, when the blessed St. Cyprian extols the humility of St. Peter, in not asserting his primatial rank, they at once jump to the conclusion that he is denying the Primacy itself! Such a construction, however, is rendered impossible by the previous statement,quem Dominus primum elegitwhom the Lord chose as Primate (the first of them all),-for, since our Lord gave him the office, it was his, whether he asserted it or not.3 The second passage to which we will refer runs thus in the Latin : 'Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tene

tur."

1 St. Augustine. De Baptismo contra Donatistas.

Phil. ii., 6 and 7.

It is scarcely necessary to say, that St. Peter was not first, in the sense of having been called first; that privilege pertained to his brother Andrew.

Considerable diversity of opinion has arisen as to the correct rendering of this passage in English; we venture to submit the following translation as, on the whole, most probably coinciding with what was in the Saint's mind:

"The Episcopate is one, a part of which is held by individuals in trust for the whole."

We do not pretend that the phrase in trust, for in solidum, by any means conveys the whole signification of that very peculiar expression. Indeed, we believe it to have a far deeper meaning. Our own impression (it may be a fanciful one) is, that the force of in, with the accusative, signifies that compression or attraction to a common centre which is the most intimate bond of union. Each individual holds his share in the episcopate, with a view to that intimate union with Rome, the centre of unity, which, by divine institution, is the principle of oneness in the Catholic Church. Thus, the episcopate is one, though composed of individuals, each of whom holds his own particular share in trust for the one episcopate-one by reason of its union with its head.

Those who regard this passage as militating against the Roman supremacy, place a variety of interpretations upon it. One, for instance, will endeavor to frame some such argument as this: If the episcopate is one, there cannot be one supreme and universal episcopate in the Roman pontiff, and another, inferior and circumscribed, in the other bishops. Doctor Murray, the late learned and accomplished Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at Maynooth, in his invaluable “Treatise on the Church of Christ," disposes of this precious sophism thus:

"The interpretation of this passage is twofold. I. The Episcopate is one in all bishops in the same way that human nature is one in all men, to wit, that in all men are those things which constitute the essentials of human nature. Just as, therefore, this unity of nature does not prevent some from excelling others in these or those accidents, such as ability, learning, authority, and so on; so, also, it does not militate against the unity of the episcopate that amongst the bishops there should be one to bear rule over the others. And, as a matter of fact, our adversaries hold that this can actually be the case without interfering with the unity of the episcopate, that some, by merely human right, should preside over others, such as formerly were the Patriarchs, and nowadays the Metropolitans. If there can be an inequality of this kind by merely human arrangement, it is not difficult to perceive how much more may this be by divine institution."1

It is, therefore, manifest to anyone who calmly considers the

1 De Ecclesia Christi, vol. iii., p. 662.