-,.fT^> OF m^Gey 
 
 
 BV601 .C546 1812 v.2 
 Clinch, James Bernhard 
 Letters on Church government 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 Cfjurcl) (^obemment 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES BERNARD CLINCH* 
 
 PART 11. 
 
 Dublin, 
 
 »RINT£9 BY CRAISB£RRY AMD CAMPBELL, 10, BACK LANS. 
 
 1812, 
 
i iv 
 
LETTER IX, 
 
 Diocesan Synods. Apoo-ypfial CouncH of Nicecu, U 
 
 "which Coiumbanm appeah. The Acts of thk 
 
 Council proved spurious at length. Misrepresen- 
 tation of the Roman Council undes- Hilarus. 
 
 Extravagant misreprese7itafion of saint Augusiine„ 
 
 and of a cotmcil under pops Symmachus. Legend 
 
 of Boniface and Vigilius. Mismpresentation of 
 
 Irish Bishops, tscko have received coadjutojs cum. 
 
 spe successionis. True state of the question <tni 
 
 justification of those Bishops. New rides, for 
 
 episcopal elections^ invented hij CoUinihanus^ as an- 
 cient general Canons. 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 On Diocesan synods little is requisite tobetoM.. 
 These syaods are assemblies of coinparativelj recent 
 origin, convened by an individual bishop, and con- 
 sisting solely of liis clergy. At such assemblies 
 therefore the priests of the " second order," are 
 necessarily present, miless a bishop should fancy 
 to hold a synod of himself which few prelates, Law 
 
 -exclusively soerer hiclined, could attempt with any 
 
 clianee 
 
440 
 I 
 chance of success. In these sjnoas the clergy &t6 
 
 sometimes consulted, and very properly consulted ; but 
 the decisive voice and authority remains with the bi- 
 shop alone, wlio alone subscribes, as giving force to 
 the acts by the received and confirmed regulation of the 
 church, in order to obviate an idea, foolishly or schis- 
 matically broached, of a diviiie or Jiecessanj right to 
 judge^ from the fact of the clergy, in certain of those 
 meetings, having been used to sign. * These synods 
 cannot decree on matters of faith or general discipline : 
 the bishop has the authority to make his clergy sub- 
 scribe, as, cofisetiiing. 
 
 From this we begin a new subject. It is that, on 
 which Coliimhanus has been most prodigal of his zeal 
 and kind lano-uaere. I am now to examine his assault 
 on those Catholic bishops of Ireland, who have asked 
 and received coadjutors with the chance of succession. 
 To meet him, in the first instance, on the abominable 
 perversion of those facts, which he affects to relate, 
 would be the easier way. But I will, at once, close 
 with the proofs; and, when I have exhibited the 
 scholar i I will return to compliment the zealot. 
 
 *' The present mode of appointing bishops to Irish 
 " Catholic Sees, diametrically repugnant to ihcjifty- 
 *' second canon of the oecumenical council of Nicea, 
 
 « A. D. 
 
 * See BenaUict xiv De Synodo Diceces. Tib, xiii. ch. 1 and 2. vol- 
 2. p. 195, Edition of Fcrrara. 
 
441 
 
 " A. D 325, and to theffth Canon of the council of 
 " Rome, A D. 465."* 
 
 Now, there never was a Jifty-second Canon of Nicea. 
 There never was a Canon enacted in that council on 
 .the subject. Our Author, as we have seen, when ar- 
 guing: from Rufinus the incontrovertible asjainst a 
 western patriarchate, declares against all Nicene Ca- 
 nons, save those in genuine Greek copies :f these 
 Canons ai'e but twenty in all. Shall you not allow tlie 
 great authority of Columbaiius to be opposed to itself ? 
 \ ou will argue however, that Columhanus has retracted 
 tJiat retractation, when he informs us, that in" the 
 Bodleian library and iiitcr Codices Justellianos is pre- 
 served mi ancient copy of the Nicene acts, as collected 
 by Dionysius Exiguiis^ in which copy a Jijty-third 
 Canon, de ordinandis Episcopis, corresponds with that 
 published by Labbe and referred to by himself, in the 
 passage before us.f , 
 
 Has Columbanus read the originals in the Bodleian ? 
 Surely, surely, he has. He would not insult his most 
 ignorant readers, by the gross and impudent resource 
 of alleging an authority that had no existence. But 
 how shall we excuse Diojiysius Exiguus^ who, in the 
 nineteenth century, and thirteen hundred years after 
 his own decease, returns to inform Columhanus^ in de- 
 2 I- nial 
 
 « Colaiiiban fiist letter, p. ",9. 
 + Colum'-:an. tbiid 1 tU-r p. HO. HI.- + Fourth letter p. ?1. 
 
fiial of his o%mi former testimony, that a Jifty-third 
 Canon had been framed at Nicca ? This Dionysius, 
 in the sixth century, translated the oriental Canons : 
 his version is still entire, and corresponds exactly with 
 the Greek text in the number of canons to each couft- 
 cil. But this is not all. He declares,* that from the 
 Nicene council to that of Constantinople he has num- 
 bered the canons ; that he has inserted j between those 
 two syriodsj even those minor councils, which pre- 
 ceded that of Nicea, and that the sum total of canons 
 is 165, according to his Greek vouchers. According 
 to Dionysius the oriental canons are, respectively, of 
 Nicea 20 ; of Ancyra 24 ; of Neocesarea 14 ; of Gan- 
 gra 20 J of Antioch 25 ; of Laodicea 59. For this 
 several enumeration Dionysius is authority : he is be- 
 sides authority for a sum total of 165. If to the seve- 
 ral numbers above given, we add the three first canons 
 of Constantinople, ^\ith very little help from mathc^ 
 tnaticSf Columbanus may convince himself, that the ac- 
 count 
 
 * In Epistola ad Stephanum Episcopum. In principio itaque Canones 
 qui dicuntur Apostolic!... deinde regulas Nlcseni Concilii, et deinceps 
 omnium Conciliorum,sive quae antea, sive <\\\x postmcdum facta sunt 
 usque ad syncdum centum quinquaginta 'Pon\\hc\xm...sub ordine nu' 
 mtrorum, id est, a prima capitulo usque ad centesmum iexagesimum quiri' 
 turn, sicuthabentur in Graeca auclorilafe, digessimu?. The Zc/i/i part 
 of the first collection of Dionysius began with the council of Sardica, 
 and ended with the African councils. Of this collection the Epitom<' 
 sent by Hidrian I. to Charlemagno (Hard. Ill '203*. and Lnbb. ' : 
 18C0.) preecrres the order. 
 
443 
 
 count will correspond, and that Dionysius, isohen lii>' 
 
 ingt neither wrote nor collected that 53d canon of 
 
 Nicea, which is preserved in the Bodleian, inter codices 
 
 Justellianos. 
 
 The compilation, on which our author takes stand, 
 
 is, at the earliest, of the eighth^ and possibly of be- 
 tween the 7iinth and tenth centuries j the translation, 
 to which he refers, is of the seventeenth century, and 
 out of the Arabic language. The formidable canon, 
 in English, is as follows. The version of Columbanus 
 shall appear below, so that the reader may have the 
 satisfaction of beholding his improvements. 
 
 Title of Canon. " That no bishop during his own 
 ** life, is to chuse, or appoint his successor." Canon. 
 ** No bishop, in his life-time, shall chuse or appoint, 
 ** either from amongst his kinsfolk, or from them who 
 ** are strangers to his blood, a person to succeed him, 
 ** on his decease: neither shall he chuse a man ofau- 
 " thority in the city, to be established therein as bi- 
 ** shop : but upon his decease, let there be chosen either 
 *' from amongst the priests, or the Monks residing in the 
 ** monasteries of the deserts^ or even from the laymen, a 
 *' person of known learnipg, and application to the 
 *' study of holy writ, and of distinguished qualities and 
 *' worth ; and let such man, though a foreigner, be 
 *' ordained the bishop. For "whetiever such a person 
 *< shall be found, his ordination shaU not be hindered^ 
 
 ** on 
 
444 
 
 <' on account of his being a man of authority and liealth. 
 ** ThisCanon has no sanction of spirittud punishment.'"* 
 
 After the quotation o^ his ^fifty-second canon, our 
 valorous Author ci'ies out, " This canon is too clearly 
 ** expressed to require any comment. It is the de- 
 *' cree ef an oeaimenical council. Will the Irish bi- 
 ** shops, j^ the sake of preserving their uncojitrouled 
 ** dprninion^ venture to resist the evidence of a general 
 *' council, as the high priests of the synagogue ventured 
 *' to resist the miracles of 3 . C. ?"f (i. e. Jesus Christ). 
 
 The parallel is well chosen, and the unceremonious 
 
 familiarity of Columbanus v/ith J. C. may justify a 
 
 little over-straining of the privileges which he derives 
 
 from his otvn acquirements. Yet the reasoning will not 
 
 do, 
 
 * Columban. first letter, p. 40. translates in this manner. " Let 
 " no bishop living elect or appoint for election his own successor, — let no 
 " bishop, whilst he lives, either elect or appoint fur election another, who 
 *' may succeed him after his death ; neither from amongst his neigh- 
 " hours" (so he translates fropi-'quis), " nor from those who are remote. 
 " Neither shall he elect to preiide-over hisfellvx citizens, any man from 
 " amongit the higher ranks, n-ho may be appointed thei^ bishop. But, after 
 " the bishop's death, let them elect some man from amongst the prii'sts, 
 " or monks, or the laity, who is known for his learning, and perusal of 
 •' the holy scriptures, and conspicuous for his virtues and probity ; and 
 " although be should b^ a stranger, let him be ordained." In this 
 TCrslon, not to dwell on the beauty and clearness of the passages un- 
 derlined, I wish it to be observed, that the monks living in the (le:erls 
 are omitted totally, and piovidcntly, as no wo'j^j; were known beyond 
 Egypt in the time of theNicene council. Again ; the title of the ca- 
 non is absurdly translated as an enactment. However even this is sur- 
 passed by the discretion, which dropped the entire of the conclusion. 
 + Columban. ibid. 
 
44.5 
 
 do, though stilted upon the assumption of a prophe- 
 tical termagancy. The decree is not of a general 
 council ; and, though it liad been such, it is nothing 
 to the purpose. So that this concluding flourish, 
 (saving the hint of our autlior's intimacy, in the 
 easy way, with our dread Redeemer) is a chorus M'ith- 
 put a ballad. 
 
 Suppose the 'thing just quoted to be the decree of an 
 oecumenical council, and to have been resolved even at 
 Nicea. Before we could justly term resistance to a 
 general council (for in truth, I am at a loss for meaning 
 in the words, resistance to the evidence of a general 
 council) any variance from the rule so decreed, it 
 would be necessary to ascertain two points : the one, 
 whether, in the mind of the enactors, the canon had 
 been intended for a uniform direction, not only in cir- 
 cumstances present to the legislators, but, notwith- 
 standing any change of circumstance ; the second, 
 whether, eVen supposing the Nicene fathers to have 
 intended the canon to be a durable law of discipline, 
 the law notwithstanding may not have carried within 
 itself the reason of its own suspension in after times j 
 in other words, whether the mischief against which the 
 Nicene fathers had provided in this said canon, miaht 
 not have removed itself to an opposite station, so as to 
 justify the literal intermitsion of a rule, for the object 
 of securing that, which the rule could no longer 
 defend. 
 
 A rational and just man would have sought to clear 
 
 these 
 
446 
 
 thcrs two points, before lie condemned. But since I 
 have tc do with a severe and Spartan-like inspector of 
 canons, I would humbly interrogate Columbanus, whe- 
 ther all the Nicene canons, I mean the genuine 
 iweny canons, are such as no bishops can decline from, 
 w ithout resembling Annas and Caiaphas in guilt ? Let 
 us take the last canon of Nicea. It wills, that no Ca- 
 tholic shall kneel in the church on Sundays. Is it not 
 so ? Yet this canon without any formal abrogation has 
 been in disuse through the West for ages ; nay, possi- 
 l)ly was never received, or never w as meant to bind th? 
 West. Did. the West in this particular, resist tlie evi-^ 
 de?ice of a general council ? There is another canon, 
 the sixteenth of Nicea, which interdicts giving clerical 
 reception or entertainment to a priest or deacon^ 
 quitting his diocese ; nay, if notwithstanding such 
 inhospitality, the emigrants will remain abroad, the 
 cecumenical council isollls them to be ejccominunicated. Yet 
 priests quit their dioceses at present, and are not ex- 
 communicated by the foreign bishops. Would Colum- 
 (janics resemble those bishops to Annas and Caiaphas ' 
 The same council of Nicea decreed the metropolitan 
 prerogatives inviolable. At that time Byzantiiim was 
 a subordinate bishopric under Heraclea. Byzantium 
 soon after was exalted into an imperial city : it became 
 Constantinople, It had subdued, in the fifth century 
 and before any new canon law on the subject, that 
 yerj'' Heraclea, whose pre-eminence over Byzantium 
 
 the 
 
447 
 
 the Nic6ne council had guaranteed. Shall wc infer, 
 that saint John Chrysostom, that Sisinnius, that Fla- 
 viim the martyr, by resisting the evidence of the sixth 
 Nicene canon, were, in their conduct, successors of 
 ^^ the high priests of the synagogue, "who resisted the 
 ^^ miracles of J. C. " who resisted the evidence of 
 his miracles so far, as to have planned the death of 
 Lazarus along with that of the Christ, in order to 
 exterminate the gift, as well as the Giver of life ? Again ; 
 the council of Nicea had confirmed the precedency of 
 Elia, sidiject 7ievertheless to the jurisdiction of Cesareu. 
 Yet, in the council of Chalcedon, the bishop of Antioch 
 surrendered to Elia his three provinces in Pales- 
 tuie, and by that compromise subjected to Elia thosi,- 
 metropolitical rights, which had been guaranteed to Ce- 
 sarea over that same Elia by the Nicene council. Were 
 the bishops in the council of Chalcedon like Annas 
 and Caiaphas ? Our author seems to forget, that the 
 first council of Jerusalem was, according to his own 
 system, the model of all councils, and that, if so, as to 
 authority of discipline, it must have stood consequently 
 «shigh as that of Nicea. In what other council has the 
 prohibition, enacted in Jerusalem against blood and 
 strangled meats, been repealed ? In the East the ctuion 
 is still attended to. In the West it continued to be 
 observed in the beginning, at least, of the eighth cen- 
 tury. Is the entire of the West under the curse of 
 Amias and Caiaphas on this account .'' Is England, and 
 
 its 
 
448 
 
 its established cliurch, in resistance, like Annas ani. 
 Caiphas to the oecumenical council of Jerusalem, for the 
 cause of the black puddings ? 
 
 Columbanusy it must be taken for granted, has read 
 over this digest, which he entitles Canons of the Nicene 
 council. What does he think of the 28th canon, which 
 forbids, underlain of excommunication and deprivation, 
 a priest to become surety, or to bear witness in a 
 criminal cause, or to accuse, or make reports against 
 any individual to persons in government, or to keep 
 on the watch as an uiformer, or to stir vip divisions 
 amongst the laity ? What of the thirty-fourth canon, 
 which requires the bishop or preslyytcr* to reconcile 
 Arians by anointing with the chrism, and reciting the 
 prayer of Dionysius\ the areopagite? What of the 3Sth 
 canon, translating the patriarchate of Ephestis, to 
 Constantinople,! which as yet had no existence, and 
 declaring the bishop of Jerusalem^ exempt ? What of 
 
 the 
 
 * By the provis-ion of the Jskene council, the bishop alone could re- 
 «onci!e Arians, and such was the discipline of the East and (Vest, tothe 
 end of the fourth century. Siiicii P P. Kpist. ad Himer. Tarracon. 
 
 •j- A name not given lo the Author of the Hierarcb. Caslestis, until 
 the end of the 5th century. 
 
 J Saint John Clirysoslom first interfered with Ephesus, on wliich 
 ground amongst others he was deposed in the synod qf the Oak by The- 
 •philus. 
 
 § Whom the Nicene Council, canon vii, had subjected to Cesarra. 
 
449 
 
 thd 37th and 44th, in which the bishop of Rome is not 
 only patriarch of the western bishops, but the gover- 
 nor of all the patriarchs, as Peter was over the heads 
 of christian religion ? What of the 55th canon, which 
 directs, that if a wife part from her husband in dis- 
 pute, and will not return, though recalled by the priest 
 and the bishop, the husband shall be free* to marry 
 another} Wliat of the 71st., in which it is provided, 
 that, whenever a husband shall be found falsely to have 
 charged his wife with infidelity, the wife, if she please 
 to keep her husband, shall have power to retain him : 
 but, if she will rather marry any other man, shall 
 be free and without blame in so doing? What, finally, 
 of the 25th canon, forbidding a christian to keep two 
 wives, or to maintaiii seraglios ? Does not all this 
 savour of the condition of religious dijcipline, as it is 
 known to have existed in the beginning of the fourth 
 century ? Does it not accord with what we learn from 
 the t'wenty canons of Nicea, and from the undoubted 
 testimonies of writers and fathers ? The Pope you see 
 ts declared patriarch of the west. ** There are four 
 ** patriarchates," says the 37th canon,f "throughout 
 '* the world, as there are four gospels, four rivers, 
 3 M *< four 
 
 * Evidently introduced under the pressure of Mahometanism as well 
 as the canons next adverted to. 
 
 + Borrowed from speeches in the second Nicene, and in the sync I of 
 Constantinople against Photius, between the eighth and ninth centuries. 
 
450 
 
 ** four angels, four elements, four winds, and four in- 
 ** gradients in the composition of man. The chief of 
 " these is the bishop of Rome in the see of Peter, a« 
 ** the apostles instituted j...and all the bishops of the 
 " world are partitioned amongst these four." Here 
 the incontrovertible Rufinus is scouted, and the radivi 
 of 100 miles J circumscribing the circle y is broken up 
 like a rotten twig. But it is not on such authorities 
 the right of Peter was founded ; nor is it lawful to build 
 upon that corner stone, with materials of stubble. 
 Columbanus is free to breathe hot and cold : but Nobis 
 non licet esse tarn disertis. 
 
 Yet although the compilation^ it may be said, should 
 be of the eighth or ninth century, the canon in question 
 may be genuine. How then came it to pass, that not 
 only in times immediately preceding the council of 
 Nicea, we find bishops appointing their successors, but 
 inmiediatelya/?^r the celebration of that council ? Pe- ' 
 ter the martyr of Alexandria had appointed Alexander 
 his successor.* This Alexander was the principal 
 framer of the canons of Nicea jf and, dying the same 
 year, he commanded Athanasius and no other to be 
 chosen his successor, ** Athanasius being absent," 
 writes saint Epiphanius, *' Achillas is ordained, in 
 
 " order 
 
 • Epiph. Melet. }/«)«;)(«» *«I«X«>f«f AXt5«vJf«. uvrn y«g J<«Si;^;ir«; 
 <rn f^titi film vf>» fr^iAft^ftrnt nsr^afe 
 
 t 111 literis C. N. ad Eccl. Alexandr. 
 
A51 
 
 ** order to prevent intrigue ; and governs three months. 
 " Upon whose decease, Athanasius obtains the chair, 
 ** which was due to him, at once by vocation from 
 " God, and by the decision of Alexander.^'* Atha- 
 nasius, in like manner, when near his end, declared 
 his choice of Peter, who succeeded him. Now, is it 
 possible, that Alexander was ignorant of the canon, he 
 himself had framed or suggested ; or that the party of 
 Meletius would have neglected to enforce this canon 
 against the appointment of Athanasius ? Were those 
 two great bishops combined, like Annas and Caiphas^ 
 to resist the evidence of a general council P Was Epi- 
 phanius a stranger to the Nicene canons, when he con'* 
 sidered the appointment of Athanasius, by his prede- 
 cegsor, as giving to the latter a just pretension and 
 title to preference ? Columbanus therefore has permitted 
 his oiion zeal on tliis occasion to take indecent liberties 
 with his own understanding. 
 
 So 
 
 * In Hasr Ar. xi. %to^i)^ivat K^iXXnv ^rame-e^vr* fiwus rfAi Affccyafiis 
 
 tzrif»»trnv • Ss fi^ovas tin Kouti U^turu^in iroifiuffinvn ru tK Qtav *(xA.^. 
 
 ftitu, x»i ««•« r^u fietxK^triu AXtlavJgott u^irfitt^. This sentiment is 
 repeated (Melet. vi.) Saint I'.piplianius was mistaken as to the suc- 
 ceision of Achillas : but he could not have been mistaken in the general 
 - principle, as agreeable or repugnant to the Nicene canons. From the 
 concluding part of this article it appears to have been written before 
 the second general council. 
 
4^2 
 
 So much for *' the ^^/^ij-sccoiul axnon of the comicil 
 of Nicea Md A, D. 325." 
 
 The sc'coiicl great authority is that of the Ilomau 
 council under pope HiUirus, which Coiumbauus intror 
 duces witlj proper formalities. *^ BeitremembeTed* that 
 -" a synod of forty-eight bishops, held by pope Ililtt- 
 *' rus at Rome in 4<>5, condemned xvith execration the 
 *' practice of some bishops, who appointed their owr} 
 *' successors ;'' 
 
 This assertion is utterly false. 
 
 *' And that all the assembled bishops, as soon a^ 
 *' that canon of condemnation was ready" 
 
 That canon of co7idcmnation was neither made nor 
 read. 
 
 " Base from theii- seats and confirmed it, with chrisr 
 *' tiaji abhorrence of such infamous practices." 
 
 Of all this, not a syllable is to be found, unless in 
 Columbamis. 
 
 *' And with loud and reiterated acclamations." 
 
 Before we hearken to those loud acclamations, let us 
 understand from the proceedings in the council, what 
 it was that the bishops conjirmed in that way. 
 
 In this primatial synod of Hilarus, tliree canons 
 were declared by the pope, I. Against the ordination 
 of Bigami, II. Of illiterate, or maimed, or persons 
 who had been under public penance, III. That each 
 bishop present should have the option cither to remove 
 such, if ordained by himself or his predecessors, or 
 
 to 
 
 * Coiumbauus page 41. 
 
453 
 
 to answer for his neglect before the holy see. In con- 
 clusion, the bishops are called on to delivor their mind 
 and reasons on these subjects, and to subsci'ibe in- 
 dividually. 
 
 *' Moreover," continues the pop,* " strange and 
 ** unheard of principles of error, make their appoar- 
 *' ance occasionally in certain quarters, as we are au- 
 *' thentically informed by letters out of Spain. To be 
 *' brief, some men consider the place of bishop, which 
 *' is only given to previous desert, to be, not the gift of 
 ** God, but a testamentary 'perquisite , and hold a belief, 
 
 *' that the pontifical dignity ig like devisable and isoorldly 
 
 substance f 
 
 • In Labb. iv. 1061, in which these canone are ill named 2. 3. 4. as 
 the preamble to the reading of the letters from Spain is marked orrono- 
 onsly Can. 5. 
 
 + Ibid. Praeterea, fratrcs, nova et inaudita, sicut ad nos, missis de 
 Hispania Epistolis, subcerta relatione pervenit, in quibusdam locis per- 
 v.ersitatum semina snbinde na3cuntur...DeniqueNonnulli episcopatiun, 
 qui non nisi merilis pracedenlibus dehelur,non divinum munus sed kceredila- 
 }ium putant esse cempendiiim ; et credunt, sicut res caducas atque mor- 
 i<tles, ita sacerdotium velul legatario aid teslamenlaiio jure posse dimhli. 
 Nam plerique sacerdotes in mortis oonfinio constituti, in locum stiutn 
 fenintur alios, designalis nominibits suhrogare : ufc scilicet non le^itima 
 /expectetijir electio, sed defuncti gralijicalio pro popuii habeatur assensu. 
 Quod quam grave sit, aestimate. Atque ideo, si placet, etiam ha7!e 
 Ikenliam generallter de Ecclesiis aufcramus, ne, quod turpe dictu est 
 homini quisquam putet deberi qaod Dei est. The phrases underlined . 
 tell pretty clearly to what species of appoinlment, Ililarus, perhaps 
 inaccurately, thought the case out of Spain to belong. The phrases 
 are all Jiduciary^ 
 
4^4 
 
 *^ substance i and can be transferred by the help oHhose 
 ^^JbrmSf 'which establish the t7iists of a last xvill. For 
 *' several bishops, when about to die, are reported to 
 ** limit their sees to others hy formal appointment in law ; 
 *' with the view, as it appears, that legitimate election 
 *^ sJuill not bevoaitedfor, but that the wish to discharge 
 *' an honwary duty towards the deceased, shall stand in 
 ** lieu of the assent of the people. Consider you, how 
 *' gi'ievous a matter this is : and therefore, if you con- 
 *'cur, let us abolish, by a general rule, this arbitrary 
 *' power throughout all the churches ; lest any man 
 *• sliould suppose (which it is shameful even to mention) 
 ** that the property of God is a debt or duty owing to any 
 « manP 
 
 Surely this statement, made by the Pope to his bi- 
 shops and presbyters, was not a [ etty feature in the 
 case, and might have been fully told out by Columba- 
 nus without prejudice to his candour, A more pro- 
 fane abuse of the law of trusts and legacies could not 
 be well imagined, than is here alleged. It was an at- 
 tempt as ridiculously wicked, as it would be at the 
 present day, to levy a fine, and, in directing the uses, 
 to give out a see to laymen in trust for one appointee 
 during his natural life. It was even more absurd. For 
 it went to im})ose a trust on those, who were in posses- 
 sion of an adverse rights and to do this, as was alleged, 
 by the aids of pretorian law. \\Tien Hilai*us had re- 
 presented such a case, and ordered the letter to be 
 
 read, 
 
455 
 
 read, it was natural that the assembly should cry out, 
 O Christ, grant our prayer ! Long life to Hilarus ! 
 ten times : — Let this sort of icswpation never be prac- 
 tised : six times : — The property of God cannot be be- 
 stowed by man J we beseech you, let it be ever 
 guarded ! we beseech you, to have it kept sacred and 
 untouched.* 
 
 The preamble, during the reading of which, the 
 council was applauding Hilarus, asks the Pope's con- 
 firmation for an act of theirs which they lay before 
 him, " at the desire of the province and in conformity 
 ** to ancient precedent."! If it should appear, that the 
 matter sought to be confirmed was not, whether a bishop 
 
 could 
 
 • Laob. 1062 E. Cum legerctur, (viz. the preamble of the letter) ab 
 wniversis Episcopis et presbyteris acalamatum est, Exandi Christ« - 
 Hilaro vita ! dictum est decies. Hxc prssumptio nunquam fiat : dic- 
 tum est sexies. 2,u<e Del sunt, ab homine ilari non possnnt (echoing the 
 late words of the Pope). Per D. Petrum rogamus, ut Jn perpetuum 
 serventur. Haec ut reserventur rogamus. These words are curiously 
 translated by Columbanus. " Hear this o Christ ! Long live Hilarus : 
 Let this nvdacity be nowhere committed ! God's gi/is cannot be giveri'tma^ 
 ailhe uiH of man," The remnant of the acclamations, which he ha« 
 carried hack to stiffen the loudness of these, shall be given in their proper 
 
 places. 
 f Beatiseime et apostolica Reverentia in Christ! a nobis colende Pater, 
 
 ut/ac/j/Tt nostrum quod tarn voto pene omnis provinciae qnam exemph 
 
 velusla::. in notitiam vestram defeitur, perpensis assertionibus roborare 
 
 dignemini. 
 
456 
 
 could recommend his successor, or appoint him, but 
 a quite diiferent cause, though implying possibly a 
 great perversion of that episcopal prerogative, the 
 consequence will be, that the Spanisli bishops, one 
 hundred and forty years after the council of Ni- 
 cea, had not, as yet, learned by hearsay of that 
 gxeat Jifty-second canon of the Nicene council. If, 
 besides, it shall appear, that Pope Hilarus ultimately 
 decided the point, on a ground expressly distmct from 
 the usage of reco7m}i ending sticcessorsy or appointing 
 them in a limited sense, what will have become of the 
 fabulous execration and cano?i of condemnation^ so 
 loudly confirmed by the "be it remembered" forty- 
 eight bishops ? To proceed with the letter from th& 
 Spanish bishops. " Nundinasius of Barcelona, now 
 '* with God, departed this life. He had established 
 ** our brother, Ii-eneus, a bishop within his jurisdiction, 
 ** with our consent J by the disposal of his last w///, he 
 " demised to him all, that his poor condition was pos- 
 " sessed of expressing Jiis desire ^ that Ireneus should 
 *' talce in succession after himself. But as to desert^ the 
 " authoritative opinion of the deceased is confirmed by 
 
 *' experience."* 
 
 " Here,' 
 
 » Labb. ibid. 106!2, Ilic Episcopo Yenerabili, fratri nostro Iien«u, 
 qut-in ipse antea in dxcesi sua nobis volentibus constituerat, der%-H7f- 
 qutns ei, quod voUiit //(z/j«7e/janpertas, in locum smmi nl sribsliiutretur, 
 
 tptavi! 
 
4^7 
 
 *♦ Here," say the acts, " n bishop, named Probus, 
 ** rising up from his thaii', said ; Tlie fonuer act wp.s 
 ** Uiwtul, the latter was not lawful. Successors are to he 
 ** given by God. Bij your apostle ^ I conjure you to make 
 *' head against this business. Hilarus tald, Head on.* The 
 ** notary continued j For the clergy and commonalty 
 *• of Barcelona, the leading men and majority of the 
 *-* province framed and gave in their instrument of 
 
 *' consent, and expected from lis, tliat Ireneus would 
 
 "be 
 
 oplavit, scd defunct i judicium in tjus meritiim non vacillat. AUbougli 
 the legal teims uptct and mbxiUuere axe, here used, and the s7/^/e»!cc 
 volunlalis aiLi'iium, I thiuk it wili be manifest to Lim, who reads the 
 wliolc letter, that Ni'.ndinasius never recurred to the mei hod charged 
 upon him ; and that the words ahxady cited are the expressions of the 
 bishops themselves, amounting merely to a dying lecumme'idiiliiin, which. 
 every bishop is bound to give. At the same time tiie phrase, ihrelvi- 
 quens gvod poluit hubtie iiaupeitas, being liable to be referred either to 
 the iee or to the recommendwvjii, but more naturally to the former, the 
 uncouthnesg of the stile was a just ground for the misconstruction of 
 the Roman synod. 
 
 * Ibid. Et cum legeretur surgens e Congcssu Probus Episcopus dixit. 
 Illud licuit, hoc non licuit. Successores D^us dat. Auctoritate vestra 
 resislite huic rei per apostoiatum (leg. cp isk/him vestrum). This in- 
 terruption by Probus is given by Coltimlianus as Sl confirmation by all 
 the bishops rising from their seats, in chiiuim abhorrence of the iiifamout 
 practice. Hi* version is, " zoe entreat you, by your aposlleMp, to 
 "resist this with o// your aulhoiili/." P. 41. His m'sapprehension of 
 aucloiHas may be pardoned ; so may his adopting the erroneowssposlle- 
 ship, for the adjuration by Peter. But how account for the we, instead 
 of Probus, and the mistake of Probus, whom the Pope silenced, for a 
 confir mation of a canon never made ? 
 3 N 
 
458 
 
 *' be allowed to succeed. We, considering the deli- 
 *' berate opinion of the deceased, finding the life of 
 ** Ireneus laudable, and satisfied of the importance 
 *' and numbers of those who petitioned, as well as view- 
 " ing the good of the said church, have thought it 
 ** best, that a bishop so great, who had been translated 
 *' to heaven, should be replaced by a prelate of not 
 *' inferior desert ; especially as the church in that 
 "town, in which Ireneus had been previously estab- 
 *' lished, has been always unquestionably v ithin the 
 *' ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Barcelona;* we there- 
 ** fore humbly beg, you will establish with your chief 
 *' authority our decree, which we consider to have been 
 *' made on just grounds." The case has taken a new ap- 
 pearance. The Spanish bishops do not consult on the 
 propriety of an appointment by Nundinasius, but seek 
 the confirmation of their own act, in having translated 
 Ireneus to Barcelona, which was forbidden by the 
 Nicene canon. It is now also plain, that the expres- 
 sions, seemingly intimating a legal bequest of the see, 
 were not considered by those bishops, as any thing 
 more than a recommendation by the deceased j and 
 that the latin word, substitution was not a term of coiir 
 
 veyance, 
 
 ♦Ibid. Noscogltantesdefuncti judicium, &c. optimum duximus ut 
 tanto Antistiti, qui ad divina migraverat, non minoi is merit! subUiiu- 
 erelur antistes, piaesertim cum Ecclesia illius Municipii, in qua ante 
 fuerat ordinatus, semper hujus Civitatis Ecclesis fuisse constet. 
 
459 
 
 veyaticey how unluckily soever it might have been in^ 
 trocluced. When this letter was read through, no 
 further remark was made either by the Pope or the 
 bishops. Indeed the text itself was the fullest refuta- 
 tion possible of the bad meaning, which its affected 
 Wording had excited. Next after this, was read ano- 
 ther letter from the same bishop against Sylvanus of 
 Calahorra, who had usurped on the rights of the 
 Metropolitan and of his brother provincial bishops. 
 This second letter being read, the bishops and pres- 
 byters in the Roman synod cry out ; *' We ask that 
 all this be amended j that all this be severely cured. 
 We ask that discipline be guarded ; that privileges 
 (Metropolitan) be preserved, that canons be adhered 
 to, — that the usurpers be chastened canonicall}', — that 
 the ordhiance of the holy see be kept without violation." 
 These are the acclamations, which Cohimlanns has 
 leiit to the business of Ireneus, notwithstanding that 
 they were appropriated to a different question, and 
 although they were uttered ahoiU a month after the for* 
 mer acclamations.* 
 
 The 
 
 * These laUer acclamations are partly garbled in Columbanus, mis- 
 led perhaps by his authorities ; partly are m'Stranslated with cruel 
 blunders. He translates " ut disciplina servetur, rogamus ; \xt ami- 
 quiias servetur, rogamus j ut Canones custodiantur, rogamus ; ut in 
 pT<Fsumpioribus vindicetur, rogamus j ordinatioafoslolica\\\ibA\.tseT\e' 
 tur j — We dtmand, that discipline be maintained! Wedtmand, that 
 andfnt Canons be aditered to I We dtmand, ihat the violators of them be 
 
 punished ! 
 
4(30 
 
 The rescript of Ililmusto the Spanish bishops fur-» 
 nishcs iiuli.4)utable evidence, that the Pope did not 
 persist in impeaching the apjoiniment of Ireneus, oji 
 the grounds of an improper recommendation. In- 
 deed, that he would iuive acted ] igorously in resting on 
 that point, is scarcely to be cjucstioiicd : for IreneuS, 
 if otherwise eligible, had liic full consent of the clergy 
 and people, as well as the concurrence of the bishops, 
 who declare, that they luid taken into considerationj, 
 not only the recommendation of the decea:5ed, but 
 also the general wish and consent, the merits of the 
 candidate, and the advantage oftiic particular church, 
 Now, attend to the papal decision concerning Ireneus. 
 ** In the proud spirit of disobedience and contempt 
 
 " towards 
 
 piinishfd ! Let apostolical oidinalion be preserved inviols^te." As many 
 miitakes as acclamations. 1. The m ^ta;;e old rmj' di i: appears from 
 the coinse of papal synods. 2. An ijuil'. . is t« v^arQitx, or cnetri.'poli- 
 tical prerogative. 3. Pixsumptor, i» not j >;oIi<m' of CaU' ns gene- 
 rally, but of the canonical rights of the provincial h sh ps m metro- 
 politan j as peryaior is an actual iri\ader of thi limrs oi territorial 
 jurisdicticn. 4. Oidinatio apostidka ')S t.ol ajjosloliea! ordinuiii,rt, hul thi 
 apostolical or papal oidinatice. 
 
 In the acts of th s Roman synod there ,s a chasm of more than a 
 tnonth between the first sittiig and/o'»»e» a(c!amainins, ar,d the final 
 sitting with those last-mcntioiipd acclamations. Th.- first sessitm was 
 held 15 Kal. Dec: in the la-t the letter or rescript to he Spanish hi- 
 shops was read and ordered lo be publ shed, (p. 1064, quondam prz- 
 sentis). This letter is dattd 3 Kal. Jan. Tlie senientue Ephcoporum 
 belong to the former session, and have no connection with the business 
 of the last day. 
 
4i31 
 
 " towards the 318 Fathers, even that canon has been 
 ** slighted Jbrbi (Id ing any v:a:i to quit his chinch and to 
 *' iistoy the ]as:aje to a act her : this is what Irenetts the 
 *• bishoj] a'femjJts to pra:tice, under your gros3 conni- 
 ** vance, not to say your maintenance ; and i!ohatyou 
 *' naish to haje confirmed by our authority." Ireneus is 
 next ordered back to his own church, and a bishop is 
 ordered to be chosen from the proper clergy of Bar- 
 celona. The decree adds gencrail}', but without any 
 application, *' Nor let the episcopal dignity, which is 
 *' conferred on us by the bounty of God alone, be sup- 
 *' posed a devisable property."* Hilarus could not 
 have withdrawn his first opinion on the case, more 
 effectually, than by thus inculcating generally an 
 undisputed maxim, yet justifying his refusal of the 
 confirmation sought, on those very Nicene canons^ of 
 which a dispensation was asked. 
 
 What think you at present of the attempt lo prove 
 9.Jifty-second canon of Nicea from the synod under Hila- 
 rus ? What do you think of the loud w^clamatioiis^ the 
 execrations^ and rising up in abiiorrrence o^iii'i infa- 
 mous practice ? Hilarus abhors the taking legal posses- 
 sion 
 
 • Labb. iv, 1036. Hi!ar. Epis*. ad Ascaii. In quorum (ccoxviii 
 Patrum) contumeliam a supubo spiiiiii psrs ilia C'jnieiuiiiinr qua 
 vetatur, ne quis, reiicta F.cclesia sua, ad alteram liansiie prcemmal , quod 
 iiimis improbe conniventibtiset, utdoieatur gravius, vob:s asst-rentibui, 
 Irenaeus Episcopusconatur adiuittere. And (iii. ibid.) Ncc Episcopatus 
 houor hcerediian-um jus pu'.eUir, quod nobis sola Dei nosU'i beniguitate 
 poafertur. 
 
462 
 
 hion of a see by force of the law of devises^ and at- 
 tempting to transmit episcopal authority by the words 
 of substitution in a Trust-deed. His zeal is dix'ected 
 against a monstrous error, which he declares to be 
 without a precedent and past belief. Such was the 
 abuse, which the Pope either detected, or surmised 
 in the pi*oceeding at Barcelona. Consequently, the 
 strange and novel attempt could not be any thing such 
 as the greatest bishops of the church had prac- 
 ticed ; even Ambrose, in his Inst moments, and when 
 almost speechless. Hilarus, although he proposes to 
 abolish^ such arbitrary power ; yet afterwards, as we 
 must suppose, being better informed, is satisfied 
 with declaring against that, which no christian in the 
 civilized world ever attempted to palliate, that is to 
 say, the transmission of authority in the church, by 
 the rules of descent or of devise.* 
 
 We have got over two of the forjnidable arguments, 
 namely, '* the councils of Nice and Rovie^ 'whose canons 
 
 ** are respected hy all the different sects of christians 
 
 ^^ from 
 
 » Natalis Alexanrjer, a most in<iustrious and very often a judicious 
 compiler, is quoted by CAumbunus, ibid. p. 43. However the passage 
 <tuoted is literally copied from the words of Hilarus already given. 
 Columbams also quotes Sandini, a modern Liieraleur, in proof, that 
 " Hilarus prouiuIged/i,e Qamns for settling ecclesiastical discipline, and 
 by <Ae /ai< enacted, ih:it no biihop should chuse fiis successor." Columb. 
 ibid, in note. Was it not as easy to have seen, in the council itself, 
 that nofve canons, nor such fi/lh canon existed, as to see, that San- 
 dini copies, from some other book, that such canuns were madeo 
 
463 
 
 ^^ft-om pde to polCi"* and no wonder thej' should, 
 being iiivisiblc. We have a third argument to come, 
 and another, Be it reyncmhercd. 
 
 ** Be it remembered, that the great saint Augustine, 
 ** ^finding that this decree" (i. e. i\\e^fftij-second canon 
 of the Arabic compilation made owl four hundred ^ecu^s 
 after his death)^ ** had been violated in hisownnonii- 
 " mination to the see of Kippo, throws himself on 
 •* the mercy of God and the forgiveness of the Catho- 
 ** lie church, because he knew not at the time of his 
 '* nomination, that such a decree, as the -above Nicene, 
 " had ever been made. Adhuc in coi-pore posito 
 ** S. Mem. Patre et Episcopo meo, Scne Valeric, 
 *' Episcopus ordinatus sum et sedi cum illo, quod Con- 
 ** cilio Nicaeno prohibitum cs?>e nejciebam nee ipse 
 ** sciebat.f 
 
 It cannot be surprizing, that saint Augustine knew 
 nothing of the above Nicetie decree, since Athanasius 
 and Alexander and the Nicenc coimcil itself never 
 heard of it. I hope, that the bishop of Hippo has 
 obtained the fo7'giveness of the Catholic church for the 
 irregularity of his nomination : but I cannot repress 
 two observations upon this argument. The first, that 
 ColumbanuSi against his usual way, has omitted the 
 translation of his Latin text, which, in short, means 
 thus. " While my father and bishop Valerius, then 
 
 *' advanced 
 
 * ColumU same letter p. W, f Columb. ib'l. n. 42. 
 
464 
 
 " advanced in age, was yet living, I was ordained 
 " bishop, and / governed as bishop in partnership 
 ** 'with him, which I did not know to be forbidden 
 *' by the Niccne council, nor was he better 
 •' informed." Here I understand, why the Latin was 
 left to shift for itself. Saint Austin declares, not only 
 that he was ordained in the life-time of Valerius to be 
 a bishop, jointly with him, but tl;at they both go- 
 verned, as joint possessors^ which was forbidden by the 
 Nicene council. This truly points at once to the 8th 
 canon, disapproving of two bishops in one city ; that 
 is to sav, t'iVO bishops holdi?!g a coequal right of church 
 government, or, two supreme ecclesiastical rulers. 
 Without sroinor further than the Decretals, Colura- 
 la.uis would have found the letter of Paulinus* felici- 
 tating the appointment of Augustine, not as an as- 
 sistant bishop, but as an additior.al independent bishop 
 in the church of Hipporegia. The Africans had no 
 Chorepiscopi : their usage was against multiplying 
 sees ; and as to ordaining to foreign titles, the practice 
 had not sprung up, for Christianity had not as yet lost 
 an inch of ground. Therefore even the ordination of 
 
 saint 
 
 ♦ Decret. q. Caus. I. 9. 1. xii. Paulini ad Romaniannm. Non autem 
 tantuin hoc scribimus g/atulamlum, quwi Episcopatuni Augustinus ac- 
 ccpeii*. std quod banc Dei gratia curara meriierint AlVioanae Ecclesiae, 
 ut verba coelestia Aiigusliui ore perciperent : qui ad majorem Domi- 
 nici muneris graliam novo more provcclvs ita consecratns est, ut non 
 succederet in cathedra Episcopo, sed accederet ; nam, incolumi Valerio 
 Hipponensis Ecclesiae Episcopo, Coepiscopus ordinatus est. 
 
40J 
 
 saint Augustine as bishop, even without the express 
 addition of his having been joint governor in the 
 church, even without the testimony of Paulinus, did 
 necessarily inip».)rt a dupHcation of the episcopal office 
 and pastoral rank in one and the same church, which 
 the council of Nicea intended to abolish, but which 
 subsisted for several years, after that council, in re- 
 mote districts. 
 
 The second. observation I am compelled to make is 
 this. ColumbanuSi four lines after this argument 
 quotes Natalis Alexander. Now, that Author* gives 
 the same argument, (taken from the attempt of Abra- 
 ham Echellensis to bolster up the authenticity of the 
 Arabic canons) and the same quotation from saint 
 Augustine, and answers it, as 1 have done. When 
 Columbanus borrowed the objection, he might as well 
 have borrowed the solution, and then confuted it, if 
 so pleased to do. 
 
 But, what if the great saint Augustine, while thus 
 tlu'owing himself on our forgiveness, — while pleading 
 ignorance of that Nicene canon, forbidding bishops t^ 
 chuse or appointor election their successors; what if the 
 penitent saint Augustine did himself at tlie very same 
 time wickedly and of prepensed malice, recommetidy de- 
 signate or appoint Jor election^ and cause to be elected one 
 Eradius, to be his successor ? Impossible ! you will say. 
 3 o Impossible 
 
 • Vol. «. 251 B. Ed'ti Par. U")9». 
 
466 
 
 Impossible snre\y/if any ^ii/-seco7id canon was known to 
 him. Augustine convenes liis people, and, as if to resist, 
 like Annas and Caiaphas, the evidence of a general 
 council, he says, " Mi/ Kill is that Eradius shall sue- 
 ** ceedme." Eradium Presbyterimi succcssorcm mihi volo. 
 Tliink of this ! " But I will not have that matter of blame 
 *' objected to my Son, which was alleged in my own 
 *' particular : he shall remain as he is, a presbyter, with 
 *' the certainty of being bishop, when God shall please."* 
 The people thanked saint Augustineyor his designation:\ 
 the notaries took down their acclamations and consent ; 
 and thus the ^^ canons venerated from iwle to pole" 
 were lamentably not made at the time. 
 
 ** Will the bishops," says Columbamis,X *' shake the 
 " Irish Catholic church to its foundations by venturing 
 *^ to persevere to nommixtQ their oion successors, in defi- 
 *' ance of these venerable decrees ? Will they overturn 
 ** the sacred ca?ions of the universal church ? Let them 
 ** answer to their country, and above all" (herecomes 
 Jonah the Prophet in a new trim), " to God, whose 
 •* tremendous judgments approach them near at hand, 
 *' whether a bishop appointed by a living bishop, to be 
 ** his Olson successor, can be conscientiously considered 
 
 *' elected 
 
 • Suod reprehensum etl in me, nolo reprehendi infiW) meo. Erit pres- 
 byter, ut nunc est, quando Deus voluerit, futurus Episcopus. T. 2. Ep. 
 215, Edit. Venet. 
 
 Indicio too gratiag agimus. % p. 49, 43, 44. 
 
 \ 
 
^^ elected by the S^)Irit of God', he being nominated 
 ** laithout any election. Is tliere a protestant bishop 
 ** in Ew'ope, who would dare to bequeath his diocese, 
 *' as the Catholic bishops now dare to do in Ireland. 
 *' Pudet haec opprobria nobis, et dici potuisse, et non 
 ** potuisse refcin."* 
 
 Let not any reader laugh at this sample of coun- 
 terfeit fanaticism. It is by such methods, disho- 
 nest and disgusting as they are, that the cause of 
 anarchy in religion is evermore conducted. What 
 signifies it to the leveller's conscience, that his asser- 
 tions are fabulous, and that his convulsions of inspi- 
 ration area jest, provided the multitude will take all in 
 good earnest, and follow the prophet ? It is not true 
 indeed, that at Nicea or at Rome such canons were 
 madej it is not true that all sects, or any sects of chris- 
 tians from pole to pole venerate those unexisting canons : 
 but, if the assertion of untruth will serve his purpose, 
 why exact from Columbanus a delicacy as to the means 
 of pursuing an atrocious design ? When he summons 
 the Irish bishops to answer to their country, he does 
 nothing more than has been often attempted, in stir- 
 ring up a spirit of bloodshed : when he threatens them 
 with the near approach of God's tremendous judgments, 
 
 he 
 
 * In Englisb. " What, shame ! that such vilfi rf^proaches should be 
 cast upon us, and this witliout the possibility of refutation." On 
 whom, or by whom the vile reproaches are cast, Columbanus leavers 
 to guess. 
 
468 
 
 he merely pronounces a sentence of damnation upon 
 those bishops, while he turns thci;i over to the justice 
 of the count) i) ; and, by this precautionary recommen- 
 dation, secures them against the danger of an acquittal. 
 That Colinnbamis has not been attended to in Ireland by 
 Catholics, must not be thought to diminish the merit 
 of his endeavour : let him but have his clioice of ma- 
 terials and of men j you will fmd him succeed as well 
 As John of Leyden, lliough he siiOiild quote j)ope 
 Sinbad the sailor instead of pope T^ilarus, and tliough 
 he should appeal to tlie original manuscripts of Gil Bias 
 for the suhitrbicarian territory. 
 
 After the tragical parade of the 52d of Nicea, of 
 the synod of Hilarus, of the cojitrition of Augustine, 
 Bodleian manuscripts, divine judgments and national 
 impeachments, I find Columhanus acknovi-ledging,* 
 that saint ^Wff?w///i^ of England, (Bede B. .2. ch. 4.) 
 
 SsLCcrdos 
 
 • Columban. first letter p. 70. 71. " Another ti;Vr,wf; not c^uite so 
 " pri'f'gale, may be founded on the exaaiples E'c." \'h s paragraph of 
 Columbanus begins without any sort of co'inrct^oii, Pv<-n of optical iHir. 
 sion, with the preceding matter. No o-'jec im had been pvev ously 
 adverted to j mr indeed is the tenor of discourse quite as rational as 
 it m'ght be. However, caiuJ. ur f)bliges me to state, tha' the Author 
 in his prologvs galeaius, informs our Nation, that in his hurry to sub- 
 mit his resfarchcs to thf^ Irish on saint Vail kk's day, 1810, (a day, as 
 ■we all know, imniemorially <"onseciated to metapViysi'al soberness and 
 canon law |>«n;«v/(;e) he mistook t/ic name of the Dublin Cuadjulor, whom 
 he had anathematized in the text, as appointed m'.hout the Spirit qfGo4 
 and in a naij expressly forbidden by the canons. 
 
469 
 
 SiicerJos of Lyons and several others,* as menlioncd 
 \>y Natalis Alexander, T. 5. did appoint their condju- 
 fors, cumj'nlura'siarcssiotie, in consequence ol" iUness 
 pr old age. But Columhanus remarks, that ** Natalia 
 *' Alexander, the learned Theologian, observes, that 
 *' these cases are exceptions io f/wlaxvs, and reptignafii 
 *' and revolting to the spirit of the church : that even 
 *' in these cases the free consent of the diocesan clergy 
 *' 'ii'as required ', and that in no case could a bishop be 
 ^' obtruded on the clergy of the diocese, if they were 
 ** unwilling to receive him." 
 
 Must I answer this nonsense ? Must I reason against 
 a man, who, ih the same one breath, terms the same 
 instances exceptions to the laws, and repugnant to the 
 spirit of the church ? O foolish civilians and phi- 
 losophers! Your opinion had been, ihsii every exception 
 to la-vo had been provided for, either in its text or by 
 its spirit. You were simpletons in the business, which 
 Columhanus has taken up for his occasional recreation. 
 You must invert your language henceforth, and satisfy 
 the inquisitive species of mankind, how cases v/ill 
 happen to be excejitions to a laxo, in other words, not 
 tc be within its letter or provision, and yet to be revolt' 
 ing to the spirit of the legislator. An exc ption, said 
 an old legal writer, confirms the rule ; and such indeed 
 was anciently the condition of the laws. tVom the 
 
 proclamation 
 
 • Columb. Ibid, p 71. 
 
470 
 
 proclamation of Coliimhanns on saint Patrick's day, 
 1810, the exception to the law is to be a violation of 
 its spirit^ as to all penal intents. May God defend us 
 from the peril of such rigorous critics becoming the 
 executive instruments of any human law, or the ex- 
 pounders of any divine law ! 
 
 Natalis Alexander, it seems, is a learned theologian 
 for Cohmihanus ; nor do I di-jnite the great industry 
 and einidition of that Author. But I have alwaj's un- 
 derstood, that he who appeals generally to the opinion 
 of an ai'bitrator, does virtually own the competency of 
 that man's judgment, on every question of fact con- 
 nected with the decision. How comes it to pass, that 
 when this Natalis Alexander vindicates to the bishop 
 of Rome the abstract rigjit of ordaining bishops 
 tlirougliout the West ; that, when Natalis Alexander 
 refutes at length and satisfactorily (though I have ab- 
 stained from using his proofs), the silly argument from 
 Rufinus concerning a suhurhicarian dS.'i,\xicl\ Colum- 
 hanus not only has quashed in high silence the learning 
 of the Theologian on that subject, but has involved 
 him, as a stickler for the Western patriarchate, in the 
 censure of total ignorance of ecclesiastical histoi'y ? 
 This is not consistent. 
 
 But how does Columhamis quote the learned Tlieo- 
 logian ? Truly, by representing, as of one passage and 
 one age, two several extracts, which, separated by one 
 hundred years, are divided by near three hundred folio 
 
 pages 
 
471 
 
 pages intervening. The passage referred to by Coluiyi' 
 banns in the text (T. 5. 451) regards the sixth century 
 and the beginnhig of the seventh. The general prac- 
 tice of that time is thus recorded by Natalis Alexander. 
 Bishops "jcerc wont to designate coadjutors^ v:ith a contiji' 
 gent succession, to themselves, ivhcji either the 7iecessitj/ or 
 the advantage of the church required that measure* Not 
 to speak o^ truth, is it not a grievous affront to reason 
 itself, that Columbanus should represent the Theolo- 
 gian as declaring those instances to be repugnant to the 
 spirit of the church, which the Theologian himself de- 
 clares to have been either necessary to the church or ad- 
 vantageous ? Again ; Columbanus pretends that, ac- 
 cording to the learned Theologian, the consent of the 
 diocesan clergy was necessary even in these cases, that is, 
 the cases of Augustine, Sacerdos, and the others. Now, 
 of such consent not a syllable was written by the 
 Theologian on the subject ; and from t]ie very foremost 
 of his instances, namely, that in Bede's history of Au- 
 gustine of Canterbury, it is evident, that no such con- 
 sent was thought of. *' Augustine," writes the vene- 
 rable Bede, " was succeeded in the episcopacy by Lau- 
 *• rence, whom he himself in his life- time had ordained, 
 *' lest, on his decease, the state of the church, as yet 
 ** unfinished, should totter, even for a little space of 
 ** time, for the want of a pastor. Li this he Jbllo-vDed 
 
 " the 
 
 • Nat. Alex. ibid. §. x. Coacljutorcs cum futura siiccessionesib! desi^- 
 nabant cpiscopi, si id nece^situs aut ecclesiae commodum fosiidarel. 
 
47!2 
 
 " the example of the frst yhej'hurJ, I nwon, that of Pe- 
 " ter^ the chief of the apostles, Avho, having founded 
 *' at Rome the church of Christ, h related to have 
 " ordained Clement at once his coadjutor in the gospel 
 ^^ preaching, and his successor.*" Could Natalis Alex- 
 ander, wlieu lie refrrrcd to Bcdc, have been either so 
 stupid ns to foist into this account a ncccssari/ consent 
 of the clergy, or so wicked as to impeach the precedent, 
 made by saint Peter, of revolt or (f repugnance to the 
 Sj^irit of the church P 
 
 So much for that part of thecjuestion, which Colum- 
 hanus has marked as of Natalis Alexander, when re- 
 lating the designation of Laurence by Augustine, and 
 the instances of Sacerdos and the others in the sixth 
 century. It remains to examine the observation attri- 
 buted to the learned Theologian, as if made on those 
 instances, but in fact applied by Natalis Alexander to 
 the preceding centuries, especially the third, fourth, 
 and fifth. Let us give the instances from the Theolo- 
 gian himself. 
 
 First, 
 
 » Ee<le Hist. Lib. 2. c. 4. initio. Successlt autem Augustino in opis- 
 Cfipatu Laureiilius, qucm ipse idcirco adhuc vivus ordinavcrat, «p, se 
 difnncto, status eccleslae tam nidis ve! ad horam pas'.ore destitutus 
 vacillaie inciperet. In quo et exf mplum seq\iebatur primi pastoris 
 ecc'.f-si ae, id est bratiss. Apostolonim principis Petri, qui, fundata 
 Romae Ecclcsia Chiisti, Clf^mentem sibi adjutorem evangclizandi 
 simul et successorem conseciasse perhibelur. 
 
473 
 
 First ; Valerius ofHi^po procured saint Augustine to 
 be ordained joint bishop "joith himself. This instance 
 is given at length by Columbanns^ with the small mis- 
 take of having confounded ^'o/w/ bishop with coadjutor. 
 
 Second j saint Augustine^ with the consent of his 
 clergy and people^ appoi)ited Eradius to succeed him,' 
 self. This instance has been prudently omitted by 
 ColumbamiSy and honestly. It might have thrown a 
 doubt on the penitence of saint Augustine, as well as 
 on the 52nd Arabic cation, isohich is the 5Srd inter 
 Codices Justellianos. 
 
 Third instance ; SeveruSy bishop of Milevis, appointed 
 a successor to himself mth the consent of his oxvn clergy, 
 lanthout asking the consent of his people. Upoti the de- 
 cease of Severus, some disagreement ensiced, tvhich tioas 
 pacified by saint Augustine. This instance is not men- 
 tioned by Coluvibanus for very obvious reasons. 
 
 Fourth, fifth and sixth instances ; Alexander, in 
 the fourth century, appointed Athanasius his successor. 
 Alexander of Constantinople apjmnted Paul and Ma- 
 cedonius as most isoorthy to succeed him. Athanasius 
 appointed Peter to succeed him. Hie magistrates and 
 people agreed in the election. These instances are 
 omitted by Columbanus for right excellent and worthy 
 reasons. 
 
 But the seventh instance of Ireneus is not forgotten 
 by our Polemic, nor the observation, that Pope Hila- 
 rus declared such desigtiations by bishops at the point of 
 3 p deathy 
 
474 
 
 deafhy 7iull and void, tho't'fh made iiilh the consent of 
 the jprovincial bishops. Calumbamis could not forego 
 this in.stance and observatior, although grounded in a 
 double uiifetakc ; because, fust the case of Ireneus was 
 really decided upon as a case of translation^ which I 
 have proved: again j the provincial bishops neither 
 were asked nor granted any consent to the designation, 
 until after the death of Ntii/dinasius, as we have seen. 
 
 Eighth instance; On the flight oi' Narcissus ^ ahi- 
 $hq}' was ordained to Jerusalem by the provincial bishops j 
 omitted by Columbanus. Columbanus however does not 
 omit the council of Antioch in the fourth century, for-- 
 bidding, as Natalis Alexander observes, such desig- 
 nations at the point of death, I therefore am [bound 
 "^lot to omit, that this council of Antioch was held by 
 Arianbiskops., the conspirators a gai'ust Athanasius^ and 
 that the canon in question \^•as made by those conspi- 
 rators, and with the evident intent of crushing the 
 orthodox churches, by •depri^dng bishops of that ne- 
 cessary remedy. 1 am bound not to omit, that Beve- 
 ridge must have mformed Columbanus of this fact, 
 even though he had not learned, that John Chrj-sos- 
 tom impeached those canons on this very ground, and 
 that Innocent I declared, that those canons were not 
 acknowledged at Rome. 
 
 Columbanus does net omit the remark of the learned 
 Theologian, that such designation was alwaysyor^z^ 
 to the usages of the church ; but he envenoms the obser-i 
 
 vation 
 
47-5 
 
 ration by rendering it revoliing to the spirit of thd 
 church; thus attainting the saci'ed memories of the 
 greatest doctors of faith and luminaries of holiness, 
 that have ever appeared. 
 
 But how will Columbmius extenuate the prudence of 
 his omittingf thcSe concludinff words of the learned 
 Tlicologian ? " Although, "dohenever the good of the 
 *' church demanded, the most holy bishops, either with 
 ** the consent of clergy and people, or mth the con- 
 " sent of the pro7)inCial bishops, designated their succ^s- 
 *' sors, or ujjpointed coadjutors with the hope of sue- 
 ** ceeding" Quamvis, postulante Ecclesiae bono^ 
 sanctissinii Antistites, clero et plebe, vel comprovin- 
 cialibus episcopis consentientibus, successoi^es suos des-^ 
 signassent, aut coadjutores cum spe futurae successionis 
 assumpsissent.* 
 
 " Pope Celestine I.," adds Columbanus ** who sent 
 ** saint Patrick to Ireland, exhorts the clergy to resist 
 ** stKh uncanonical nominations, (i.e. designated coadju" 
 *' tors with the chance of succession) and to ijisist on a 
 *' bishop being chosen from amongst the clergy of the 
 ** vacant diocese. Leo the Great says, JEx presbyteris 
 ** ejusdem ecclesiae vel ex diaconibus optimus eligatur^ 
 " i. e. Let choice be made of* the best presbyter or 
 *' deacon of the same church. Epist 84." f 
 
 To 
 
 » Naialls Alex. T. 5. p. 177. 
 •f- Columban. ibid, in note " Tunc alter de altera eligatur Eoclesia 
 " si de Civitatis ipsius clericis, cui est Episcoj.iu ordinandus, nullus 
 '•dignus, quod evenire non credimus, poterit inveniri, sit facultas cle- 
 
476 
 
 To begin with the last, namclj-, with Leo the Great, 
 if is true, that he has written the words alleged j they 
 appear in his instructions to the bishop of Thessalo- 
 nica (Labb. iii. 1385. S. vi.) ; so that I have nothing to 
 reply beyond two Utile points : the ^rst^ that neither 
 in this, nor in any other epistle, does Leo treat of, or 
 allude to any designation of coadjutors or successors ; 
 the second, that, of this very quotation, the first lead- 
 ing words have been suppressed, viz. " on the death 
 ^^ of a Metropolitan -J*" and that Columhamts forgot to 
 state, that, in the preceding paragraph, Leo had 
 allowed bishops for sees ?iot ■metropoliia7i to be chosen 
 without any such restriction, because we know, that any 
 bishop might resign his clergj'man to another church. 
 
 Now, as to Celestine I., w/;o sent saint Patrick into 
 Ireland, first of all, neither does Celestine mention 
 a tittle of designating coadjutors. Secondly, he does 
 not write to the clergy, but to the bishops in Gaul. 
 Thirdly, he does not exhort the clergy to resist, and 
 k) insist on a bishop being chosen from amongst the 
 clergy of the vacant diocese. 
 
 The 
 
 " ricis renilendi, si sc viderint praegravari, et quos ingredi sibi ex 
 " adverso agnoverint, non timeant refulare." Such is the quotation as 
 giTen hy Columbanus from the papal letter, on which I wrll barely ob- 
 serve in this place, that instead of ingredi ex adverso, the words in the 
 letter are, ingeri ex tramverso. 
 
 * Metropolitano vero defuncto. 
 
477 
 
 Tha reader will be pleased to Icnow, tliat tlie worcle 
 of Celcstine, omitted by Columhanus, declare, tliat bo- 
 fore a clergyman be taken out of another cliurcli for 
 the office ot bishop, all the clergymen of the vacant 
 diocese should be inspected and set aside. Thcj 
 also declare, that no t;lerg-ynian should be deprived of 
 the fruit of his long and asaiduoKS residence in that 
 church, in which he had served through every degree 
 from his first vocation.* 
 
 If this regulation were still in force, tlicn adieu to 
 t!ie pretensions of absentee candidates. The letter of 
 the pope continues ; " Let the clergy he cmpoweredis 
 " take defensive slejis^ if they see themselves a\'erborne 
 *' unfairly ; nor let them fear to disproxie tlie claims of 
 ** those, whom they find driven in upon them 
 ** athwart their progress." 
 
 This was written by Celcstine to the bishops of the 
 two provinces of ^''ienne and Narbonne: it directs 
 those bishops to maintain the clergy of a vacant dio- 
 cese in the right of appeal, and in the privilege of im- 
 peaching the -competence or su}>eriojity of a foreign 
 candidate. By Columhanus the direction to bishops is 
 ^'efined into an exhortation to the clergy themselves. 
 
 Of 
 
 * Primum enim il!i (civifatis ipsi-us cleiici) reprobandi sunt 
 ut aliqui de alienis Ecclisiis meiito praeferantur. In altena stipendia 
 minime alter obrcpat, nee alii d»faitain sibi alter viadicet tncrcedeoi, 
 Labb. iii. 1621.5. .'>. 
 
4/8 
 
 Of necessaiy consequence, the cxJiortation can be n<5 
 othor than to rcaistand to i7isist j in which two points, 
 we have ibiuul the entire of the second ordcT qfColnm^ 
 ianus very steady from the days of Constantine. The 
 ending words of tliis quotation are omitted b}' our 
 author; " For all hough thei/' (the clergy of the acant 
 see) *^ should not obtain the in'ize due to them, they 
 " should possess at least the freedom f}f judging concern- 
 " ing that person "ivho is to be their 7'7der."* A strong 
 specimen of the art of quoting is here given by Colum- 
 bams. After distinguishing (with what justice we shall 
 see hereafter), between election^ as made by the people, 
 and appointment, as made by bishops, he first misquotes 
 the address of the letter ; next, he omits the conclu- 
 sion of the paragraph ; from both of which it is evi- 
 dent, that the bishops were instructed to maintain the 
 rights of the clergy against some certain third party ; and 
 that the right oithe clergy was not of insisting peremp- 
 torily, whereas Celestine supposes a case of their 
 being defeated. But what is best of all, Columbanns^ 
 who gives the Latin words marked below,f which 
 plainly refer to the j3C>/w/«r choice, inasmuch as they 
 
 refer 
 
 * Qui elsi non debitiim przmium, ve] liberuQi tie eo qui eos rectu- 
 rus est debent habere judicium. 
 
 + Tunc alter de altera eligaiur Ecclesia, si de civitatis ipsius clericis, 
 cui est Episcnpus o.dinandus, &c. Amongst other proofs for e/ec/ien 
 hy clergy and representatives of the people, Columbanus alleges tbe title in 
 the pontifical, De consecratione Elecli in Episcopuin. 
 
479 
 
 yefer to a case, on which the clergy are liable to bs 
 rejected, one by one, and on XK,hich their remedy i« 
 given, by Celestine, in appeal ; Columhaniis^ I say, dis- 
 regarding at once the sense and the phrase, nuii'iijor- 
 phoses the case of^ peojyle and clergy at issue, ii.to one 
 of iincanoniccd appointment b\ bis/inp<;. 
 
 This dictatorial method of acting towards Cclestine 
 I,, who sent saint Patrick into Ireland, is the moi'c 
 blameable, as that pope has more than once inculcated, 
 from what quarter the abuses arose of preferiin^ fo- 
 reign clergymen and laymen to episcopal sees, Tvesto- 
 rius had been taken from Antioch and ordained to 
 Constantinople by the wish of the Emperor. When 
 it became necessary for the pope to rebuke Ncstorius, 
 he did not fail to blame tho foolish preforence shewn to 
 reported goodness* above the approved wo)th of the 
 clergy of Constantinople. When, Nestorius being 
 deposed, Maximian was ordained to the see of the 
 capital, this same Celestine extols the purity tf his 
 appointment, because he neither had gained that sta- 
 tion by the ostentatious display of wealth, nor by 
 leaping over the intermediate degrees, as was done by 
 ambitious candidates, but by the suffrage of the hum- 
 ile and religious multitude j\ to whom he had dispensed 
 
 seasonably 
 
 * Cslestin. ad Nestor. Aliquantis diebus. Labb. iii. p. 353. 
 •f Labb. ii. p. 1626. setl suffragio ponfierum, quibus fidelis servus et 
 prufiens cibum da^at in tempore, super omoia domiui sui constitutus 
 est bona. 
 
seasonably tlic spiiitiuil food; From tlie letter of tins 
 Ce^estbie I. to tiie byiops of Apulk and Ciilabria, vrs 
 learn, that tFie abuse of tlie laity electing layvien to 
 hhTinprics^ had introduced itself into the South of 
 Italy, " We are informed," Avrites tliis pope, nxho 
 sent saint Patrick into Ireland, " that certain cities, 
 *' whose bishops have deceased, are about to demand 
 ** La\TTnen to be ordained tlicir bishops, not only 
 ^^ judging imfairhj of tlicir onsen clergy^ in scorn to 
 ** whom they act thus, but harbouring the worst possi- 
 *' ble opinion of us, when they imagine we can ac- 
 '* cede to sucli demands. They never would presume 
 *' thus, were not the inclination of some individuals^* 
 (I, c. bishops) " in connivance with the unlawful at- 
 *' tempt. We warn 3-ou, each and all, not to admit 
 *' Into ecclesiastical rank any layman, lest, &c. Tke 
 ^'^ people is to be to tight ^ 7iot to be Jbllourd. It is cur 
 ** duty, when they are ignorant, to admonish them of 
 •* what is lawful or unlawful, not merely to lend our 
 *' will to theirs. Let this be published through the 
 ** vacant dioceses."* 
 
 Does 
 
 • F.pi&t. 3. Lab'o. i . io22. AtidivJmus ^Hasflam propvlis destitutas 
 rectoribiis civilales Episcopos sibi veUe petere ue laias... non solum n>aie 
 ^e iuis derkis^ (in quorum contempt iim lioc faciunt) judicantes, sed 
 de nobis pessime, quos credunt hoc posse facere, sentientes. Quod 
 nunquam. auderent, "si non quorumdum illicitis consentiens senttntia con.m- 
 
 veref. 
 
4S1 
 
 1)0 not these extracts throw light on the epistle 
 lo the bishops of Vieniie and Narbonue ? Do they not 
 shew whencj dangers aros^^- ? Do they not tell aloud, 
 that Celestine had in view the growing evil of the pow- 
 erful laity, and rich clergymen speculating upon church 
 honours^ when now the church had gained temporal 
 ejido'jcmcnis ? Does not Celestine, by an ostensible let- 
 ter, blame the truckling of some bishops to profane 
 speculation ? Does it not appear manifestly, that the 
 pope, whether he directs the clergy of a vacant see to 
 be preferred before foreigners and unknown persons, 
 or whether he reprobates the election of laymen to 
 bishopricks, seeks equally to oppose the influence 
 exercised by the ^«y electors P 
 
 I find however a distinction made between the ordi- 
 nation oi foreign clei'gymen and that of laymen. The 
 former is allowed under certain restrictions : the latter 
 is declared to be incurable.* Now, what are we to think 
 of Columbaniis, who in one and the same publication, 
 appeals to this Celestine against the ajjjjointments^ by 
 3 2 bi shops f 
 
 veret fraternitatem ^<'slram commom mns ne quis laicum ad onli- 
 
 nem cleiicatus admittat...doceiidus est p.ipnlus non seqnendiis. Nosrjue 
 si nesciunt eos, quid liceat, quidve non lioeat cumnwrierc, nnn lii4 
 toiiseiisuin piaebeic dfhenius...Per tolas ergo lioc, quae piopriis rec- 
 toribuscarenl, Ecciesias voluiuui innotescat. 
 
 * Coelest, in Epistol. ad Episc. N. and V. §. vi. Abstineatur cliam ab 
 an. ills ordinatioiiibus. N:/l!us ex /(i/c/s...ordinfctiir...si qu le facta sunt 
 i liicilae ordinatioriey, rtmoveantni quonlam ifareno?i vomml. 
 
hishojjx, ot'bisho])s ; and appeals lo a 52(1 canon of "* i- 
 cca, for the lawfulness of coiiscoating a lai/mariy which 
 Celestine declares to be beyond a dispensation in liis 
 age ? Again ; what arc we to think of ColumhantiSy who 
 alleges the authority of Justinian for tie mode of 
 electing bishops,* whereas Justinian expressly admits 
 the ordination of Iai/:w;i i/irce vionths after their elec- 
 tion^ in direct contradiction to the authority of .Celes- 
 tine, w//o sent saint Patrick into Ireland, of Zosimiis,f 
 of Innocent \.,\ of Siricius,^ and of the council of 
 Sardica,f of which the canons were associated by the 
 church of Rome with those of Nicea ? 
 
 Since Colmnlanus has kindly introduced to cur 
 notice Celestine I., who sc7it over saint Patrick, may 
 1 be permitted to quote tlie opinion of this pope, 
 concerning the divitie right of the second, order to dis- 
 cuss and judge on causes of faith ? His letter to the 
 bishops of Gaul, rebuking their passiveness for al- 
 lowing the memory of the glorious saint Augui-tine to 
 he reviled by certain presbyters, and the indepejideni 
 authorifij of teaching to be assumed by the second order, 
 is so very exclusive as to risk the following words : 
 * ' It is to j-our blame we may more justly impute this 
 
 " disturbance, 
 
 * CoKinib. Letter firsf, p. 47. 
 
 + Ep. i. 3<] Hfsyiliium Lahh. ii. 1556. 
 
 + Ep iv. ibid 126 iilf. § \\>.'\. p. 10'21. 
 
 ^ Ciiii. xiii. ( :i Dioiij's. Ex.) x. in Greek. 
 
483 
 
 ** disturb .mce, when those presbyters have the licence 
 
 '-■ ■'-> d/stius or your heads. Wliat can be hoped for 
 
 •I scale of thin<ys, where the masters are silent ^ and 
 
 speahf ivh'j if the fact he as stated, coidd not 
 
 ' ■, /i their scholars ? 1 fear tliis silence may be 
 
 I suspect, that they, laho jw»?// 
 
 ^Jc so, are in reality delivering those 
 
 *' Si.uai;ii.iiti.-. 1 -.t then the persoiis I advert to be 
 
 *' '">■•'• ■ • '■ ■ • them not be allovocd to hold forth as 
 
 — My brothers, hold a consultation 
 
 " . I he Catholic laity. — Let those persons 
 
 :'^ yd they obtain the dignity of presbytershipy 
 
 iCy are subjected to you. — For what is yo2ir 
 
 * • ' , ' .'fess in the churches, if th.rse persons shall take the 
 
 *' cln:f authority, A^hich is preaching ? Unless, perhaps, 
 
 *' you are prevented by the circumstance, tluit some 
 
 •' of oar brother bishops, have gained admission to 
 
 " our college from the clasi; of laymen, and are there- 
 
 " lore igncrctnt of their own rights.'^ Celestine co7i- 
 
 clude-, " We shall wait to be informed, that you feel 
 
 ** displtasui'e, as we do, on these subjects. The proof 
 
 ** we will expect, is, that you have imposed silence on 
 
 " those pervei*se men, and that all complaints have 
 
 " been finally stopped."* 
 
 What 
 
 « Episl. I. ibid 8621. §. i. Vestrae dilcclioni jiist'ms impuianms, 
 quaudo ilii (presbyieri) " habeant it/pcrvoi dispitlaniJi fi,jlcilr!i£m...Qu.d 
 illic spei est, -abi magisiris lacentibiis hi loq'ainlur, qui, si ila est, eonirn 
 
 diSrijiuji 
 
48 -i 
 
 Wliat a pity, that Celestine L, -jo/io sent ova- our 
 apostle, should have maintained such gross Mahome- 
 dan and Castahalitan positions ! O that he had but lived 
 fourteen hundred years longer ! Had he but lived to 
 learn the Traite deTettide and ihe Droit dixnn dcs cures, 
 and fvom his o^dvi epistle (as explained by Columbanus), 
 that the clergy have a right o£ resisting and o? insisting, 
 of Jicdgini:, and discussing on all jioints of faith ; that 
 their mission extends to ihe^ends of the World, and that 
 XkiQ-^ cannot he silenced; had he but known this, he 
 might have taught saint Patrick better things, before 
 his journey. 
 
 To sum up what has been proved or refuted hi- 
 therto. The Jirst council of Nicea enacted no Jifty- 
 second, nor any canon whatever concerning the recom« 
 mendation or appointment bj' bishops of successors to 
 their places. No Roman coinicil under Hilarus took no- 
 tice of any stich Nicene canon. Dionysitis Exiguus, by 
 arithmetical demonstration, declares against the pie- 
 tended 
 
 Uiscipuli non fuevuut. Timeo ne cnnnivrre iit hoc tacere : timeo ne 
 magis ipsi loquantur, qui permiftant illis taliter Ioq(ii...Ergo corripi- 
 antui' hiijusmodi. Non sit il/is libenim huherepru vuluntale sermonem .. 
 Habetole fraties carissimi pro Catholicae plebis pice tractatum. Seiant 
 s°, SI tamcn censeaniin fucibyterif dignilalf, vobis esse subjectos...Natii 
 quid in Ecclesiis Vi'S agiiis, si JUi iummnm tencanl praedkandi ? Nisi 
 forte illud obsistat...ut aliqui de fratiuni numero, miper de laicorum 
 tonsortio in collefiiuin nostiuni fortasse admissi, nesciant quid sibi debe- 
 ant nendicare ..lnt^!Iigan1us haec ipsa vobis, quae nobis non placent, 
 displicere, quod ita demum probare poterimus, si, imposito impyol'n 
 silenlio, de tali re in posterum querela cessaverit. 
 
485 
 
 ttndcd Niccne canon. The chief propounders of the real 
 Niccne canons, and the chief supporteis of tliat coun- 
 cil have proved by their acts, that no such canon as 
 Columbanus lias presumed was made at Nicea : yet 
 Columlanus appeals to the Nicene council, and to Hila- 
 riis of Rome, and to Dionysiiis Exigims, for an aid, 
 v.'liich they not only cannot afford, but most expressly 
 refuse. As to Celestine I., it is superfluous to tell over 
 again, how ruinously for Columbanus he was dragged 
 into the company of barefaced subornation. 
 
 In order to swell out his muster of forlorn authori- 
 ties, Columba7ius proceeds to examine, as it were, the 
 nature of episcopal elections to the str of Rome. The 
 pope, argues Columbanus, cannot appoint his suc- 
 cessor; therefore, much less can a bishop appoint 
 even a coadjutor to himself with the Jiope (i. c, the 
 contingent right) of succession. 
 
 Let us grant, for the present, that the pope cannot 
 
 appoint his successor. Let us not even seek to know 
 
 by v.hat positive law the pope is incompetent to make 
 
 such appointment 3 but merely bear in mind, that he 
 
 is the head of the Catholic charch. Unless vt'e are 
 
 disposed to cast off all common understanding, we 
 
 must see, that, instead of a parallel case, our author 
 
 i 
 
 has urged an exception. What would you think of 
 
 the man, who should argue thus a priori. The King 
 
 cannot bequeath his digi)ity to whom he pleases ; 
 
 therefore neither can the King appoint thelir^e of suc- 
 
 cessioi^ 
 
486 
 
 cession in a patent. Or take it thus ; the King atu 
 neither bequeath nor devise his kings/iijj ; therefore 
 no subject can devise his estate. ** But is not the 
 diocese of a bishop as interested in its own ejii&co- 
 pal succession, as the church at large can be in the 
 papal ?"* That question I will leave to be answered by 
 the feeling of each Catholic, nor do I care how it may 
 be answered. But I will ask my own question. Is 
 not the local church of Rome as well entitled to chuse 
 its bishop, as any other diocese ? Is tliis not a very 
 natural question ? Yet the church of Rome has its bi- 
 shop appointed by a majority of foreign electors ; by 
 presbyters and deacons of Rome in tiile^ yt-t, in truth 
 by a majority of bishops from extern districts. The 
 Catholicity of the Popedom, therefore, swallows up the 
 domestic rights of the Roman diocese ; and before 
 
 we 
 
 * Columbanus 4lh letter p. 75. In the discussion from page 71, to 
 page 77 of this fourth letter, there are astonishing discoveries: as for 
 example ; that the funi^ls, assigned by the first converts i)i Feme for 
 the subsistence of the clergy, were named titUs ; — that il:ese tiUa c.ng 
 determined to certain churches, as doors lo their hinges, wi-rt- denomi- 
 nated Caidtnalitialy from the Latin Cardo, a hingf ; that the cardinal 
 of each parish in Rome is the tilular, that is, \.hejigtire or piciiire of the 
 parish priest. {Columbanus has not provided for i\\e parishes not Car- 
 dinalitial, or for the churches of cardinal deacons). He exhorts the 
 effective parish priests of Rome to resume their rights, — to elect the 
 Pope, and promises them a real palm of Mabt^pdom. 
 
487 
 
 >ve can argue on the rights of a particular church, we 
 are bound to search, as in the case of Rome, 
 ■what rights the Cathohc system has gained upon the 
 fonus of domestic election, leaving untouched, as this 
 system must, in each church, all that is of faith, of 
 morals, and of social duty. Has Columbamis made 
 this search ? Is he disposed, if even capable ; is he 
 capable, if even willing? Of this each reader will 
 judge from what he has observed hitherto. 
 
 Now, by what law is a pope disqualified from ap- 
 pointing his successor ? Is it by a Nicene canon, or 
 by any regulation built on a Nicene canon ? No ; he 
 is disqualified by the ordinances of his predecessors, 
 which contemplated a state of things, wherein the 
 electoral body should vexnoanfree to assemble and to 
 chuse after a papal demise. Thus, in stating the re- 
 striction of papal power, Cohimhanus is as unfortu- 
 nate, as he has proved in his diverging parallel. But 
 Columbanus thinks little about the exactness of his facts 
 or arguments, provided these be animated and clamo- 
 rous. I am now to exhibit an instance of his sincerity 
 in quoting, which I esteem more splendid than ajiy 
 yet adduced; but which, at all events, is superior to 
 any thing attempted before his time. 
 
 *' Pope Symmachus convened a Roman synod in 
 " 499, at which all the bishnjjs of Italy assembled, to 
 
 ** deliberate 
 
486 
 
 ** dcliberaicj hoxc t)ic Niccnc canon already mentioned 
 •* shoiddbe enforced, with relation to the holy see."* 
 ~ The Nicene Canon alrcadj/ mentioned, namely, the 
 52d Arabic Canon, prohibits, as yon remember, a 
 bishop's electing or appointing for election his successor. 
 All tlie bishops of Italy therefore assembletl in 499, 
 according to Columbanus, in order to deliberate, hoix: 
 -popes coidd be hindered to elect or appoint for election 
 tlieir successors. Hold this quite steady, and ibllov/ 
 Columbanus. 
 
 *' Then and there it was determined, that if during 
 '* the pope's life-time aiiy clergyman should prouiise his 
 " suffrage, cither in writing or by word of mouth, 
 " to any man, for a future election, or should hold 
 *' any -private conventicleyor the purpose ff designating 
 " a future successor, or even (f deliherating on the 
 *' su'J:\'/-, he should be degraded and excommuni- 
 «' cated."t 
 
 This, one would imagine, is decisive against tlic 
 pope, if he should attempt to designate. The words, 
 if any clergyman, are \vithout exception to pope or bi- 
 shop. But let us go on. 
 
 ** And that he only should succeed, who was elected, 
 *' sedc vacajiie, by the free suffrage of all the clergy of 
 *' Romcj or by a majority of voices, canoniccdly, that 
 *' is,feely collected and obtained TX 
 
 Most 
 
 • Culumban. Letter foiutli, p. 32. + Coluaiban. Ibid, 
 t Cijlumban. Ibie], 
 
489 
 
 Most plainly by this regulation, the bishop of Rome 
 could not aiijjomf Jbf electimi ; because he^ only and 
 without exception, must succeed, who had been freely 
 elected, sede facayite. 
 
 But Columhanus has forgotten to prove, that the 
 synod meant to apply the 52d Nicene canon to the holy 
 see. He does not even shew, that the fifty-second 
 canon was mentioned in the synod. Granting however, 
 as I presume the reader will, that the canon al- 
 leged was neither made at Nicea, nor thought of by 
 the synod of all the hishojps of Italy with Symmachus ; 
 he may still insist, that those bishops tit least deter- 
 mined, that any clergyman, designating or even delibe- 
 rating concerning a future pope, should be degraded 
 and excommunicated ; of course, that the pope for 
 the time being could not designate. He may argue, 
 that as he only could succeed, who might be elected 
 freely, sede vacante, all papal recommendation was 
 useless, besides exposing the pope himself to degrada- 
 tion and excommunication. He would argue justly from 
 the text, as given by Columhanus. The synod itself 
 however speaks differently. What would you think of 
 Columbannsy if this very synod deliberately and ex- 
 pressly delared, that the pope 'was authorized to desig- 
 nate his successor, and that he should exert that right ? 
 What will you say, if the synod appears to prefer such 
 designation, as the necessary remedy for intrigue ? 
 
 Hear the opening address of Symmachus. ** My 
 3 R " earnest 
 
490 
 
 ** earnest solicitude for the liberties of the church hat 
 ** assembled you, my dear brothers, in this special 
 •* meeting, notwithstanding the inclemency of winter ; 
 ** that by oui' joint deliberations we may the more 
 ** efficaciously prevent, in future time, that spirit of 
 ** intrigue for episcopal advancement, that confusion 
 ** of principlc,^ and that excess of popular riot, which 
 ** took place at the time of my ordinatiorty through 
 *' the presumption of certain men.* And therefore 
 ** let us determine f\nd enact, distinctly and openly,^ 
 " what rule shall be followed for the ordination of a 
 *♦ bishop of Rome."! Of one falsehood we have dis- 
 posed by the mouth o^Symmachus himself. This pop: 
 informs his council, that the evils to be provided against 
 were those, which had occurred at his own election: 
 Columbamts informs his readers, that the object of the 
 synod was to apply the 52d canon of Nicea to the 
 succession of Rome. 
 
 I^ow attend to the regulations of the synod. 
 
 " I. On 
 
 * Labb. iv. p. 13] 3. Syrrmarbns Episccpus dixit; Concilium dilecti- 
 onis vesM-ae, neglecta hietnis asperitate, sol'icitudo nostra pro Ecciesis 
 indemnitate spec^aliter con^rpgari*, ut Episcopalem ambit timet con- 
 fusioriisincertum, vfl p<;pu!arem tumulluni, quam per surreptioncm 
 Diaboli, usurpatione al qnotuir, 'emp ue ordinaticmis nifs constat 
 rxortum, communicate paiiier tractatu, in futurum pusslmus robustft 
 ac vivpciter aniputare, 
 
 + Ibi '. Atque idfo trarff>rru<:, express's scilicet sent f n'iig saockntee, 
 qiiid circa Romaoi Epi^copi bid.uaUonem dtbeat custodiri« 
 
491 
 
 " I. On account of the many acts of intrigue, and 
 ** the exhaustion of church property, and the popular 
 ** collisions, which have arisen from the undue ambition 
 ** of candidates for the episcopacy... this sacred synod 
 ** ordains, that if awy presbyter^ deacon^ or clerlcy as 
 ♦* longa-i the pope is in life, and without the know- 
 
 ** LEIMJEAND CONSENT OF THE POPE, shall prCSUHie tO 
 
 ** lend his name in writing for the matter of the bi- 
 " shopiic of Rome, or make tallies, or bind liimsclf 
 *' by oath, or even promise a single vet?, or hold 
 •* private meetings to deliberate and decide on this bu- 
 ** siness; such person shall lose his rank and bede- 
 ** prived of communion."* 
 
 Now what do you think of Cdumhanus ? Attend 
 however to the synod. 
 
 11. " To the same puniohmont we subject the per- 
 
 " son convicted of having intrigued or attempted in 
 
 «* this 
 
 • Labb. Il)id. Propt-er frp^uetitos ambitus qaorumdam Rt ecclesiae 
 Qudi'atem, vel pupuli coll sijuem, quae molest a rt iniqua incompe- 
 tenter £pisccpa'u'ii desiderantium gener.TVit avidiias...conslitiiit S. 
 S^'iioduii, ut si pie>byfer aut diaconus aut Clericus, Papa incoluoii et io 
 INCJNSULTO aut sub^criptionem pro R. Poutificatu <ommodare, aut 
 pittacia comtnittere, am »aci amentum praebere teiitaverit, aut aliquod 
 certe suffragium poUicere, vel de hac causa privatis conventiculis factis 
 deliberare atque deceraere, Isk'i eu> dignitale atque commuoiooc 
 privetur. 
 
** this cause, during th£ life-timr nf the pope, as al- 
 *' ready mentioned."* 
 
 III. *' i/i v:hich God avert ! the decease of the pope 
 " shojdd be so sudden, as that he shall i»jot have 
 
 *' BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE ON HIS SUCCESSOU^ AS 
 
 *' ALREADY PROVIDED, aud if tlic wholc clerical 
 *' body sliall declare for one man, let that person so 
 " chosen be consecrated bishop. But if, as usual, there 
 '* shall happen to arise parties in the election, let the 
 *' majority of votes determine j provided however, 
 ** that he shall be degraded from his priestly rank, 
 *' who shall have been decided in his choice by the hire 
 *' of promises, and not by honest judgment. "f 
 
 What do you think of Columhanus P Was not the 
 Roman council asseinbled in 499, in order to apply 
 the fifty-second Nicene canon to the elections at Rome ; 
 and did it not enact, that no designation iXihatever of 
 successors should be attempted ? 
 
 By 
 
 > lijid. Pari severitate feriendo eum qui lioc, Tiro, sicut dictum 
 rst, Pontifioc, quolibet modo faerit ambisse convictus, aut certe 
 irntassc. 
 
 + Ibid. 131 4. Si, quod ahiU, transitus Papae inopinatus evenerit, 
 
 nt PE SUI ELECTtONE SUCCESSORIS UT SUPRA PLACUIT NON POSSIT ANTE 
 
 BECERSEiiE, si quidem in unum totius inciinaverit Ecclesiaslici oidiiiis 
 dectio consccrctur electus Episcopus. Si autem, ut fieri solet, studia 
 coepciint esse diversa eorum de quibus certamen emerserit ; vincat 
 snitcntia plurimorum : sic tamen ut«acerdotio careat, qui captus prO" 
 rr.issione non recto judic.io de elcctione decreverit. 
 
49S 
 
 By the proceedings therefore under SyvimacJms, we 
 liavc discovered that in 499, tliatis to say, above one 
 iumdred and sixty years after the Nicene council, no 
 Buchj canon against designation of successors^ as our 
 author relies upon, had come to the knowledge of this 
 Roman synod. Again ; were we destitute of other 
 arguments, tlie ordinance of this very synod would 
 stand as unanswerable proof, that in the council of 
 Rome, under Hilarus, assembled not forty years before, 
 no general decree was njade, nor were curses thun- 
 dered out against the practice of appointing an epis- 
 copal successor, in the life-time of a bishop. For the 
 use however of those, who may be not so deeply read 
 as Columhanus, 1 will remark, that the canons of the 
 council of Antioch, (that council, which confirmed 
 the deposition of Athanasius, and sent off George the 
 Cappadocian to replace him), were introduced to the 
 knowledge of the church of Rome, in the sixth century, 
 by Diom/sius ExigmiSy* when the infamy of their en- 
 actors was forgotten ; and that the twenty-first, in 
 order, of .these canons is that, which, affecting to 
 
 maintain 
 
 * The Canons of Antioch are quoted, fjr the fiist time, by the 
 church of Rome, in the schedule transmitted by John II. to Cesarius of 
 Aries, in the matter of Contumeliosus the bishop, (Lai)bv iv. 1756), 
 They are from th»i version of Dionysius, whose collection, as yet, hacl 
 not made its way into the Gauls ; for, in the appendix to the papal 
 ichedule, S. Cesarius quotes the ninth canon of Nicea from a different 
 translation. 
 
494 
 
 maintain the rights of the episcopal collge, aimed at 
 the abolitio"n of tlie orthodox prelacy. This twenty- 
 first eanon, rjotwithstandiiig the wicked design of its 
 framcrs, became useful in process of time, and there- 
 fore was extolled and was held sacred. As far as it 
 went to retain in the episcopal class the chief authority 
 of chixsing, as well as the entire authority of conse- 
 crating bibhops, it was good and serviceable againht the 
 inroads of temporal oppression. As far as it disaf- 
 firmed ordinations n)ade without the consent of seve- 
 ral bishops, it obviated the mischief of impropriation 
 of the church revenues, as well as the seculaii. ation of 
 church authority. In a higher point of view, the 
 great principle, that consecration of every bishop 
 should have the highe t evidence c^ canonicity^ was 
 veil provided for, by the adoption of this twenty-first 
 canon in the Westy when the secular influence of kings 
 or tyrants, or that of nobility, or of wealth, or of a 
 worse influence, threatened destruction to every rem- 
 nant of equitable freedom. That no one of these be- 
 nefits or advantages is now to be possibly derived 
 from the revival of that canon, because circumstances 
 political as well as moral have veered to the opposite 
 point of danger, and because the evidence of canonical 
 appointment or choice has entirely altered for the bet- 
 ter, lias been partly demonstrated, and will fully ap- 
 pear from my next, and concluding letter. 
 
 Columbanm 
 
4^5 
 
 Colnmbanus has missed, in his 52d canon, in hi* 
 council of Hilarus, in his repentance of Augustine, in 
 liis council of Synimachus. Irli&^fijiii-second canon has 
 been shewn so pitiful a fabrication, as to impose on no 
 sober man. His council of Hilarus has been rectified 
 from the council itself, and its execrations have been 
 soothed. The repentance of saint Augustine has been 
 discovered insinceie. Last and worst of all, the cojincil 
 under Symmachus, after thronging to Rome^*&7» all 
 quarters of Iluli), in 499, in order to deliberate on the 
 mode of applying to the H. See an Arabic canon, 
 made up about 350 years afterguards, this council is 
 caught infagranti ; in the very fact of empowering a 
 pope to designate his successor ^ and for the expressed 
 causes of intrigue on the part of clergymen, of fury 
 excited by them amongst the people, and of the sacri- 
 legious alienation of church pi'operty to men in power, 
 by those villanous candidates. But Coiumbanus has 
 one other instance to produce in support of his 52d 
 canon, and of his assertion, tliat, by virtue of this 
 canon, the pope could not nominate his successor. 
 Instead of availing myself of the right I have gained by 
 proving, as I think was never done in any similar de- 
 gree, that every text hitherto adduced by him is either 
 affected by gross misconstruction, or is tainted by an 
 abominable suppression of truth, or by unscrupulous 
 suggestion of falsehood, in the very matters at issue j 
 I willingly allow, that in the instance I am about to 
 
 examinei* 
 
496 
 
 examine, he has nii ancient voucher for every thing, 
 except his cvon additions. 
 
 *' Boniface II. indeed," says he, *' elected his own 
 ** successor, in a. packed Roman synod of the year 531 ; 
 ** but a subsequent Roman synod compelled Jiim to do 
 *• penance for so daring a violation of the" (Nicene) 
 *' canons. He tore in pieces the decree hy -ixhich he 
 ** obtained the signatures of the clergy to that scanda- 
 *' lous election^ and this he did in the presence of tlie 
 " clergy and the people of Rome : he burned it before 
 " saint Peter's cotifessional ; and he threw himself mi 
 •* the forgiveness of the christian 'uoorld by a public 
 *' retractation."* 
 
 In 
 
 * Columbauus 4tli letter p. 31. These assertions C )lumhanus main- 
 tains by a latin quotation from Natalis Alexander of these following 
 words. Bouit'acius concta liomce synvdo, an. 531, successorcm sibi, 
 pesiinw exemp/o, designavit Vigilium Diaconum, ciero consensiim suuin 
 Chirographis et jure jurando praebente et firmaute. Sed posimodtnu, 
 altera synodo congregata, puen'itendum et caiioiiibus contrarium drc.'c- 
 turn rescidit, and ante confeisionem beall Pelii, praesenlil)us Clero et se- 
 natu flanimis tradidit, ut testatur Anastasius Bibliotiiecarius in ejus 
 Vita. Ambitioue Vigilii et consilio ad tarn insolitum faciuns iu)])ul:>uiii 
 Eonifaciutn exSilverio papacolligeretur in decreto Anathematis adver- 
 sus Vigiiiuno, si genuhum. esset, T. v. p, 375. If any one of my read- 
 ers has occasionally shrunk under the withering touch of literai-y effron - 
 tery ; if ever he has enjoyed or suffered tljfi mixed sensation of ri«licule 
 and disgust, from the triumph of ready-made scholarship, in the pre- 
 sence of an illiterate crowd, and on a question of dead languages j that 
 reader may conceive pretty accurately wliul 1 now fer:l, when copying 
 
 this 
 
497 
 
 In ail this Cjlumhanushxi advancctl nothing without 
 authoriti/, except the packing of the sifnod ^ \}\c com- 
 pelling him to do penance ; tlia ohtaihing signatures by 
 the decree; the scandalous election; the tearing in 
 piece's ; the 2>>'^sence of' the people of Rome ; and the 
 thrcwing himself on the forgiveness ofil.e christian world. 
 If any other inaccuracies sliall be presently found in 
 the story, they ought in justice to belaid to the charge 
 of his vouchers. 
 
 Yet Coliimbamis is not so servilely addicted to the use 
 of vouchers, as to restrain liimself in the divine right 
 oi making out ex tempore a more full and more origi- 
 nal account of this very same transaction. " Boni- 
 ** face," said he,* " wishing to anticipate the interfe- 
 " rence of the Gothic kings of Italy, convened a synod, 
 " and "joith the consent of that synod named his own 
 " successor."* 
 
 This 
 
 this chef d'oeuvre of intrepidity and erudition, of which the EngHJt is 
 addressed to those who cannot read the Latin, and the Latin is addressed 
 to those who cannot understand it. Cogere synodum, i. e. to summon a 
 synod, is translated by Culumbunus to pack a synced. Is 'his ignorance, 
 or is it frenzy ? Decrelum fiocifendum, i. e. the unj cr lunate reiolution, is 
 translated by him,, the syno.i cojnfel/ed /iim to do penance for so daring a 
 violal'ton of the canons. Is this laughable blunder, or pitiable visitation ? 
 The Confessio, or Ma^rv^itf, or moinnnental martyrdom of Peter, he 
 translates, the conftaional of saint Peter. Yet Coliimbanus, if aUHset 
 were removed, is disposed to remain a Catholic, notwilkstar.ding h . r.^ • 
 fiiirtme'itf. Reicidil also, i. e. he reaiudcd, he makes to (ear infieccs, 
 •Culumb. Firit letter, p. 74. 
 
 3 s 
 
498 
 
 This is handsome enough : but it now appear?, that 
 between the years 1810 and 1811, Boniface was foim 1 
 guilty by Cohimbanus of having packed the syncd of 
 531. He goes on. " In order to render this decree 
 ** the mcn-e bindings he demanded of the assembled clergy ^ 
 ** that, having acceded to the noniination of VigiHus, 
 ** they would all sign a decree of election in hisfavotir, 
 ** and swear to abide by it, "whatever might be the xvill 
 ** or pleasure of Alhalaricus king of the Goths. The 
 ** clergy agreed : the decree was signed ; they evtii 
 ** swore to abide by it."* 
 
 I have only to remark, that r.U I have lately placed 
 in Italics, is pure, unalloyed fiction j is perha; s so truly 
 the invention of Columbanus, that he might apply bona 
 fide for a patent, to secure his Boniface and king of 
 the Goths. The rest is only blunder, in deranging hi» 
 authorities, or mere want of discernment and hero- 
 ism of appetite in swallowing huge apociypha. He 
 goes on. 
 
 ** But a few days had scarcely elapsed^ isohen it cc- 
 ** cutred to some of them that this proceeding uias utterly 
 " repugnant to canonical discipliiie." The Italics, as 
 I said, are fictions, historically speaking. Yet how 
 beautiful is the it occmred to some of them, when the 
 iome of them cannot deny the anecdote ! 
 
 " The 
 
 ♦ Columb. First Letter, p. T4. 
 
499 
 
 * ♦ The pope himself began to feel he had acted illegally." 
 Tills also I set in Italics for the reason assigned. Still 
 the fiction is elegant in the selection of a critical mo- 
 ment for the beginning of the pope's remorse. The 
 aro'.ved object of Columbanus here is to prove, that the 
 pope cannot appoint his successor ; his single illustra- 
 tion ik the case of this Boniface. Yet, after relating the 
 proposal of a successor, as well as the assent, and free 
 signing and swearing by the clergy, on a sudden the 
 pope began to feel the illegality of his act ; in other 
 words, he began to feel, that he could not appoint his 
 successor. This is exactly what Columbanus undertook 
 to prove. Is it not ingenious to have proved the ille- 
 gality of the act, by telling us, that Boniface himself 
 began to feel its illegality ? 
 
 ** The clergy became clamorous fm' another council to 
 *' reconsider their act." This in Italics. But how 
 consistently with dramatic rule does Columbanus per- 
 severe in making that class on all occasions disorderly ! 
 They cannot even require another councillor re-consi- 
 dering their o'wn nct^ without becoming clamorous. 
 
 •* A new council was accordingly convened, and the 
 " question being calmly re-considered, the oath alrea- 
 ** dy taken iias declared unlauoful^ as being repugnant 
 ** to the sacred cunons : the Decretum so unanimously 
 *• signed was committed to the flames, and the old la'w 
 
500 
 
 *' ti'<7s renntedifJiat no pope should nominate a si^rrcssof 
 *^ /or hhnse(f." 
 
 Ynu will attend to the Italics, es}>eciallv- of the 
 concluding assertion. Is it not the proof of an eccen- 
 tric mental vigour, to complete a demonstration in this 
 way ? The pope cannot nominate his successor w as the 
 tlu'sis, implying that roine law or other forbade tlic 
 nomination. What is the name of that /cm- P When 
 was it enacted ? Columhanus answers, that Boniface II. 
 appointed his successor J that a council agreed, ccn- 
 firined and swore to the appointment ; that Boniface 
 soon began so feel, that he had acted against the latv ; 
 that the oath was declared linlaxvfnl, i. e. against Ihvd 
 and against the canons ; that the signatures were burned 
 and the old Iwjo rvas rencxved, forbidding the jiope to 
 appoint his stfcccssor. So that you liave only to Jind 
 Old the old. late, and 3'ou will have learned, against what 
 latD Bojiiface II. trespassed. 
 
 Now to the fact. The only ancient voucher for the 
 substance of the story is the pontifical book, called of 
 Anastasius the Ubi-arian. To this book all the modern 
 favourite historians have appealed, not excepting the 
 last of them, Sandini, a little plagiarist of the coxcomb 
 species. In tJiis pontifical book, the lives of Boni- 
 fece II. and of all the popes down to Nicholas I., i. e. 
 to the middle of the ninth century, are of one and the 
 fame compilation. That the stoiy is a pure fabrica- 
 tion 
 
501 
 
 t:o:i, will require a separate proof.* However the 
 story is tlius tt)ld by ^nastashis, " This pope" 
 (Boniface II.) "collected a synod in the basilic of 
 ** saint Peter, and there made a public decree, that 
 *:' he should ordain his successor. Which public de- 
 .** ci'ec, being accompanied with the subscriptions and 
 >* oaths of the priests" {ox bishops) " before the mar- 
 ** tyrium of saint Peter, he made his appointment 
 "upon Vigilius the deacon. At the scnne time Si sy- 
 " Jiod being repeated, all the priests" (or bishops) 
 *.' quashed this in reverence to the holy see; and, 
 *.' because it had been done against llie canons, and 
 *' inasmuch as Boniface himself was hlameahle in ap- 
 *' pointing his successor ^ he acknowledged himself 
 " guiltij of treason for having appointed, before the 
 " monument of saint Peter, the Deacoii ^'^igilius by 
 ** his oxvn handwriting and obligation^ and, in the pre- 
 " sence of all the priests and clergy and senate, he 
 " burned to ashes the decree itself."* Such is the 
 
 original 
 
 • See note A. at the end of this letter, 
 f He congregavitsynodum in bagilica B. P. Apostoli et fecit con- 
 istjtutuin, 111 sihi iiiccessorem ordinart-l. Quo constituto, cutn Chirogra- 
 phis sacerdotum et jurejuraudo ante confetiSionem U. A. Petri in 
 diaconem Vigilium constituit. Eodem tempore, facta iterum synodo, 
 Iioc censuerunt (or, cassaverunt) Sacerdotes omnes propter reveren- 
 tiam sanctae sedis J et quia contra canopies hoc fuerat factum, el quia 
 culpa eumrespiciebat, ut successorem sibi constitneret, ipse Bonifa- 
 
 cius 
 
orfglnal falsehood, out of which the Jnx)our lie histo- 
 rians, Columhdnus included, have spun the orna- 
 mental and pathetic circumstances already given. 
 
 Ill this place I virill meet the Librarian Aiiasfasius 
 witlt one only remark. If B^niiface meant solely to 
 <?es!gi)a'e his successor, how could that be against the 
 canons, which not only was not interdicted by any 
 canon known to the Roman church, but was expressly 
 sanctioned and i^ecognized, as we have seen, in the 
 bishop of Rome, about thirty yeai's before, in the 
 council of Symmachus, and was distinctly justified by 
 a preamble adverting to those mischiefs, wliich the 
 schism of Di<isco:us renewed? The Lib7-aria?i seems 
 to have been as little aWarc as Columbanus himself, of 
 the provisions of th I c )a cil. But, if the pretended 
 dscre2 of Bonifice va^, that he should ordaiii his 
 own snccessir in that v eaning, which the same pon- 
 tifical book uniformly assigns to crdinaiiony the gross- 
 ncss of the fabrication becomes intolerable. For Bo- 
 cifac is n ade to decree, that lie shall ordain his cwn 
 successor , and yet vhen lie owns himself ^^W7/j/ of ire a- 
 soTiy he ack.'.owledges, that his treasonlay in the giving 
 of his own promise in wriling to appoint Vigilius the 
 diCiCov, 
 
 Thit 
 
 riu!i Papa reum se conftiiu: est M'tjetiait, quod diaconem Vigilium rum 
 siibictT'ioK! Chira^r phi ante conffssionem B. P. Apostoli conBtituisset, 
 ac i;)«i;m cotiititntuin in prc-e^enti* omiiiunn sacenlouucn «l citrt •( 
 senams iuondiv c«n»umpsit. 
 
503 
 
 Tliis observation, as I think, is unanswerable proof 
 of the forgery, if that forfrery were aided even by 
 twenty thousand Javourite historians of the seventeenth 
 age. I will not swell out my text with critical perse- 
 cution of this superannuated cabjmny againit Boni- 
 face II. Coliimbanus will pardon me, if I decline refiiting 
 further his humorous versions of the jpoenitendnm 
 decretum, and the coacta synodo. Though Latin idiom 
 were annihilated, he must recollect, that no patriarch 
 could be tried by his inferior bishops, for ecclesiastical 
 delinquency : much more, he cannot but remember, 
 that in the sixth century, no bishop could be put in 
 penance, and yet retain or recover his throne. To Co- 
 lumbanus his own ideas on the subject may be excessively 
 grateful, however false. Yet I am at a loss to justil/ 
 the idleness of having said so much about his peculiar 
 constitution of feeling. 
 
 From the sixth century, therefore, the canons of 
 Antioch having gained credence and acceptation in the 
 churches of Rome and Gaul progressively, through 
 the version gf Dionysius Exiguus, the designation and 
 recommendation by bishops even ab; ut to depart, of 
 fit persons to succeed them, came into disuse, with va- 
 rious consequence to the interests of Christianity ; by 
 which are meant, and in which are involved the purest, 
 kindest and most durable interests of mankind Du- 
 ring the same sixth century, bishop Martin of Braga, 
 
 bein^ 
 
.504 
 
 being a Greek nud able to translate intvo Latin, edited 
 his, summary of Greek canons, in which those of An- 
 tioch are extracted, and the old popular election 
 of tlie West is made to disappear. The collection of 
 Dionyshis reigned until long after ihc compilation by 
 Isidorus Mercator. In f;ict, the former never l6st 
 authority, and the latter never gained universal intro- 
 duction. Ill the ages, called darky the adherence to 
 positive canons was so inflexible, that from this simple 
 principle, considered along with the impracticability of 
 making the canons themselves available on most occa- 
 sions tojustice and to piety, the greatest accession of 
 official interference, and therefore of executive jjrcro- 
 gative, redounded to the head of the Catholic church. 
 The provincial synods, in which not only ecclesiastical 
 causes, but the allowance of episcopal candidates and 
 their ordination, used to be pcrfonncd, had long since 
 fallen into oblivion. The attempts to revive them 
 were ineffectual, because dictated or supposed to be 
 dictated by individual tyranny. Bishoprics swelled up 
 into princely estates : of course they became objects not 
 of clerical reward, but of military ambition or spolia- 
 tion : and had not the imperishable mind of Christianity 
 raised up champions in the guise of monastic philoso- 
 phy ; the armed brutality of soldiers, and the impious 
 daring of wealth long since would have quenched every 
 ray of the gospel. 
 
 This 
 
50.5 
 
 Tliis practice of dcsignatio?i having been revived in 
 Ireland, according to Culumbajriis, by our Catholic 
 bishops, against all right and laxv ^ and this abuse, as 
 it sccnis, having chiefly stirred up his zeal to offensive 
 operations, the reader must expect to be informed of 
 his statement. " The tj-uih is," writes Columbanus^ 
 ** that 21 suffragan bif-hcps hu\e eideicd into a solenm 
 ** comj)act with the four archhi&hops of Ireland, that 
 " thej", the suffragans, shall be allowed to bequeath 
 ** their respective dioceses to whomsoever they please, 
 *' provided the archbishop is allowed to do the 
 " same."* 
 
 Against this assertion, so emphatically made, I have 
 the very best authority for declaring, that no compact, 
 no agreement, no compromise of any kind has been 
 entered into, between the archbishops or anj^ one of 
 them, and the suffragans or any suffragan, regarding 
 the mode of appointing or electing their several suc- 
 cessors. I am authorized to declare the assertion to 
 be destitute of truth in every sense, and every con- 
 struction. It is not my present business to dwell upon 
 the enormity of conducting a warfare of reformatioUj 
 with such unscrupulous rage. 
 
 Of this solemn compact, however, which has no ex- 
 istence, Columhanus has alleged instances. *' Thus," 
 says he, " Doctor Troy ha.^ bequeathed Dublin tea 
 
 3 T ^ « JIfr. 
 
 • Columban, first letter p. 12, 
 
506 
 
 ** Mr. Murray j Doctor Dillon has bequeathed Tuam 
 ** to a Mr. Kelly ; otliei- bishops have already elected 
 ** their successors, without the least reference to the 
 *^ feelings of the subordinate clergy, gentry or nobi- 
 *' litv, and this isstiled canonical election." To pass 
 over the six concluding words, solely meant for an 
 appropriate flourish, I confess myself unable to de- 
 cipher what Cohimbatms intended by his reference to 
 feelings. In the first reading I surmised, that the 
 "want of a reference to feelings conveyed an accusation 
 against our bishops, as if they had selected clergymen 
 of illiberal manners, or of unclerical lives, or obnox- 
 ious to the higher class, or quarrelsome, or vindictive, 
 or turbulent: but this is so notoriousl}' not the fact, 
 that I will not impute to our author the ridiculous 
 calumny. I next consulted one of our archbisliops ; 
 and he professes himself to be completely in the dark 
 with reference to the feelings. This much indeed may 
 be gathered from the introduction of those feelings^ 
 that, in the view of ColumbanuSy the bequeathing is not 
 the height of the offence ; that it is not the violation of 
 the ffj/-seco7id Nicene canon, or of the council of Hi- 
 larus he principally relents, but the aggravating cir- 
 cumstance of not having made those feelings accom- 
 plices in the violation- 
 
 Since Columbamis has pushed his divine right of judg- 
 ing into the four courts, as well as into the imperial 
 saloon of Constantine, and vouchsafes to misuse the 
 
 black 
 
507 
 
 black letter ter?ns of the laio, as if they had been Ta- 
 ledo canons, or vicars apostolical ; I respectfully sug- 
 gest, that tiie bequeathing of a diocese and the taking 
 of a coadjutor, even with hope of succession, are very 
 distinct in proceeding and in consequences. In the 
 former ease, as long as the will is ambulatory, that is to 
 «ay, during the life-time of the testator, the power and 
 consequence of the bishop are not diminished by the 
 execution of a presumptive will : each expectant re- 
 doubles his obsequiousness to the very last. On the 
 other hand, when once a bishop has obtained a coad- 
 jutor with the chance of survivorship, he has remitted 
 whatever controul he had possessed over the state of 
 that churchy after his death. No episcopal candidate 
 will either flatter or dissemble now. Thus, while the 
 case of bequeathing, unless necessity be shewn or emi- 
 nent zeal be presupposed, does savour of profanation 
 and impiety, setting apart all church laws j still the 
 adoption of a coadjutor cum spe successionis, unless 
 either the object of choice, or the person chusing be 
 supposed an unworthy man, would claim a favourable 
 explanation j if church laws had not interdicted to bi- 
 shops such power of adopting. 
 
 Now to you, Columbanus, and to your modern com-' 
 pact. I am not about to criticise that debasement of 
 language, which substitutes a bequest of sees for the 
 postulation of a coadjutor ixith survivorship, I merely 
 
 will 
 
508 
 
 will give to the public a document, from which every 
 man will he able to judge ol" your hardihood in assei't- 
 ing a modern compact, and in attempting to conceal the 
 ancient practice oi' the Catholic church in Ireland. 
 Here is a list of coadjutor bishops. 
 
 A. D. iTo.', Dublin. Richard Lincoln, D. D., 
 appointed coadjutor on the postulation of archbishop 
 Linegar, succeeded in 1757. 
 
 1771. Cashel James Butler D. D., appointed co- 
 fidjutor on the postulation of archbishop Butler, suc- 
 ceeded in 1773. 
 
 1782. Richard O'Reilly, D. D., appointed coadjutor 
 to the Catholic church of Arnuigh, succeeded arch- 
 bishop Blake. 
 
 1772. William Egan, D. D., coadjutor to Water- 
 ford and Lismore, on the postulation of archbishop 
 Creagh, succeeded in 1775. 
 
 1773. James Geoghegan, D. D., coadjutor to Meath, 
 on the postulation of bishop Cheevers, who survived 
 him. 
 
 1776. Andrew Donellan, D. D., coadjutor to Clon- 
 fert, on the postulation of bishop Donellan, succeeded 
 in 1778. 
 
 1780. W. Coyle, D. D., coadjutor to Clonfert, on 
 the postulation of bishop Philip O'Reilly, succeeded 
 in 1781. 
 
 1781. 
 
509 
 
 1781. Richard O'Reilly, D. D., coadjutor to Kil- 
 dare and Leiglilin, on tlie postulation of bishop 
 Keeffe, in 1782, appointx-d coadjutor and adnuuis- 
 trator to the Catholic church iii Armagh. 
 
 1782. James Caufield, D. D., coadjutor to Ferns, 
 on the postulation of bishop Sweetman, succeeded in 
 the following year. 
 
 17ci. Daniel Delany, D. D., second coadjutor to 
 Kildare and Leighlin, on the postulation of the same 
 bishop Keeft'e, succeeded in 1787. 
 
 1783. Charles O'Reilly, D. D., coadjutor to Kil- 
 more, on the postulation of bishop Maguire, who 
 survived him. 
 
 1788. William Copinger, D. D., couljutor to 
 Cloyne and Ross, without v.ny postulation froui bishop 
 M*Kenna; but in pursuance of the instant recomnien- 
 dation of archbishop Butler, Doctor Moyian and 
 Other prelates in Munster, as well as of aichbishop 
 Troy, has succeeded to bishop M'Kenna. 
 
 Such are the old instances of the modern compact, 
 and the late innovation. All the coadjutors above- 
 mentioned were appou)ted wilkout ant) lay injiucnce 
 or mediation "whatever. The more recent appointments 
 are these following j 
 
 1800. Florence M'Carthy, D. D., coadjutor to Cork, 
 on the postulation of bishop Moyian, with the recom- 
 mendation of the provincial bishops, and of all the 
 
 Metropolitans, 
 
510 
 
 Metropolitans. This great bieiiop ikpartetl in 1510. 
 1802. J. O'Shauf^hnessy, D. D., coadjutor to Killa- 
 loe, on tliC postulatio^i of bishop Mac Malion, suc- 
 ceeded in 1807. 
 
 1S05. James Dillon, D. D., coadjutor to Raphce, 
 ■althout postulation from the bishop, but at the in- 
 stance of the provincial bishops, and all the Metropo- 
 litans, was translated, at the same instance, to Kil- 
 more, on the death of .bishop ISIaguirc. 
 
 ISO J. Patrick Ryan,D. D., coadjutor to Ferns, on 
 the postulation of bisliop Caulfield, v.ith the recom- 
 mendation of all the provincial biibhops, and of the four 
 Metropolitans. 
 
 1810. Daniel Murra}^ D. D., coadjutor to Dublin, 
 on the sole postulation of archbishop Troy. 
 
 .•At the present there remain only these two coadju- 
 tor bishops in the Catholic church of Ireland. In all 
 those later appointments the same tscant of lay injl.tience 
 prevailed, as in the more ancient coadjutorships. 
 
 So much for the novelty of the system, and for its 
 connection with an ccdesiasticcd treaty between the 
 present archbishops and bishops. So much for the 
 canilour and accuracy of the terms, bequeathing a dio- 
 cese, and for the horrific charge of doing so without 
 the smallest referejice to the feelivgs of the gentry and 
 nobility. I give up bishop Murray into the compas- 
 sionate hands of our author, who will debate the point 
 
 with 
 
511 
 
 >»iiii die Irish prelates and tlie Dublin clergy, and 
 with the protestants and catholics of Dublin, whether 
 tXieJeelings of our genny and 7U)hilUi/ were derided or 
 were honoured by bringing tlieni hito ,qu£ation here.' 
 But 1 cannot use the same politeness, v/ith regard to the 
 ungracious and rcpreheiisible mention of the coadjutor 
 to Corky deferred by CulumbanuSf until bishop M^ic- 
 Cartliy liad terininated his glorious (lecemiium by death. 
 Yet it is enout'-h to i:;<iini to this misb'^liaviour. The 
 
 O 1 
 
 inhumanity of Colwffboiius wanted not this iuvtlier 
 illustnition : the aational regret had had no occasion 
 for tills strange jnemento. 
 
 I have reserved the instance of Tuam, hequcathed to 
 u Mr Kelly y for a separate paragraph. In luilher illus- 
 tration of his solemn compact, our author coi^- 
 laies J *' Mr. Kelly might have been, for various rea- 
 " sonSy objectionable; very true." — This amicable way 
 of surrenderins the character of a man without his 
 permission, is a wqw jwe divino method of libelling, 
 and yet escaping an issue. " Yet it was deemed ex- 
 '^ pedient, rather than violate the compact y to force 
 *' him on the province, in despite oj the opposition of 
 ** all its suffragan bishops'' Here we have got a 
 Delian problem- The suffragans had already become 
 parties to a €olemn compact, of wluch the eliect was, 
 to guarantee to each archbishop and bishop the free 
 privilege of bequeathing his several church. The 
 
 archbishop 
 
5H 
 
 archbishop in Tunni bequeaths his see, and his suflra- 
 gans txwn faith-breakers y without the exception of" one ! 
 This is very bral. An irdidcrcnt man, indeed, might 
 collect from the fact of a general oj)j)ositiony that no 
 compact had been entered into : but our author, who 
 shines in the combination of impossibilities, does not 
 boggle at so petty an objection ; for, the compact must 
 be supposed real. Next, the suffragans are made to 
 oppose its intent : lastly, the legatee of the diocese is 
 forced upon the province, after those suffragans have 
 acquiesced, for their own sakes, in the last will of Doc- 
 tor Dillon. This highly ingenious narrative will ap- 
 pear still more interesting, when I have informed the 
 reader, that all the provincial bishops, or the greater 
 number are still in opposition to a Mr. Kelh/ ,• and that 
 this Mr. Kelly has been postulated for by the chapter, 
 and by all the parish priests of the Metropolitan dio- 
 cese, excepting three clergymen. The merits of the 
 respective causes have been removed to abide the deter- 
 mination of the proper judge. To draw the causes 
 back into the fund of popular amusement, would be 
 now inexcusable wickedness. It would ill become me, 
 the vindicator of episcopal right, to hazard an opinion 
 in a case entirely regarding their powers j it would be 
 unnatural in me, not to feel solicitude for the unani- 
 mity and glory of that provincial church. 
 
 We 
 
513 
 
 We eater now upon a subject, which to the lover of 
 truth and certahity must prove more grateful than the 
 dry iavestigati:)n we have finisliecl, concerning the 
 stratagc.n of coa;l}utor> cum spe successionis^ said by 
 Culumbanua to have been latehf devised. Our author 
 is proceed iiig to dechire the law of canonical elections: 
 and if any reader should opeii my book at this passage, 
 I request him, if an occupied man, to read barely 
 until he has made up his opinion on the general accu- 
 racy of Columhanus^ and how far such suppressions or 
 fictions as he v. ill meet, can stand \\ ith the assumption 
 of honest authorship ; or with the most tiny preten- 
 sion to learning, if the errors be not deliberaie, as I 
 take them not to be. His ,-i os pectus is thh; '■^ The 
 ** present mode of appointing Catholic bishops in 
 *' Ireland^ hostile to the canons and repugnant to the 
 *' discipline and spirit of the Catholic church"* Arma 
 virumqiie canit. What Cohunhanvs nicknames the 
 present mode we have seen. But I wave the past blun- 
 ders, lest I should be crushed by a new victory, and 
 sink under the rubbish of double spoils. Let us hear 
 the lawgiver. 
 
 " It is known to all acquainted with ecclesiar-tical his- 
 
 ** tory, that one of the universal rula^ handed down 
 
 *^from age to age for the appointment of bisho}>s, is, 
 
 ** that no bishop shall be forced on any diocese ^ "ooithout 
 
 3 u ii tJte 
 
 * Hard. iii. 538, 
 
'. 'U'W 
 
 514 
 
 ** the consent of the majority of their clergy ^ and of the 
 ** representatives of the people.^'' 
 
 This universal rule must have then prevailed in all 
 the great churches of ChristeJidon). This rule handed 
 dov/nfrom age to age must have been original, and be 
 still in force soinctchcre^ Of these points we '\\ ill take 
 notice in due time: but first I will sliew his learned 
 authorities, be^i;inning with his text. 
 
 *' The Spanish clcrg}-, always ray taiacious of their 
 ** ancient discipjlinc, but more particularly before the 
 ** Moorish invasions in the seventh century, carried 
 ** this rule somexthat fart her." The Spanish clergy had 
 never been tenacious of any discipline, nor practised 
 any regular discipline, until between the fifth and sixth 
 centuries. That church was the most ignorant, un- 
 disciplined and pitiable church in the christian world, 
 if either their own bishops, or councils, or the Roman 
 popes, consulted by the Spanish clergy , are to be de- 
 pended on. Let us go on. 
 
 '* The Spanish clergy, knoxving, thai he voho can 
 *' obtain a Mitre by private intrigue, will not stop ml 
 *' simony, but will also pi'ivately tarnish the characters 
 ** of those who stand in his way, held a national coun- 
 *' cil at Barcelona, in 599, and there came to the fol- 
 " lowing decision." 
 
 In this paragraph there are but three falsehoods. 
 The first, that it was held by the Spanish clergy^ 
 whereas the council declares itself a convention merely 
 
 of 
 
515 
 
 #>f bishops : the second, that the council was nationa^p 
 whereas the council declares itself a meeting of the 
 bishops o^ one province J namely, that of Tarragona :* 
 the third falsehood consists in the words I have 
 marked in Italics, which are, without the exception of a 
 •ingle letter, the invention of Columbanus himself. 
 But let us attend to the decision. 
 
 ** Whenever a vacant bishopric is to be filled, two 
 ** or three candidates shallhe elected by the clergy and 
 ** the people of the vacant diocese, who shall present 
 ** them to the Metropolitan and his brother bishops; 
 ** and they, having first fasted, shall cast lots, leav- 
 ** ing the determination to J. C. Then he, on whom 
 ** the lot shall fall y shall be consecrated." 
 
 With the leave of Columbanus, I will give my accoimt 
 of the canon. After interdicting ordinations to sees, 
 jper saltum, notwithstanding any king's rescript, or as- 
 sent of bishops and clergy, or desire of the laity, it 
 continues j *' So that, xchen either two or three, previ- 
 ** ously chosen by the agreement of clergy and people, 
 •* shall have been presented to the judgment of the 
 " Metropolitan and to his fellow bishops, that person, 
 
 " whom 
 
 Cu m Duce D. N. J. C. die Kal. Nov. anno feliciter xiv. Regis 
 Christianissimi et piisitni Dni Ueccaredi Regis, Taraconensij Provinciae 
 Episcopi, in uibem Barcinonensem...fui8sent congregati, hoc Santta 
 Si/nodus statuere elegit. 
 
5\6 
 
 '• whom the lot shall a2)pomty our Lord dec! dingy shall 
 •• be conKecrated." 
 
 The casting ojlots^ and the lot falling on onCy are em- 
 bellishments added by Columhanus. The lot in thia 
 canon is nothing else, than the concurrence of the e^h- 
 coy)a\ judgment with tliat of the clergy and faithful. 
 Our author, in his eagerness to compliment the Spanish 
 clergy, forgot to read the canons themselves ; as he 
 might thus have learned, that they are the forgeiy of 
 a Gr(ccidusy and that the sors or lot is the >t^^lpo{ of the 
 Greeks, and Judicium Dei of saint Cyprian.* The 
 national council of Barcelona, and the patriotic Spa- 
 nish clergy, are now disposed of» To Columhanus 
 again. 
 
 ** The christian elections were made on this principle 
 from the first ages of the church." 
 
 This you will remark is w hat he is about to prove. 
 ^* And with such order-, care, and decency that... 
 ** Alexander Severus, though a Pagan emperor, w hen- 
 ^* evei* he appointed governors of provinces, or rcceiv- 
 ** ers of the public revenues, first proposed their names, 
 " desiring the people to bring forward evidence against 
 " them, if unfit, or guilty of any crime, but not to 
 *^ accuse them falsely at the peril of their lives ; for, 
 
 »aid 
 ¥ gee note B. at the end of this letter, 
 
517 
 
 said he, it is unreasonable, wliile Christians and Jews 
 *' follow this rule in proposing those 'ishom they appoint 
 *♦ miiiistersy that we should not adopt it in the appoint- 
 *' ment of govei'nors, to v.'hose hands the lives and 
 ** fortunes of men are committed. (Laniprid. in vita 
 '* Severi c. 45)."* 
 
 With humble deference to Alexander Scverus, al- 
 though instructed by his mother Mammea, a Jndaizi ng 
 christian, the adoption oS the rule shewed at once the 
 rectitude and elegance of his temper, and tlie pa-jnlity 
 of his undcrstandin<T. >^o worse device could have 
 been resorted to for oppressing, than that, which in- 
 vited public accusation against powerful men, with the 
 alternative of death iji the case or' failure, if the sup- 
 posed injured persons, or accusers generally were 
 bound to come forward in person. It v*'as a test 'in- 
 nocence, pretty nearly resembling the proof of 
 the King's dr-oit^ that results from the silence of 
 the multitude at Westminster, when at a coronation 
 the champion rides in after the feast, and challenges 
 peers, bishops, aldermen and Shcriif s ladies to take 
 up his gauntlet. But, supposing the ordinance very 
 wise and to have been copied literally from the eccle- 
 siastical polity of that age, I find, that it was not the 
 express consent, but the silent acquiescence of the faith- 
 
 ful, 
 
 + The words of Lamprid'us which Co '«»i/;fi';?<i' translates, in propo- 
 sing those whom ikey appoint thev rnin'\i<-is, are, in jiKrdxandis sacerdo' 
 tibus qui sunt ordinandi ; i. p. by publishing the names of those who are 
 ta be established their priests. 
 
M, that was required in the consecration of bishops. 
 I would infer, that the use or object of appealing to 
 tlie people was not to gain their votes, but to elicit the 
 truth from their kno-\vlcdge ; especially as those minis- 
 fers of the christians had the possession and disposal 
 of Jill the church property. I hardly will concede, 
 that, although jJuMicai ion of Banns is an established 
 condition pievious to legal celebration of marriage, 
 llie pai'ties solemnizing can accurately be said to be 
 married with the consent of the representatives of the 
 people. This instance therefore, as a leading illus- 
 tration of the christian practice, may be valuable. As 
 to the consent, in the meaning of our author, to be 
 given by the people or by their I'epresenfativeSy it prove* 
 nothing. With regard to the tmiversality of the rule, 
 it proves less than nothing. Again for Columhanus. 
 
 " In fact, the apostles committed the election of the 
 •' deacons to the disciples." Peter did commit the 
 election to all the disciples, and tlie reason is manifest ; 
 because the temporal office was the object of immediate 
 election, and because some disciples murmured against 
 what they conceived to be national partiality. Colum- 
 lantis forgets to prove, that the apostles committed the 
 election of deacons to the representatives of disciples, 
 or that of bishops to the disciples. Saint Paul did 
 otherwise. When did the apostles practice the univer- 
 sal rule ? 
 
 «< Saint 
 
' 519 
 
 " Saint Jerome sajs, jdmt tliiji dijsciplliie was invaii- 
 *' ably adhered to frAii^the davS of-sakit INIark iii tke 
 ** church of Alexandria; that until kis own age ^'^ tJi£ 
 *' jjrcsbyters of AlexaJidria uniformly elected the hi- 
 ** shop ivova. amongst themselves." We have examined 
 that assertion at liirge- But saint Jerozne says, until 
 Heraclas and Dion^sius, which means one lmdidji'e(E 
 and twenty j'oars before his cnson a^e ; m otlier vvcuds, 
 about half way between tho death of apostles and ike 
 days of saint Jerome. But, in the name of sotuid 
 sense, does the discipline of Alexandria, whereby 
 pi'eshytejs 'were 1 he sole electors of I heir bishops tttililtlis. 
 year 260, p'ove it to be an universal ride from tJie ear- 
 liest times and lianded down frojn age to age^ that 
 the consent of the representatives of the people wiis 
 required I 
 
 ** Saint Athanasius argues, (in Ep. ad ojthodox.) 
 *' that Gregory, wlio was appointed to the seeof Alex- 
 *' andria b}' the Arians, was an iuti'uder, because lie 
 ** was not elected by thepostuLition''of the clergy and 
 
 *•' people'" 
 
 • Thetextof saint Jerome ^^ given liy CchviLarius in lulin, wifhoitt 
 version, parody or appendagts. Ni w Culnmbamis^ 'when he has a 
 text, makes ex<;elleiit use of it, and never hid^s his flambeau undor 
 the bushel of a dead langiiag". linforiuiiately uopeip'e, on popular ve- 
 prtsenlatwes -werem tbe text, which Cotiniibaiiiis maniuUy puts n front, 
 with the preface ; " Saint Jerome says, tliey adhered to IhisdLc'plint,*' 
 L e. the discipline expressly negat ved by ihi^ text adduced. Vet 'this 
 is the Cotumbanui, who requires general admission to synedf, Jjecaiise 
 whatever is not public must b.- inquLsilorla!. 
 
520 
 
 ** people." This argument, of saint Athanasius, and 
 the Z/«/m words gi\'cn by Columbanus, arc copied from 
 Natalis Alexander, (T. 3. p. 126), with this only dif- 
 ference, that, in that author, Athanasius is said to prove 
 tlie intrusion by this also amoiigst other arguments. 
 One answer shall serve this and the following. " Pope 
 *• Julius I., argues against the same Gregory from the 
 ** same apostolical discij^line j Q^uia nee miiltis notusy 
 *' nee apreshyteris ncc ah episcopis ncc a populo postulatus 
 ^^fiicrat. Inepistol. ad oriental." 
 
 The English of the last quoted Latin text, is because 
 he ivas neither kiwuon to mamj^ 7ior postulated for by the 
 presbyters^ nor by the bishops^ nor by the people. Co' 
 lumbanus gives the Latin without a translation. Why 
 so ? I charge him with having had a meaning in this. 
 Why not inform his readers, that pope Julius L re- 
 quired the postulation of bishops^ as well as of the 
 representatives of the people ? For bishops are found in 
 tlie text j representatives are not to be found. 
 
 The text, however, is adduced very impei'tinently. 
 I can hardly blame Columbanus in this particular. He 
 trusted implicitly to Natalis Alexander (T. 3. pages 
 127. 128. 129), while he quoted him only for two or 
 three supplementary instances. But since he has 
 plumed himself in the erudition of that lear7ied Theo- 
 logiariy he will bear to be told, that Julius L is not 
 insisting on the positive canonical rule, nor stating it. 
 He is shewing, ex abundafitif the irreligion of those at 
 
 Antioch 
 
52i 
 
 Antioch, in scndiug Gregory (or George) iu the place 
 of Atlianasius falsely condemned. His words, without 
 mutilation, are tiiese ; '' It was unlawful, that such 
 ** innovation should bo attempted against any church. 
 ** What church rule, what apostolical tradition wiil 
 ** bear out this ; that ~iXhile a church is undisturbed hsj 
 *' dissent ion f andii^Jiile so vert/ many bishops hold una- 
 *' nimously" (i. e. communion of government) " with 
 *' the bishop of Alexandria, Atlianasius, one Gregory 
 ** should be sent ofF tliither, a stranger to the city, 
 *' neither baptized there, nor generally known, nor 
 " called for by any presbyters, by any bishops, by any 
 *' laity ?... Supposing, that Atlianasius, in pursuance 
 *' of the synod ical examination, had been found in 
 ** blame, yet no ordination so lawless and subversive 
 ♦' of church rules ought to have taken place. The 
 *' bishops of the province shoidd have ordained a person 
 " of that same church ., a person of the sacred class there " 
 ( i. e. a presbyter or deacon), " a clerical person."^ The 
 *' rules derived from the apostles should not have been 
 *' done away." The context, and the ending part, in 
 which Julius tells positivelij how a bishop of Alexan- 
 dria should have been ordained, and in which no re- 
 presentatives of the people are even hinted at, give the 
 best comment on the scrap, uncritically put forward 
 by our author. Let us return to Columhanus. 
 
 " This primitive discipline" (of the requisite con- 
 sent of the clergy, and of the representatives of the 
 3 X people), 
 
 * G(/» tJl/, *. T. A. 
 
people), ** was foundctl on the apostolical caiion, that 
 ,*' a bishop should be blameless and of good rcpm-tr 
 Our author relies on the good report ; forgetting, as it 
 is not unusual with him, the words subsequent. The 
 apostle requires " a candidate for ejoiscopacy to have a 
 ** good repute amongst the unbelievers"* Did saint 
 Paul treat the rej)resentatives so very unhandsomely as 
 to indicate them by these words? Let us hear some- 
 thing more. 
 
 ** It" (namely the discipline last mentioned; ** vras 
 ** so rigorously adhered to in the election of Popes, 
 ** that he who was not so elected, was alwaj/s considered 
 ^*an intruder... Vope Innocent states the validitj/ of his 
 <* own election, co?tsenlienlibus saiKtis sacerdotihiSf 
 ** omnique clero ac pojndo (Innocent I. ad Anys. Labb, 
 «< T. 4. p. 1701 et in Pere Constant 739)." 
 
 ColiimbanuSy instead of translating his text, sends us 
 down to a note, from which we learn, that the words 
 were written in 401, thirty years before the mission of 
 saint Patrick, This shyness is not forgetfulness. 
 The words, so fer as he has given them, mean, mth 
 the consent qftJie reverend bishops and of all th^ clergy 
 and laity. This did not bear to be englished, in 
 proof of his grand rule. 
 
 Are we then to suppose, that Innocent I. states the 
 validity of election, as depending on the consent of the 
 bishops, of all the clergy and all the laity? He had not, 
 
 it 
 
 ♦ Tim. I. ch. 5. V. 7. . 
 
523 
 
 k seems, cvca one vote above what was necessari/. I 
 rIiouM be glacl^ after all, to know from liiraself, whe- 
 ther he states the validiti/ of his election upon such 
 grounds. His words are these to Anysius of Thessa- 
 lonica. ** Our Lord God, having vouchsafed to sum- 
 " rnon to himself, though soon, pope Anastasius, a man 
 *' of blessed memory.. .lest his church, even for a little 
 *' timey should be left unsteered by a ruler, I am bound 
 *' gratefully to relate, that 'without a niomen£s deim/, 
 *' and in his great bountj/, the reverend bishops, and all 
 ** the clergy and people coming to agree in that spirit 
 " of peace, which he returning to Heaven was pleased 
 ** to bestow, I was established in this place, my well- 
 *♦ beloved brother,"* What Innocent gratefully re- 
 collects, as a merciful interposition, and as an extra- 
 ordinary benefit, was, according to Columbmius^ but the 
 proof of a valid election. What Innocent declares to 
 have been salutary mercy, lest the church, even for a 
 little space, should feel the want of a pilot, is for Co- 
 lumbanusy but the universal ride handed down from age 
 to age. And how doe's Columhanus prove his assertion ? 
 
 Look 
 
 • Dilectissimo Fratri Anysio Innocentius, Cum Dews nostcr ChrJs- 
 tus S. M. virum Anastasiuin Episcopum, licet celeiiter, art se vncare 
 dij^natus est • • • • ^e ejus Ecdesla aliquanUdum sine liecloris guLernacuio 
 remaneret, stalim pro stta mheiimrdia, consenfientibus Sanctis sciceidolilnis, 
 omnique clero ac pupulo aim pace, quam l>eu$ Ecclesiae suae rediens 
 ad coelum donasse dignatus est, ordinatiim rae in ejug locum, frater 
 cariisime, par fuit recognoscere. 
 
524 
 
 Look at his text; then look at the words of Innocent. 
 lie has jn-ovc'dy -by culiing out seven words from a 
 phrase of more than sixlij. Shall we see more ? 
 
 ** The fourth council of Orleans decreed, and for 
 *' the CuthoUcit^/ oi" this decree appealed to cmcient 
 " canons, that bishops should be elected by the clergy 
 " and people, "jcdih the consent of the civil [iOiicer" 
 
 With the consent of the civil ^,oiver .' Ah, Colum- 
 banus ! this is not good faith. You had dated your 
 universal rule from the apostohc age. Your represeU' 
 tativeSi in that age, must have been christians, and 
 freely chosen by chrisfi-ans to represent them in ecclc' 
 siastical elections. How could you think of bringing 
 in thus abruptly the civil po-d-er ? The fourth council 
 of Orleans, you say, isj'our authority. 1 will not ask 
 you for what. You have forgotten your univei'sal rule j 
 and, not to torment you any longer, the fotirth coun- 
 cil of Orleans has not one word about the civil po\i>- 
 er. Let us get on toXhe fifth, which you uiuloubtedly 
 meant, by your remarking, that, of the archdeacons 
 and deacons and abbots and priests and bishops sub- 
 scribing, nineteen are numbered in the calendar. No 
 archdeacon or deacon was in xhe fourth of Orleans sub- 
 scribing, nor was any Abbot there. In the fifth of 
 Orleans, we know, that there are such persons sub- 
 scribing, as proxies for their bishops. Let us see there- 
 fore, in what manner iheffth of Orleans decrees, and 
 appeals to ancient canons for the Catholicity of its de- 
 cree, 
 
525 
 
 cree, that bisliops should be elected by the clergy and 
 people, with the consent o^ the civil 'power. I give the 
 words, not as you extract them from Nataho Alexander, 
 but as they appear in all the editions. Canon x. " Let 
 *' no man be suffered to obtain the episcopal station by 
 "bribes or by {.urchase; but, the King's assent 
 *' concurring, let each pontill, in pursuance of the 
 '* choice of clergy and people, accoiding to the ancient 
 '* canonsy be consecrated by the Metropolitan or his 
 *' delegate, in union with the provincial bishops. If 
 *' any one, by bargaining, shall trespass the order of 
 ** this sacred enactment, we decree, that the person, 
 ** so corruptly ordained, be put aside/'* 
 
 Now, ColumbanuSi I am really compelled to make a 
 few strictures on your fouMh council of Orleans. The 
 first remark is, that you have misrepresented the text, 
 by transposing the consent oj the civil governcn-, in or- 
 der 
 
 * Aurelianens. v. Can. x. Ut nulli episcopafum liceat praBtniis aut 
 cotnparatioue adipisci, sed, cum volnnla/e Iiegi<, juxia eleclioriem cleri 
 ac plebis, 4cut in antiquia canonibus (cnelur io ijttum, a Metiopulitano, vel 
 quern IS vice sua praeiiiist;. it cum conip. vine. ahbiis prmtitex conse- 
 cretur. Quod s quis regulam nujus sanc-tae Constitutionis, per coemp- 
 /io«e»» excesserit, eum, qui per praftnia ordinatus fuerii, statuimus 
 reraovendum. Labb. v. 392 Hard. I have translated, coemplionem, as 
 it will bear the meaning of buying up, and thus i)€ pointed against cor- 
 rnpt voters. Still lliava no doubt, from a review of the extreme pre- 
 cision and accuracy of the G'ailicati canons, that, per CQ(emplionem 
 (i, e. cpntemptionem) was the original writing. 
 
6se 
 
 &r to make that consent, an ingretlient requiicd hy 
 aiKtetit canons^ and a piece of catholicity. My second 
 remark is^ that you have, by no very liberal species of 
 conjuration, transformed the King Childepert ij)to Ji 
 civil governor. Undoubtedly every king is a governor : 
 but wheiicver it ha})pens, that the whole of a contro- 
 'vei'sy may turn, as in the present instance, on a gene- 
 ral or specific denomination, it is swindling the ques- 
 tion, to substitute the general term for that which is 
 more I'cstricted. The christian Jdngdom of the Franks 
 had had but the existence of fifty years, v/hen tliis ca- 
 non was made. This being so, it v/ould have struck 
 every man,^ if you had faiily given King instead of 
 your civil governor, that, by no possibility, could the 
 bishops at Orleans have aj')pealed to ancient cations, for 
 the catholicity y or universality of a rule, necessarily 
 recent or made on the spot. Why then so disrespect 
 the truth, Colwnbarms? Which is liklier to survive ; 
 the advantage gained by this trick, or the record of it» 
 detection I My third expostulation is, that you would 
 conceal from your readers, that this assent of the Jcingy 
 whom you change to civil governor y is an interpolation. 
 Did you not observe, ColumbanuSy the remark of Sir- 
 mond in his notes, that in three of his best manu- 
 scripts, the words, cum voluntate regisy are not extant, 
 and that there is a diiferent reading, which evidently 
 
is^ ih.e true oqc r * Did j'ou not also xemarlc, that m &&- 
 coJitemporai^' canons of Auvcrgnc II., AvLich are tr^ii- 
 scriljod from tliose of Oilcans, f the Jclng^s -asseM isal- 
 -90 wanting ? 
 
 I will not asis Cohtmhamis to e-!c:}>lciin, liow tliis pTfi- 
 teodetl Catholic decree came to be omitted in the real 
 Jhiirtk and in the third councils <.if Orleans,, ihongk 
 held within eleven years before the synod in question. 
 Neither will I prav hi>n to rtK^oncile tlie sense of his 
 pretended tenth canon witli that innnediately foTlov/ing.; 
 inasmuch as the eleventh canon forbids pav^eiful cha- 
 racten to interfere, wiih overweening influence, in 
 -elections, and to reduce by such means the clergy and 
 citizens to a consent ; the penalty being of perpetual 
 deposition against the bishop elected through such hiflu- 
 ence, which by the fathers is declared to be force, % 
 'Columbam/s has positively discovered, what I caiuiot, a 
 
 connection 
 
 * In aiTiiot. JacobiSiiinondi. €i<m ro/.7«/a'« 7?€^^^■...Fossa(ens:«, 
 Be)Iovacer)s's€t Tilianiits ; seel sichl hi untiqui- avioniaw; tenelur sciiplum, 
 <")w consemu deri et pUli , a Mttiopoiilano &c. The c<iuncil evMently 
 
 Mudlngto Ihe lelt-ci- of Celestinc I., iliiected to the tw(i piovincc-s, as 
 ■well as to the 89th of L«-o, to the bisl^eps of the province of Vicnne. 
 + Labb, V. 402. 
 
 f Aurelian. T- Can. x'. Item, skut anliqui Cenonesdccrcvcrunl, nullis 
 iuvitis detiir Episcopus .- Jeff nee per f.fpressiunem po/enlhnn pcrsnnarum 
 ad consensum faciciuUim civei an I ch rid, qivod dici wSns est, inclineii- 
 tur. Quod si factum fiierit, ipse Episcoptis, qui magis per vio'e'ilinm, 
 -quam per decrelum Icgilimum ord'natur, abindepto pontificitiu honore 
 In perpetuwin dtponatur. 
 
628 
 
 connection of some sort between the caUwUcilt/ of his 
 assertion at tlie outset, concerning the representatives 
 of tlie people, and the text he has lately brofight from 
 Orleans, concerning the cutlwliciti/ of the civil gover- 
 nor's consent, over and above that of the i^eoi^le at 
 large. 
 
 " The fifth council of Orleans, held in 549, appeals 
 *' in like manner to the venerable authority of ancient 
 ** councils in covfirvmtion of this decree of the 4th." 
 lihejifth council of Orleans is that which we have just 
 examined and quoted : \\\q fourth of Orleans has not 
 a word on the subject. Does this fifth allude to the 
 fourth of Orleans ? No surely. 
 
 *' Natalis Alexander observes on both that the au- 
 *' thority of the civil poxi-er in the election of bishops 
 *' was very great, and the consent of the Roman em- 
 *' peror v,as required in the election of popes." Na- 
 talis Alexander does not observe onhoth : he distinctly 
 refers to the fifth of Orleans,* as the first canon on the 
 subject ; although he shews that the Q}o\x'ii\e j^ractice had 
 been antecedent to the canon, and had begun early in 
 the sixth century. After the words quoted by Colum- 
 banuSy Natalis adds, *' TJiis practice was introduced by 
 " violence rather than by legitimate discipline. How- 
 " ever the church tolerated the practice, and yielded 
 " to the sovereigns, in order to avoid schism, and to 
 
 *' obtain 
 
 * T. 5. p. 449. 
 
529 
 
 " obtain their protection, which was highly necessary ] 
 ** for the keeping down of heretics^ for having the ca- 
 ** nons enforced, and for preserving from dilapidation 
 ** the church property."* I spare comments, as well 
 on the fair-dealing of our author, as on the help he has 
 derived to the catholicity of his rule from the learned 
 Theologian. 
 
 Having gone over the authorities put forward by 
 Columbanus in his text, we will travel down to those 
 given in his notes. The first from Leo the Great to 
 Anastasius of Thessalonica. " In the case of episcopal 
 *' elections, let that one be preferred to all, whom the 
 *' unanimous agreement of clergy and laity shall call 
 ** for ; provided, that, if the voters be divided into 
 ** several parties, that one" (candidate) *' shall be 
 ** preferred to another, who is assisted by the superi- 
 *' ority of interest" (votes), " and by greater deserts, 
 ^^ as the Metropolitan shall decide : this ahmys observed, 
 ^^ \ha.t no person be established as bishop where the 
 ** people are repugnant, or there are none to call for 
 *' him ; lest the flock, having such repugnance, either 
 *' scorn or detest a man not sought for, and from not 
 3 Y <» bei?ig 
 
 * Natalis Alex. T. v. 44S., immediately after the woids quoted by 
 Columbanus. Quam consuetudinem l^is potius invexerat quam legi- 
 tima disciplina. Hanc tamen patiebatur Ecclesia, parebatque prin- 
 cipibus, vitandi causa schismatis, et ut ipsorum tuitionem promere- 
 retur, ad camprimendos hiereticos, ad executioQem CanonaoD, ad £c- 
 rlesis bona sarta teata servanda majcica; necejsariaia. 
 
550 
 
 «* bnng allowed to have the person they had wished, 
 " sltDuld become less reverential than is meet."* 
 
 The direction here given was wise, I acknowledge, 
 and equitable. But I doubt very much, whether Colum- 
 IJianKswill be able to extract from it a justification of his 
 grand rule in any one particular, either as to the catJio- 
 licity of the rule itself, or as to the necessary consent 
 of the majorilj/ of the clergy^ or as to that of the reprc' 
 setitatives of the people. Anastasius of Thessalonica 
 had behaved tyrannously towards his subordinate Me- 
 tropolitans, and had trespassed beyond his privilege 
 of delegate to the holy see. In other respects also he had 
 Carried himisdf with insolence ; so that pope Leo feared 
 to have been committed in the odium of his unbish op- 
 like misconduct. To cut off all such excess and ty- 
 ranny in future, and in consequence of repeated com- 
 plaints, f Leo sets down regulations for the exercise of 
 his visitatorial power : of which regulations, some are 
 
 but 
 
 * 1 give in my text the English of those authorities, of which Colum- 
 banus has thought proper to exhibit only the Latin, Cum ergo de 
 tunatni sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus pnponatur, quern 
 cleri plebisque consensus concoi-dfter postularit ..tantum ut nuliu's 
 invitis et non petent'ibus ord'melwT, ne plebg invita epis<ropum non opln- 
 tum aut conteninat aut ederit, et fiat minus religiosa quam convenit, 
 ffui non licuerit habere quern yoiuit, Leonis Epist. S4> Labb. iii. 
 1385. 
 
 + In the preamble to the ordinances. Et necesse est post miilta.: 
 rum experlmenta causarum, e/c.quateQUS omnis materia scandalorum 
 ftuferatur...prseeminentc quidem in illis provinciis Episcopatus tui 
 iiistigio, 6«d amfuMo totius usurpstionij exctssu. 
 
551 
 
 but the enforcement of decrees already made at Nicea 
 and Saidica ; some are taken from the decretals of his 
 predecessors ; and the remaining, as is that in que.?-, 
 tion, are of extemporary application to the Greek 
 churches subordinate to Anastasius. 
 
 This decretal ordinance expressly p^-ovides, for all 
 the Metropolitan churches under Thessalonica, in two 
 cases of election j namely, in the case oiunanimous eleC' 
 tion by clergy and laity, and in the ca.se of a superi- 
 ority, in which the Metropolitan was to be the sole 
 arbitrator qf personal titles of desert, as well as of nu- 
 merical votes. In this latter case, it is plain enough, 
 that, which way soever the Metropolitan should deter- 
 mine, there yet might be a considerable mmoritt/ in 
 point of desert, as well as an equality of votes at large, 
 in fevour of the candidate disappointed. Thus, even 
 here, the rule of Columbanus would fail, requiring the 
 majorily of the clergy ; for as to his representatives^ that 
 is nonsense. Even in this cTcpress case, one or several 
 parties should bow their wills, as in any other public 
 election. Howey,er, there ^rg cases, of which Leo 
 mast have been perfectly aware, and for which he 
 could not specially provide in a general regulation. I 
 mean, if the gre^t majoiity of the clergy and a^/ew of 
 the people should vote for a person of greatest desert, 
 and some clergymen and the great proportion of laity 
 for a person far inferior in worth, or vice versa; 
 or lastly, where all the people stood in opposition to 
 
532 
 
 all the clergy. By multiplying candidates, the eases 
 will be multiplied by combination. In order to cover 
 all such occurrences by a general negative rule, the 
 pope lays it down, that no man, at all events^ shall be 
 ordained, after such dection^ against whom all bear 
 antipathy, or whom no party whatsoever had in nomi- 
 nation. The reason, he assigns, is incontrovertible ; 
 because it supposes a public election and a public deter- 
 mination ol feelings which it would be rash and un- 
 kind to authorize by excitement, and then to affront. 
 Still two points are remarkable in the ordinance j the 
 one, that the reason^ given by Leo, is the key to his 
 ordinance ; the second, that in this very reason he 
 admits the power of quashing the popular choice, 
 when he states the danger of the people shewing less 
 reverence to the bishop ordained, because they had 
 not ieen alloii^ed io obtain a person, whom they had par- 
 tially elected. 
 
 The next proof in our author's Latin Notes is from 
 Origen on Leviticus, 6th Homily, as we have it from 
 the translation of saint Jerome. Columbanus premises ; 
 *' I refer to Origen on Leviticus, where he states most 
 *• unequivocally, Xh?ii this" (the not J'o7'ciTJ^ a bishop, a.nd 
 so forth) ** was the discipline of the Catholic church." 
 
 The words quoted from Origen are these. ** Let 
 <* us therefore see, by what process a high priest h 
 ** made. Moses convened the assembly, and said ; 
 
 « Thi& 
 
533 
 
 ** This I have been commanded hy God to ■perform. 
 •* Therefore, although God had given his precept for 
 " the ordination, and had himself made the election^ 
 " yet also the assembly is gathered ; this is what the 
 •* apostle too has ordered, when, concerning the or- 
 '* dination of a. pricsf' (i. e. bishop), " he says, if is 
 ** requisite besides, that he have a good charactei- from 
 " those who are without."" With the accuracy of this 
 reasoning I have nothing to do j yet I should be glad 
 to find, whereabouts the consent of the representatives.^ 
 and of the majority of the clergy lies hid, in the ex- 
 tract now given. I find here no consent whatever re- 
 quired. But in the words of Origen, or of his trans- 
 lator, I read an intermediate phrase between, the as- 
 sembly is gathcT-ed, and, this is what the apostle. 
 The production of the words themselves will account 
 for their suppression. *' For, in the ordination of a 
 *' priest, the presence of the p^op/e is also required, 
 '* to the end that they may know to a certainty, that 
 *' he, who is the most excellent in the entire congre- 
 " gation, the most learned, the holiest, and most 
 " eminent in every title of worth, is selected for the 
 *' priesthood. This selection takes place in the pre- 
 " sence of the congregation, lest any individual should 
 " after thefacty either bring into question^ or misdoubt 
 *' the appointment."* Here indeed we have a cause as-* 
 
 signed 
 
 ♦ Ibid. After, convocatur el'iam synagoga. Requiritur enim in ordinando 
 
 «acerdote el praesentla pojiuli, ut cerli sinl, quia qui praestantior est ex 
 
 omni 
 
554 
 
 signed for the intervention of the laity j and W4i /kid 
 some sort of meaoing in the introduction of the iiford^ 
 of saint Paul. But what does this whole text irom 
 Origan prove with regard to the discipline of his age ? 
 Namely, that the ordination was made before all the 
 j)eople ; that the person appointed should be of a good 
 character ; that the people, one and all, hadanoppor« 
 tunity for testifying to that character j and that thus 
 all ground for after opposition should be taken away. 
 As to representation of laity, or mojoriti/ of diocesan 
 clergy, it is unfortunately silent. 
 
 The next authority is, that •' Cornelius of Rome, 
 ** according to Cyprian's account, was consecrated by 
 ** very many bishops on the spot, in pursuance of the 
 ** testimony of all the (Roman) clergy, of the suffrage 
 ** of all the people then present, and of the collected 
 *' sense oj the ancient and worthy [provincial) bishops"* 
 
 This 
 
 omni populo, quidoclior, qui sanctior, qui in omni virtuteornatior, 
 ille eligitur ad sacerdotium ; ei hoc aitanle populo, ne qua poslmodum 
 rertracllo cuiquam, ne quis serupulus resideret. Hoc est aulem quod 
 Apostolus, etc. 
 
 * Cornelius factus est Episcc^us a plurimk Collegis vosli'u, qui tunc 
 h» urbe Roma aderant, tie clericorum poeoe omnium tcstimomo, de plC' 
 bis quae tunc aderat suffragio, et de sacerdolum, anliquonim et bonorum 
 rirorum, eollegio. In these last words Columhamts very naturally taking 
 Sucerdvtes to mean priests of " the second order," because, in short, he 
 has read Cyprian, informs us, that Cornelius was elected by Ihe/ree 
 suffrage of ell the orders cj tiie clergy \a Rome ; and that Baronius adds, 
 tbat«ach clergyman 'oted individually down to the twelfth century. 
 
5S5 
 
 This undoubtedly shews, that the installation of Cor- 
 nelius was neither a party business, as Novatian pre- 
 tended, nor the result of a conspiracy, as he also 
 pretended, to abolish the christian discipline. But 
 where is the catholicity of the rule ? Where are the 
 representatives? Why did not Cyprian, why -did not 
 Cornelius himself, impeach the ordination of Novaiia«» 
 as violating the Catholic rule? 
 
 The next authority is, that "pope Siricins (ad HI- 
 ** merium Tarraconensem) uses these words j Presbyte- 
 ** rio vel episcopaiui^ si eum Cleri ac Plebis evocaveri^ 
 ** eljectio, non immerito societur." That is to say, 
 ** Let him, without objection, be associated to the 
 ** class of presbytersor to a bishopric, if called out 
 ** by the election oi ^e clergy and the ladty."* Even 
 here we find neither majority^ nor representatives. But 
 who is this //£", that may be associated to the higher 
 dignity ? Siricius will tell you, that he is enacting with 
 regard to persons, not baptized until they had become 
 Bged men. In the c&non immediately preceding, he 
 
 ordains 
 
 • Presbyletio vel episccpatui si eum Cleri ac Plebis evocaverit rlectio 
 non immerito socktter. 1 should deem it unjust towards Culumbanus^ 
 who not only is unacquainted with all christian, as well as all heaUteu 
 latinity, to argue on tlie barbarism of, Sociari#,Dwcopatei. 1 will only 
 obs^rrejthat theold reading, which carries its owa proof, is, ^r^iyimawi 
 v^episeopatum...soHiatur. " Let him be entitled to his chance or cano' 
 " vkaljitntu for the dignity of presbyter, or for that of bishop, if csU!«!l 
 " out by th« ele<;ti«n of clergy and laity." 
 
536 
 
 ordains the order of promotion yb;- those baptized be- 
 fore the age of jpuberty^ in this manner. Before the 
 age of fourteen years to be lectors. Thenceforward 
 until twenty years of age, to be advanced to the de- 
 gree of acolyth and subdeacon. Next, if his life and 
 chastity will warrant, to be ordained deacon, and to 
 remain in this order five years. Then, to be eligible 
 for the dignity of presbyter ; and ten years after to be 
 eligible, if otherwise deserving, to the place of bi- 
 shop.* In this canon no mention is made of the elec- 
 tion of clergy or people. But in the tenth, from 
 which the garbled quotation of Columhamis is made, 
 we read j " If elderly men wish to advance them- 
 ** selves from offices of the secular court to offices of 
 " church, they shall, as soon as baptized, enter the 
 " class of lectors. In two years after, they shall be 
 ** made acolyths or subdeacons during five years, and 
 *' thus, if worthy, be ordained deacons. Thence, 
 *' with several intervals of time, they may be canoni- 
 " cally made presbyters, or, if called up to the station 
 ** by the election of clergy and people^ they may be 
 ** ordained bishops.f 
 
 The next is, that ** pope Celestine I., who sent saint 
 ** Patrick into Ireland, ordains, that this ancient dis- 
 *^ cipline should be punctually adhered to; Let no 
 *' person be given as bishop to those, who will not 
 ** have him. Let the consent and wish of the clergy, 
 
 *' magistrates, 
 
 ♦ Canon ix. Labb. ii. 10'21, 
 f Canoax. Ibid. 
 
537 
 
 *' magisti'ates, and common people bo demanded."* 
 Here again the proof fails. 1. As to the catholicity of 
 the rule. 2. The consent is to be of the clergy ^ which 
 implies, not the majority^ but the majority beyond 
 comparison. 3. Tiie consent is not to be by represen- 
 tatives oi xhe. people J because the people is distinctly 
 to agree, as well as the municipal senate. Columbanus 
 has failed here also in his three points, as well as in all 
 the former instances. What is more ; he contradicts 
 Celestine^ wlio, as we have seen, has expressly men- 
 tioned the case, wherein all the clergy or the majority 
 may happen to be adverse to the decision of the bi- 
 shops, which decision was yet to prevail. 
 
 The last authority is, thac " in the year 633, the 
 " fourth council of Toledo decrees, that he should not 
 *' be considered a bishop who was not thus elected." 
 If Columbanus had looked into the canon, he would 
 have found something more ; that, in the long enume- 
 ration of canonical impediments to episcopacy, an 
 election by the py-edecessor bishop is mentioned. But as 
 to the fact, the council requires the consent of all the 
 clergy and all the citizens.f It declares, that, if 
 thenceforward any unworthy person should be conse- 
 crated, in violation of the canons, generally referred 
 3 z to 
 
 * Nnllus invitis detur Episcopus. Cleri, plebis, et ordinh consensus 
 et desideihiin requiratur. 
 
 + Cum omni clericorum vel Civium voluntate. Q^n. xix, Labb. v, 
 1712. 
 
538 
 
 to {the past irregularities being dispensed witTi 
 for thd sake of peace *)y both he and his orduiners 
 i^hould incur the danger of being deposed.f Tliis text 
 therefore will not serve. Thus you have all his autho- 
 rities for the universal rule, with the exception of two- 
 dumb references to Pctau, Tovn 3. p. 720, to vi'hich, 
 from the strange manner of quoting, Culumbanus 
 seemed not to trust, even in Latin, and to the same 
 Petau's Notes on Syhesius, page 57. As Cohanhanus 
 has betrayed modesty in this reserve, I will only say, 
 that these references must have been foisted in by his 
 printer. 
 
 Having thus most ably demonstrated his universal 
 rule from texts, such as you have witnessed, Colum- 
 hanus, in his second step of demonstration, undertakes 
 to shew, from positive regulation?, and from the doc- 
 trine of fathers of tlie church, that the oj^tijjiatcs, or 
 gadty, are the persons solely entitled amongst the laity 
 to vote in episcopal election. 
 
 " All this" writes CohtmhanuSy '* may be venerable 
 ** and canonical, but shall the elections of our bishops' 
 
 * Ibid. Dfquorurn scilicet cnina atque remotione oporUtfrat stn- 
 ■tneinJum ; sed ne [iLiturbatio quainpluiima Ecclciiae oriretur, piaeti:- 
 I'llh ovvisls, &c. 
 
 -|- ll)i:l. Si quis autetn deinceps contra praedicta vetita Canonum ail 
 gradum ssc vdotii indiguus aspirare contenderit, cum oidinatoiibus 
 suis adf ptl honoris peiiculo subjactbit. 
 
539 
 
 *' be disturbed by popular interference ? I answer by 
 " no means."* - ,. 
 
 A good ans\vcr to a strange question. For the, all 
 this, had turned out to be mere imposition; and, as to 
 populai' (Usturhaiicey not a word had preceded to jus- 
 tify tlie mention of such an evil. However, it is true; 
 that episcopal elections are not to be disinrhed by any 
 interi'urence, if tlie thing can be compassed. Our 
 author proceeds; 
 
 *' The church soon found, that when tlie ancient 
 >*' sanctity of primitive manners, and the fervour of 
 ** apostolical virtues had given way to ecclesiastical 
 ** ambitiSn, the people were employed as the tools of 
 " that ambition. Tumults ensued and all order and 
 " subordination were annihilated" We shall conse- 
 quently learn, what tlie church did soon to remedy the 
 mischief, proceeding solely from cccle&iastical ambition, 
 xind from lay simplicity ; all vices being reserved by 
 Columbannsy for the portion of the clergy. Hear from 
 Volunibanus v,hat the church did. 
 
 " I refer all the advocates for popular elections to 
 •* the election of pope Damasus described by Ammi- 
 ^' anus Marcellinus " Tliis Marcellinus by many 
 has been esteemed a heathen ; by others a partisan of 
 Ursicinus, the rival of Damasus. But what did the 
 church then do ? Damasus lived in the fourth century : 
 the fourth council of Toledo, which we have just seen, 
 
 was 
 
 * Colamb, first letter, p. 45^ 
 
540 
 
 was held in the seventh. Yet, in the bcveuth, the 
 church aHowcd all the citizens to elect. 
 
 ** I refer thein to the election of J<ihn, bishop of 
 f Chalons, described by Sidonius." 1'hcre was no 
 popular election of Jolin. The JNIetropclitan, finding- 
 parties on the spot, appointed John at once and or- 
 dained him.* The reference is extraordinary, while 
 the fact shews, that the elective power, of which the 
 laity were partakers, was but a trust derived from the 
 ecclesiastical power. Cohimba7uis ■proceeds ; 
 
 '* I refer them to the election of saint Martin of 
 " Tours, described by Sulpicius Severus, who has 
 *' heen justly stiled the Salhist of the chvisiian church." 
 As to the pretensions of Columhanus to decide, whe- 
 ther justly or not Severus has been stiled, if ever he 
 had been stiled, the Sallust of the christian churchy 
 each reader will judge for himself. The election in 
 truth was contested ; and the j3^o;^Z<? succeeded, almost 
 by miracle, in gaining for their pastor one of the 
 greatest of saints. 
 
 " But 
 
 * Quod ubi viderunt Sanctus Patiens et Saiictus Euphroniiis,...con- 
 silio cum Episcopis [)riiis chim comtnuiiicato quam palam prodito,... 
 iactis repente manibus arreptum sanctum Joannem...iam secundi 
 ordtnis sacerdotem, dissonas inter partium voces, quae difFerebant 
 laudare non ambientem, sed nee audebant culpare laudabilem, stupen- 
 tibiis factioois, eiubescentibus naalis, acclamantibus bonis, rcclaman- 
 tibus nullis, Gollegam sibi consecrax ere. Apollin. Sidon. Epist. 
 Lib, 4. 25. 
 
541 
 
 *' But above all I refer them to the laxiDs ofJustiyiian, 
 *' which confine the elections of bishops to the clergy 
 ** and the opiimatcs of the vacant diocese, wholly ex- 
 ** chiding the lower orders from any interference 
 " whatever in ecclesiastical affairs.' 
 
 Very well. We shall inspect your reference. In 
 the mean time, what did the church, which so soon 
 perceived the evil consequences of popular interfe- 
 rence ? In the mean time, who arc the optimates in 
 the law of Justinian ? *■*■ In ti<oo of this Emperor's or- 
 '* dinances, which xvere observed doxoii to the twelfth 
 *' century, it is expressly provided, thdt, when a bi- 
 " shop is to be appointed for any diocese, the clergy 
 •■' and optimates shall meet, and nominate three per- 
 *' sons, drawing up an instrument and inserting therein 
 *' upon oath, that they elect neither for any gift, or 
 *' promise or friendship, nor for any otlier cause than 
 ** that they believe them to be of the true Catholic 
 *' faith. Sec. and that out of these three, one who is 
 " the best qualified may be chosen at the discretion and 
 *' judgment of the ordaincr. Novel. 123. c. 1. also, 
 " Novel. 137. C.2. et Cod. Lib. i. tit. 3. de Episcop. 
 »* leg. 4.2". 
 
 The reference to the Code we will pass by as no- 
 thing to the purpose. Of those two Novels Columha- 
 nus has preferred the former; namely, the 123d. I 
 have then some questions to put to his understanding, 
 in regard to this quotation. First j I would know, 
 ^ whv 
 
' 5 \2 
 
 why he ti-auslatcs the words, primal a^ liviialh, (whicli 
 in Nov. 137. ave primores civitaiis) into ojjtimaces Qene- 
 ■rally. Why not give English for Latin ? CivitaSy a 
 city, is hero used in a corporate sense j consequently, 
 the prirnates or j^rimm-eR (jf the city must be persons 
 Iiolding legalized authority, either from employments 
 of court, or municipal station, or from census. Why 
 then evade these words? Columbunus will explain that 
 by and by. Secondly j I would know, for what cause 
 he has omitted, that one of the three elect is allowed 
 to be a layr.ian.* W^as this any part of the universal 
 rule ? Had this derogation of all canon law been 
 handed down from age to age P Thirdly j I would 
 willingly learn, whether an ordinance, that took away 
 the right of all the j^rovincial bishapsf to examine, ra- 
 tify or disaffirm episcojr,al elections, was a Catholic 
 rule and handed dawn from age to age. Lastly ; in 
 what sense docs he pretend, that his optimates were 
 representatives of the people ? 
 
 When Columbanus has satisfied his readers as to the 
 conjistency of his text with his Catholic rule, he will 
 have the goodness to reconcile to his own candour this 
 other scruple. Having poached in de Marca for 
 those Novels of Justinian, as well as for what imme- 
 diately follows in his first letter, I beg he will account 
 
 for 
 
 * Novel. 123. §. 2. Damus autem licenliam df creta facientibus, si 
 quempiam laicorum praeter cmialeni, tec, 
 
 f Ibid. Ut ex tiibus illis personis mclior ordinetur, electioije ctperi- 
 ,culo ordin;intis. 
 
 \ 
 
543 
 
 for tlie assertion, that this ordinance was ohset'ved 
 doxvn to the twelfth centuri/y although de Marca shews, 
 that it was never observed y nor received into practice. 
 ♦' The regulation of Justinian," writes he, " for the 
 *' election of three candidates by clergy and people, 
 ** under a decreliim to be sent to the Metropolitan, 
 *• never was received in the East or the West. So far 
 " was it from being put in execution, that the con- 
 *' trary practice was affirmed by a Canon of the 
 *' second Council of Nicea, asserting to the j'J'ovivcIal 
 ** bishops the election of bishops ^ as previously enacted 
 •' by the first Nicene Council. In second Niccne it was 
 •* decreed, that the bishops alone should elect, to the 
 *' exckision of the Clergy and the Laity, who thcreto- 
 *' fore had held a joint share, though not a co-ordinate 
 *' right in elections. Hence we need not be sui'j:>rized 
 ♦* at finding in the 28th Canon of the Council of 
 ** Constantinople against Photius, as in the Latin ver- 
 ** sion of Anastasius, the Laity expressly excluded, 
 ** under pain of anathema, from intermeddling in tlie 
 *' business of Episcopal elections.* 
 
 If 
 
 * Concordia S. et I. Lib. Vfll. Cap. 7. Quod constihifum fuerat 
 a Jostiniano detrium clectione facienda a clero et plebe m ttendcque 
 decreto ad Metropolilanum, locnm non hubnit nee in orienle nee in 
 oceidtnle. Tantum vero ab executione legis istius recf ssum est, ut 
 non solum tisv std canone qunque in II. synodo Nicsena enno 737. 
 Episcopis penaissa sit universa eleclionum polestas, citato ad earn firman^ 
 4am c«n»»« ly.Sjaodi I. Nicasnae. Eo quippe tempore decretum erat 
 
344 
 
 If you saw tins text, Cohniihanu^, uLy slsij-) it over? 
 If you did not see it, but if yet you bad rer.d the 
 second general council of Nicea, or the fourth general 
 council at Constantinople, with what front could you 
 assert the ordinance to have been observed doxcn to 
 the twelfth century ? If you knew nothing, either of 
 the text or of these councils, what shall we think of 
 your boldness in writing as you have done ? 
 
 But more ; against your mock 53d of Nicoa, as well 
 as against the M'hole of j'our unworthy imdertaking, 
 you have now two decrees of Oecumenical councils, 
 wherein tJie bis/io-ps resume the electing of their com- 
 peers, not only from your representatives of the people, 
 but from the diocesan clergy. Will t/ou, ColumhanuSt 
 resist the eiridence, as you term it, of Oecumenical 
 councils ? Will you act the high imest of the syna- 
 gogue ? Alas ! Columbanns, you are not a high priest. 
 Hinc illae lacrimae ; nor are you likely to be a Caiphas^ 
 though you have volunteered like a Doeg. " You 
 " weep the more, because you weep in vain." 
 
 Turninff 
 
 penes episropos solos, exclinh el derkis et populis a dccreti ferendJ 
 poles^ate, Ciijns communionpm antea cum episcopis habuerant, licet 
 noil aequo jure. Quare nuUi mirum vicleri debet, si canone 28 (an 
 error for 22) concilii C. P. habiti anno 870. adversus Photium in 
 editione latina Anastasii bibliothecarii ista Icgantur ; Promol'iones alque 
 cunsecralione'; e'uscoportim eleclionc ac deereto episcoporum cullcgii Jieri 
 iancUi haec el vniversalis sijnoJiis definh ac statuil; <lcpu!sis disertfe 
 eodt'in canone laicis a negoiio eleeiionh sub poena anathematis. 
 
545 
 
 Turninop aside from this loathsome pathetic, our 
 author, being aware that some one instance would be 
 required to shew the practical adoption of Justinian's 
 ordinance during six centuries, most ingeniously takes 
 it for granted, that the law was obeyed ; but that a 
 colourable exception in one single case might be alleged 
 against its universality. *' It maj/ be objected " says 
 he, ** that Gregory I. insisted, notwithstanding tJiis 
 " law of Justinian, that the bishops of Sicily should be 
 ** elected by the people, as well as by the clergy, as 
 *' appears by his letter to Barbarus, bishop of Bene- 
 " vento ; — but it will, on close examination, appear, 
 " that, though he dedres Barbarus to endeavour to 
 ** make the clergy and the people unanimous, he no 
 " where says, that the people had any right to elect."* 
 
 This rigJit must mean legal right. Now, what are 
 the words of Gregory I. ? Columbanus has given them 
 in Latinj and let the reader closeh/ examine this English. 
 ** Do not delay to warn the clergy and laity of 
 ^* Palermo to lay aside parties, and with one unani- 
 " mous consent to make application for such a bishop 
 " to be their governor, as shall not in any respect be 
 ** disfavoured by the Canons. Provided, that such 
 '* one shall be postulated under a formal instrument, 
 *• confirmed by the signatures of all, accompanied by 
 " your written credentials of esteem, let him come 
 4 a *' hither 
 
 * CoUimban. Irt leUer. p. 47. 4S. not,«. 
 
546 
 
 " hither to Home to be consecrated by me." Ani I 
 not stupidly patient with this men ? He, first of dl, 
 falsifies an imperial edict and brings it in ]noc;f (jf an 
 •immemorial and canonical rule, though enacttd in 
 violation of canonical rule. Next, he pretends, that 
 this rule had force until the twelfth century; although 
 it never had force or authority ; although its provisions 
 were anathematized. Then, instead- of adducing even 
 a single instance of its enforcement, he adduces, as an 
 objection, a pretended single instance of deviation ; 
 and this he reconciles to the falsified text of an obsokte 
 law by concealing that half of the objection, v.hich 
 overthrov/s his hypothesis. 
 
 But there is a certain whimsical fatal iiy in all the 
 best stratagems of our author, as if he had con^pii'ed 
 against his own deceptions. In this very case of the 
 church of Palermo, not only the law of Justinian, 
 excluding the people at large,, was not allowed? but 
 one of the provisions in that edict is forbidden under 
 pain of excommunication. Saint Gregory writes also 
 to the clergy, municipal body and congregation of 
 Palermo, to inform them of the r.ppointment of Bar- 
 barus, and ordering them, with one and the same con- 
 <;ent, to elect, and under one instrument, signed by ally 
 to testify their choice. He adds; " Taking heed above 
 •♦ all things not to attempt to elect a layman^ be his de- 
 " sorts 'what they may. For not only such layman 
 *' shall not be bishop in any event, but you yourselves 
 
 *< shall 
 
*' shall not be forgiven, for aiiy interest to be made on 
 " your btfbalf ; and any layman aniongsit you, proved 
 ** to liave aspired to that dignity, shall beyond a doubt 
 *' be disabled from obtaining the office, and be excom- 
 '• mu^icated "* Even Gregory I., you observe, knew 
 nothing- of the 53d Nicene canon ; not even from the 
 collection of Dionysius Exignds. In reading originalSf 
 Columhanus has found but tliis one instance of the 
 church of Palermo. I have found in the mere printed 
 letters of Gregory, the same conditional clause requi- 
 ring the consent of all ^ not once or thrice, but as re- 
 peatedly expressed as the note below declares, j- In 
 fact, the clause is uniformly a part of the precept.^ 
 
 Our author, having succeeded thus far, is coming to 
 a more minute investigation. *' The people in fact," 
 says he, " only gave their testimonies of consent in a 
 *• body, bat not theh* votes individually as eleetoi*s. 
 *' Both they and \\\e optimates gvixe tlieir testimany and 
 *_* consent by ancient usage (which right of consent cx- 
 " tended even to the appointment of parish priests. 
 
 ** Valesius 
 
 * Epistol. lib. xi. 19. Sed et omnps, quos ex vobis <le laica persona 
 aspirasse constiterit, ab ofTi tio et a communione alienos faciendos pro- 
 culdubio noveritis. 
 
 + Epist. Gregor. M. lit). 2. part 1. op. 19. 27. 3S. Lib. 3. ep. 39. 
 Lib. 5. ep. 21. Lib. 6. ep. 16. Lib. 7. ep, 25. 26. 31. S8. 89. 90. 91. 
 Lib. xi. 17. 18. In all whicii tbo cla'isp, Qui dum fuerit postiilalus, &c, 
 is expressed. § Datis ex more jft'aeceiylis. dregor. ad Kpscop. Raveiin. 
 Lib. 7. ep. 50. 
 
548 
 
 ** Valcsius in Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. Presbyteri olim ab 
 *' Episcopo ordinari non poterant sine consensu cleri 
 •' ac populi) J but neither elected by divitie right ;" 
 Columbanus will do well to look for those parish priests 
 once more in Valesius j he will do very well to look 
 again for these optimates. Next, he will do very well 
 to find some ancient text establishing the ancient usage 
 of a distinct testimony, given by the optimates^ as well 
 as for the possibility of the congregation, in a body, 
 bearing testimony to what one or two individuals only 
 might be able to object to the candidate. That when 
 the people were unanimotis^ they did not vote individu- 
 allt/, I allow to be most highly probable : that neither 
 they nor the optimates elected by divine right, is per- 
 fectly true. 
 
 ** Therefore," continues our author, ** when the 
 ** rabbkj became tumultuous and unworthy of giving 
 *' any testimony or consent, they were justly excluded 
 ** by human law, as should also the optimates , if they 
 ** had been equally undeserving." One mysterious 
 character was not sufficient for this drama. Besides 
 the opiimateSi the rabble is brought in. *' This rabble " 
 said the Pharisees on one occasion, ** that is ignoiant 
 *' of the Bible f is accursed by Heaven" We had had 
 the people on the stage : let it have been the multitude. 
 A multitude may become riotous, whether of kings, 
 jiobles, or of the lowest orders. Yet it would be 
 ^arcely wise to call them rioters, ex post facto ; much 
 
 less 
 
549 
 
 less to clap tlic nickname on them as a surname. Co- 
 lumbanus allows; however, to the rabble, before they 
 became tumultuous, the right of consenting, derived 
 from the apostolic times : but because at Rome, and at 
 Chalons, and at Tours, the rabble became tumultuous, 
 and unworthy of giving any testimony, the entire world 
 of christian rabblcy alias people, down to the twelfth, 
 centuri/ from the Jifth^ was justli^ excluded by human 
 law. This is comprehensive justice indeed. ** So 
 ** should the Optimates" he remarks, •* ii" they had 
 •* been equally undeserving." Until wc can identiiy 
 those Optimates, we cannot bring them to a trial: ^^et, 
 in their case, as being favourites of our author, I would 
 suggest, that no demerit of Qjitirnaie^ nt Constanti- 
 nople undet' Justinian coLtld justify the exclusion 
 of ail the Ovtimatcs of all nations, unless the disease 
 of unworthiness v.'ere attached to tlie name like a 
 patent. 
 
 One paragraph more from Cohimlarncs, and I have 
 done. '* This distinction is clearly marked by the 
 ■" most eminent ftvthers of tbe cliristian church." We 
 shall hear them. The distinctio7i about to be clearly 
 ihewn, is between " the consent of the people, the 
 mish of the gentry, and the elcctio?i of the clergy." 
 *' This distinction is marked in the passage of Leo 
 *' already quoted, that in the election of a bishop 
 ** the to/// and desire o( the people should, be con- 
 ":Sulted." Truej but tlie very first words of the 
 
 passage 
 
550 
 
 passage, quoted by }Ou iji latin, were tLcsej 
 *' Whenever a c'-nisultation is held tor the eleciiun of 
 ** a bishop, Jet Itim he preferred, whom the unanimous 
 ** conseni of clergy and people shall call for." Thus 
 here, not onl}'^ no distinction is marked, but the same 
 conseni is allowed to people as to clergy, and the 
 election is given to the bishops. 
 
 Columhamis. " The transgression of this rule was 
 *' objected as a great crime to Hilary of Aries by Valen- 
 *' tinian III." This emperor is then become Oii emi- 
 nent father of the church. As to the great crime, 
 Valentinian calls it a most unseeyiily proceeding. Co- 
 hanhanus. " It is worthy of particular notice, that 
 *' S. Leo makes the same objection, that saint Hilary 
 *' ordained bishops against the tczV/ and consejit of the 
 *' people j" adding, "that he ought to have required 
 ** the testimonies of the people, the in: ill of the gentry, 
 ** and the election of the clergy j"* " here the testi- 
 *' monies or consent of the people and the xvish of the 
 *' gentry are clearly distinguished from the election of 
 ** the clergy." Very clearly. But now let us add 
 these seven words of Leo, omitted by Columbanv^ in his 
 english. " Let him, who is to preside over all these, 
 
 *«be 
 
 * Columb. 1st letter, p. 49. The words of Leo, as quoted by 
 Culumbanus, are, F.xpectan-ntur certe vola civium, teslinwiia populo- 
 rum ; qusereretur Iwiwralorum arbitrium, dcctlo clericorum . qui prae- 
 fulurus est otniiibuF, ab omnibus eligatur. In his text he suppresses 
 the vo!a civium, and the, ab omnibus cligatur. 
 
*' be elected ly them all." What is become of the 
 clear distinction ? 
 
 But it is -not eiiough for Cvlumbanus to refute his 
 own argument, and to put down his own character 
 by one and the same attempt at demonstration : he 
 must do this superabundantly. ", Leo," says he, 
 '" adds, that Hilary ought to have required the testi- 
 ** vionies of the people, the xoiU of the gentry and the 
 " election of the clergy." From this he infers, that 
 the peopls gave their consent and testimony j the gentry 
 their wish. Will it be believed, that Columbaiius, in 
 order to establish this char distinction, has made up 
 one text from the head and tlie tail of tv/o w idely se- 
 parate passages j and that in the latter of these he has 
 suppressed the iestimonies of the gentry, as he miscalls 
 the honorati ? Yet the fact is so.* 
 
 What 
 
 * In tlie second paragraph of the epistle in question, (Leo. I. 89. 
 
 Labb. III. 1393.) this pope in rf pielsenclinar the supposPd misconduct 
 
 of safnt Hilarlus, as if tli.s laUer had ordained a successor to Projec- 
 
 lus, who was infirm, without either his knowledge or that of the 
 
 citizens, argues thus ; " Grant that Prnjectus was like to die shortly, 
 
 " at least the wishes of the citizens, the teitimonies of the muliiiuch would 
 
 " have been waited for ; the deUrminaUon of the lio'wtali, the choice of 
 
 t 
 " the clergy would have been looked to." In the third paragraph (page 
 
 1399. ibid.), " Let bishops who are to govern, be postulated for in 
 
 " pacific and tranquil manner. Let the signatures of the i:lergy, the 
 
 " teslimonies of the konorali, the consent of the municipal goTernment 
 
 " and 
 
552 
 
 What is equally suqiiiziiig is, that in the text, quot- 
 ed from that emineni father of the churchy Valentiniaa 
 III, but itot translated y the clear distinction is con- 
 founded. ** Hilary, without sufficient cause, removed- 
 ** some bishops; others he most indecently ordained 
 *' without the will and in spite of the opposition of the 
 *' citizens y and, as such bishops naturally were not 
 *' received by those, who had not elected them, he 
 " collected an armed band."* 
 
 Now, who were those honorati^ It is worth the 
 while to ascertain them, since Columhanvs has, in one 
 way or another, dragged them tlirough the mire of 
 all his arguments and pamphlets, under tlie disguise 
 of gcntr?/. In short, they were persons holding autho- 
 rit}', not solely municipal, but of universal recognition 
 throughout the empire ; as consul, pretor ; palatine 
 officer with jurisdiction, and patrician in the east. I 
 
 cannot 
 
 " and of the people be made sure of. Let J:i!n, who is to govern them 
 " all, be. elected or chos<='n by them a'l." It is evident from inspection 
 of tl»f s? two passages, that the asserted distinction has as little support 
 from Leo, as from nommon sense ; that election was not nsefl by him 
 tpclinicdlly; an'l Uiat testimonies are interchangeably applied to the 
 konorati and thqi/itv;/ /e. 
 
 * Quoted by C-Jur.ibanus, p. 4D, ibid, under this learned reference, 
 Acir/. 23 ad calcem codicis. Nam alios inconipetentcr removit, iiide- 
 center alios, invit/s Sc repngnantibiis civibus, ordinavit : qui f)uidt.m 
 tion facile ab his qui non elegerant recipirbantur, manum sibi contrahe- 
 bat armatam. 
 
653 
 
 cannot blame Culumhamis for ignorance of what every 
 beginner in Ron;an laws is acquainted with: nor 
 even for not having looked into the title of the Codex, 
 lib. XI I. , or the title in the XI de honoratonim 
 vekiculis, or into the institutions of Justinian. But 
 surely the close exa7nincr of Grcgor3''s epistles ought 
 to have considered that remarkable one, in which he 
 reconmiends Venantius, not merely a gentleman but 
 even a patrician, to his Apocrisiarius at Constantino- 
 ple, that he may obtain for him, at the price of thirty 
 pounds of gold, the [)atent of an ex-consul, because 
 though noble, he had no honours.* It would be cruel 
 to add, that when Columbanus took for his motto, 
 Virtus. ..intaminatis fu!get Jwnoribusy he should have 
 understood the scci'ct of his own v/arhoop. 
 
 Thus terminates the great demonstration of the 
 great Catholic rule, handed down from age to age. 
 How well Columbanus has extricated himself, although 
 supplied with de Marca's ammunition, I need not tell. 
 We are yet to learn, what the chtirch did to exclude 
 the people at large. We are yet to learn in what 
 country y and in what diocese this Catliolic rule was ever 
 enforced or quoted. That the christian people, when 
 persecuted or exposed to persecution, were justly al- 
 lowed to express their preference, and that such prefe- 
 rence was always respected and often decisive, because 
 4 B the 
 
 * I.lb. yAL .Kpist. 27. 
 
5.54 
 
 the self-devoted soldiers were good judges of the most 
 courageous general, is known to every one. That no 
 optimatcs oxhonorati could during that period have sub- 
 sisted, much less have furnished a nde^ is equally well 
 known. That at all times, the christian people have a 
 right to the fittest men for their bishops, is but a tru- 
 ism In ihe church oeconomy. That not only the prin- 
 ciples and conscience of the religious, but the eventual 
 satisfaction of the decent prejudices of the nobility. 
 aie to be weighed, is also accordant with the just, pru- 
 dent, peaceful and conciliating spirit of the gospel. 
 If those nobles are of the fliithful and meritorious, they 
 are entitled to double honour ; if adverse, they are to 
 be appeased, or gained over, unless a greater autho- 
 rity, I mean that of faith and morals, frown against 
 the compliment. But that a majority of clergy and 
 representatives of the people should give a perpetual 
 negative standard in the election of bishops ; or that 
 any certain quantum of interest, clerical or laical, 
 should be peremptory in episcopal elections, (the 
 right and duty of impeaching bishops, elect or conse- 
 crated, still remaining inviolate, if they had been 
 disqualified by crime, or should commit deadly and 
 provable crimes after ordination) ; that a title of nobi- 
 lity or Jcingship, which is necessarily transmissible from 
 the best to the worst, should be imperious, under the 
 most guarded compact, over such elections, is against 
 the gospel, is against morals : it is against the human 
 
 cause. 
 
565 
 
 cause, which always seeks appeal from the grievance of 
 the letter to the l7-?eth of efl'ectual justice, and liberal 
 ireedoin. That, finally, those occasional compacts, 
 made with popular feeling, with clerical reverence and 
 desert, with the protection of men in power, or with 
 their tyrann}', have demonstrated, not defeated the 
 original, projier and apostolic right of the episcopal 
 body to determine, compromise and treat on such mat- 
 ters, is undeniable in the view of every rational man. 
 That power indeed they are bound, in the spirit of 
 Christ, to exercise in kindness and in beneficence, 
 because they have no power to destroy or to squander 
 that inheritance for which he died. That power, 
 they mu5t know, is dangerously committed, if risked 
 on the exercise of abstract independence. But that is 
 their own most important concern. " Let t^em 
 *' attend to themselves and to their universal flock; 
 •* inasmuch as the holy Spirit hath established t/iem 
 ** bishops for ruling the church of God, which he 
 " hath purchased with his proper blood." The re- 
 sponsibility is great ; but the authority is indefeasible^ 
 it is divine. 
 
 I am, Reverend Sir, 
 &c. 
 
556 
 
 NOTE A. TO PAGE 501. 
 
 THE story of Boniface II. first .Tppoiniing Vigilius the dracoii te 
 succeed him, and afterwards coiilessing h'mself guilty of ^rca.on; the 
 annulling of his act b}' a synod, on l^ie ground, that it had breit 
 ^a^ainst the canons, are circumstances rfstinj solely on th" authority" 
 of tlie Pontifical Register, named of Anasfasius, and cankd on, as 
 I have alread}' menlioned, from the fourth to the middle of the 
 ninth centurj', by one and the same hand. I trust it has been shewn, 
 that the pretended violation of canons is untruly mentioned. 
 Indeed, Na'ialis Alexander, a man by no means par:ial to Rome be- 
 yond the doctrines of tlie illusliious Sorbonne, of which he was a 
 member, when he records the council under Syinmachus, omits the, 
 privilege, therein given to the bishop of Rome for the time being, of 
 appointing a successor j in tlie same manner, as when he relates the 
 pretended council under Boniface II., he abstains from shewing, that 
 Boniface had ?«>/ acted against the rxiks sanctioned in the council of 
 Symmachus. The circumstance therefore of a transgression com- 
 mitted by Boniface, as well as that of a condemnation m synod on 
 that score, being fabulous, it is a matter of antiquarian discussion, 
 •whether Boniface did or did not appoint VigiUns the deacon to suc- 
 ceed him. That he did not appoint any successor at any time J that, 
 particularly, he did not appoint the cbacon Vigil'vis, is what I Maintain, 
 for the following reasons. First ; b-^cause the author of the Pontifical 
 Register, not only hascomj/iled from partial accounts, but grossly 
 contradicts himself. Second ; because cotemporary authors with 
 Vigilius, and such as could not poss'bly have been unacquainted with 
 such a transaction, if it had taken place, are silent on this fact, 
 though professed accusers of this pope's advancement. Lastly; 
 because there are vestiges still subsisting of the real fact, which are 
 enough to explain from whence this ignorant story first arose. 
 
 In 
 
057 
 
 In narrating the acts of Boniface the second, the rontifical Book 
 has these woitls, " This pope, urged by anger and jealonsy, when he 
 " reconciled the clergy," namely those, who had aided w ih Dioscorus, 
 " vindictively extort d from thm anathemas and signatures. The 
 " written instrument he locked up in the church archives, as if ft had 
 *' been a condemnation of Dioscorus,... huf nul one anwigsl lite bukops 
 " signed, although a great majority had been for Dioscorus. Cui 
 *' tamen tiullus in ^pscopatu siiburlpstt, dum pliirima miiltitudo fuisset 
 " cum Dii'Soro." Lil). Puntif. in vita Bon. 11, 
 
 Pope John, the successor of Bnn'face, having ditd, Agapetuscame 
 next, of which pope the same histoiinu writes; " I'l llie biginningof 
 *' his episcopacy Agapetus burned publick'y in tlie cluirch (he KiUlen 
 " inUrumenU of an tliema, \\\\\c\i Boniface in his spiteful anger Jiad 
 *' extorted from, the presbyters and the bishps, against Uie canons and 
 "against Dioscoru, ; and he rcl as"d the entire church froni the 
 " malice of fail h breok'ng men. Hie, in ortu episccpatus sui, libellos 
 " anathematis, quos invidia: zelo Eonifaciiis exiorseral pn'sbyleris fi 
 " episcipis contra canones'et contra Dioscorum, in medio ecclesiae, 
 " qpngrfgaiis omnibus, consumpsii, et absolvt totam ecclesiam ab 
 " invidra perjidvriim" Here we have double proof o' malign. ly to 
 Boniface, and decisive proof of falsthood. Aoi one bi hop under Eoni- 
 face l;ad subscribed the condemnation of his opponent; yet, the 
 instruments of condemna'^ion, iignedby the b'-kofs under Boniface, are 
 burnL'd by Agapetus. One or other of tl)es > asseilions must be false. 
 £ut I shall prove, that they are both false. 
 
 About twenty years after the pontificate of Ajapetus, the emperor 
 Ju^tir)ian published an edict, cliii fly in defence of the condemnalion, 
 wliich had lieen resolved, of the m< mory of Theodorus of iMopsues'Ja. 
 Even then the emperor relies upon the posthumous conricmnation 
 of Dioscorus by the chunk of R(j7>,f, » hich church ineludi d the bishops 
 of its ordinary synod. "Last of all," says Justin'an, Labb. V. 722. 
 ccho'ng the words of DenignuK, proxy for Thessalonica, Labb. ibid, 431. 
 " What person is uninformed of the proceedings of the church of 
 " Rome against Dioscorus within our own memory? He had not 
 
 " been 
 
6/38 
 
 "been guilty of any impious Jecd • ypt, aflpr his death, he wa« 
 " anathcmal zhI by that sacred church, for a matter regarding the 
 " church polity alune " It will hardly be supposed, tliat Justinian 
 wou!d have liad tiie stupidity to cite this pretedtnt, if the sentence 
 against. Dioscoius had been annulled, as adverse to (he cu/ion', by a 
 pope so greatly reverenced in the East, as .Agapeius appears to have 
 b'cn. 
 
 Two authors, coeval wi;h Vigiliu', and both of them decided 
 enemies to his person and to his decrees against the three chapters, 
 •were, Libcrnlus, a deacon of Carll):ij;e, and FacundLS Hermidnensis, 
 an Afiicau bishop. 'J'he former of these, Liberatus, had come to 
 Rome, as delegate for his church, in the beginning of the pontificate 
 of John II,, who succee.led Lonfacc. This Liberatus wrote Ms 
 abridgment afier tl:e death of Vigilius, and betrays the utmost halicd 
 to his memory, notwithstanding all his sufferings. Yet, inimical as 
 he shews himself, so far as to entertain for tnitli the most wicked 
 reports against that pope ; although he had been in Rome with'n, 
 perhaps, some months of the alleged designation of Vigilius, he has 
 totally forgotten to mention a circumstance so gvea'ly tending to 
 disparage the authoritj', which had condemned the letter of Ibas and 
 the memory of Theodorus. In the same maimer Tacundus, although 
 he sat in the council with Vigilius in Constantinople, and although he 
 justifies the mention of the oblique and uncanonical methods, by 
 which Vigilius had smoothed his path to episcopa< y, appears entirely 
 a stranger to the fact of his nomination by Boniface II., and to the 
 consequent humiliation of that pope, which, being a rhetorical author, 
 he never would have omitted, when impeaching the worth of Vigilius, 
 whose decision was then adverse to the favoured cause. Both Liberatus 
 and Facundus distinctly confine their accusations to a written promise,- 
 given by Vigilius in favour of the Acephali, in order to gain the pope- 
 dom, and a secret declaration by him, whi>n bishop, in favour of that 
 sect. Liberat. Breviar. c. 22. Facund. Hermian. contra Mocian. 
 Scholasticum. Ob hoc etiam de ipsius episcopi Romani cliirographis, 
 
 vel 
 
559 
 
 ■vel piius ambiiioB:s impirlsu, cum fieri arderet ep'scopus, vel pcstea 
 venaHtate, parti alteri fact!?, necessaiium duximus non taceic, ne 
 auctoritatenomiiiis ejus praejiid'c'um fi les vera s\)fTerrct. 
 
 Amongst the spurious wares in the collection of Isidore, we find 
 an excommnn'cation I)}' pope Silverius ag.iinst Visiiiius, as invader of 
 his see. In this cenio Vigiliiis is accused of having gained surreptili- 
 ously ihcorcler oP deaconsh'p from ihe predeciswr of Boniface, ihoM^)! 
 guilty of manslaughter; and of having intrigued against the canons, 
 during the Hfetime of the blessed BoniHace, to be designated his suc- 
 cessor, had not the sena/e oppo:ed the aticmp: : that, having escaped the 
 papal condemnation for tliat first misdeed, liis wickedness became 
 irretrievable. Cruentis hnmano sanguine manibus dccessorihus nosliis 
 subiipiens, levitcis praesumpsisti exMibare ministeriis... contra jura 
 Canonica teinporihus S. jVJ. Donifacii PP., ipso viveute, successor 
 ♦jus designari conabar'ts, nisi tibi amplissimi fenatus obviasset justitia. 
 Tunc providentia paslorali ac pontificali honore tua execranda jam 
 debuerant auspicia detruncari. Tlrs document is fabricated beyond 
 a doubt ; but it is certainly auterior to the compilation of Anastasius. 
 The charge ofrhurdei is fixed upon as a mark of labrication. What 
 tiien shall we think of the Pontifical Reg'sler, wherein this charge is 
 ^iven circumstantially ? " The Romans" i^in vita Vigilii) " accused 
 '■* Vigilius to the emperor of liaving killed liis notary voilh a box on 
 " the ear, and of having surremlcred his own nephew to the consul 
 *' Asteiius, who had him scourged to death." From the greater 
 caution adopted by the maker of the cxconamunication it appears, 
 that he was the authority for the compiler of the Pontifical Register ,- 
 as from the desperate blunder of this laiter, we may judge of bis 
 accuracy. Vigilius was accused of delivering uj) his own nephew to 
 the consul Aslerii/s. When had Asterius been consul? Fifty-twp 
 years previous to the departure of Viijilius from Rome, and in alj 
 probability before he was born. Thus the compiler, by specifying 
 circumstances, wisely left out in the excommunication, betrays him- 
 self to have copied at second hand, and to have been more recent 
 in tinae than the fabricator of the anathema. Both concur in omitting 
 
 tp 
 
560 
 
 to statp, when it was that >";;; liii'. beiaine a deacon. However the 
 story, as told l»y ihf pseiido Silvi-rlus, is, tl»at, timing l/ie l/e of 
 Biiniiiice, an inU-'gue was carii-d en by Vigilius, as deacon, to insure 
 his own pjipointmen' ; that t!io senate opposed ihis intrigue ; and 
 that ihe len'ty of Boniface, in panloning sueh an a'ten^p*, was llic 
 occasion of great mi^cliief. From this arcount, we may infer, first, 
 that i»o desgnaiion took place: secondly, tiiat the senate quashed 
 the attempt by an order or a law: thirdly, that the intricue was 
 conducted without the knowledge of Boniface, and in (ij)position 
 to his rights or sccurily. Of these three poinla one is untlonbted ; 
 namely, that, in the time of BonTace, the Roman senate did 
 declare illegal all promises and contracts, made for the purptse of 
 gaining votes for episcopacy ; and the taking or retaining any value or 
 gift for tliat end, was made capital. (A'.halariciis Rex Joanni Panae. 
 Labb. IV. 174s.) Tlie author of the excommunication would be 
 therefore entitled to h'i!;h.°r credit on the two other points, than the 
 biosraphtr, if either wire entitled to any belief. 
 
 But what becomes of the siorj', if Vigilius was not even a deacon 
 in the time of Buniface? If Vigilius was not a deacon, until made hj- 
 Agapetus, whom the Pontifical Book reprfscnts as the great enemy 
 to the proceedings of that Dioscorus, who had appoin'ed Vigilius his 
 EUccessov.' Liberatus, the ennny of Vigil us, infnrms us, that 
 Agapetus, shortly before he d!ed, in Constantinople named for his Apo- 
 crisiarius, his deacon Pelag'^us ; and that, after the decease of this 
 pope, the empress sent for Vigiliu<:, the deacon of Agapetus, with whom 
 she privately bargani-d to procure him the papal station, on the 
 condition, that he sl:ou!d give up the council of Clialredon. If Vigilius 
 was tbtn at C'lnsta-itinople, he roust have been orda'ned deaci'n by 
 .Agapelus at the po'nt of death, and not as yet have taken his rank, 
 when the council under Mennas was held ; because, in this council, 
 held immediately after the death of that pope, it appears, that the 
 clersy of Rome, who accompanied him, were Theophanius and 
 Prilagius, (/<'<?co'ii; Mennas and Peter, nolanes; and others, being sub' 
 deacons, defensores, or minor clergymen. LabL'. V. 4. If V.gilius 
 
 ^:r5 
 
661 
 
 *as nut then at Coustanlinople, but was to be summoned from a 
 distance, the deacon of ^gapet?/s, after the death of this pope, can 
 mean nothing but one of those deacons, created by ^gapetus. 
 Will not tins sufTice ? If not, I will settle the point. The third 
 council under lioniface II. was held within some weeks of his 
 demise. Even then, Vigilius was no/ deacon of the church of Rome ; 
 /idstantibus Tribune, Agapeto, Donate et Palumbo Diaconibus. Labi). 
 V. 1691. 1697. From this there is no escaping. The D/aco«/a(; bad 
 been reductd to four from the time nf Theodoric and pope Symmachus. 
 At the death of Boniface, no man, called Vigilius, was of the dr aeons. 
 L beratus names Vigilius t/ie deacon of Agapeius. The Pontifical 
 Book, the sole authority fur the constitution of Boniface, allows, that 
 John II., the intervening j)ope between Boniface and Agapetiis, made 
 ?io deacons. Therefore, Vigilius was one of the four deacons of the 
 creation of Agapetus. 
 
 From Boniface's pretended absolution of the bishops and pres- 
 byters, but especially from the words, fa'Uh breaking men, I collect, 
 that Dioscorus, the rival of Boniface, had obtained chhographa, and, 
 perhaps, the recommendation of pope Hormisda, to his succession. 
 From the assertion ofBenignus, proxy for Thessalonica, that all thu 
 men in dignify communicated with Dioscorus until his death, I infer, 
 that he had a most powerful lay interest. From his condemnation, 
 as explained by the senahts consultum, recited by king Athalaric, 
 I collect, that he had dilapidated the church property in bribes to ensure 
 his election. From Platma, a modern author, not four htindred years 
 old, but most unsparing of popes, and who evidently had documents 
 before him, which afterwards perished in the sacking of Rome, I find, 
 that Boniface II, annulled the privilege, allowed to popes under 
 Symmachus, of nominating successors. From the odium, contracted 
 by Vigilius, when he condemned Ibas and the memory of Theodorus, 
 I explain the fraudulent legend of a designation of him, afterward.s 
 retracted by Boniface II. So much for the repentance of Boniface, 
 and his violation of the 52d. Arabic canon of Nicca, 
 
 4 C JSOTF. 
 
662 
 
 NOTE B. TO PAGE 516. 
 
 INMhe text, I hav. shewn, that the pretended council of Barcelona 
 was a piovincial, not a national sj'no'l. I thought it an unworthy 
 occupation, to refute at length the wanton assertion, that the Spanish 
 clergy were very tenacious of I lieir ancient i/iidpline, iinlW the inrasion 
 of the INIoorsj inasmuch as their own councils, especially that of 
 Toledo III., held but ten years before this supposititious meeting at 
 Barcelona, bear ample testimony to the utter ruin of ecclesiastical 
 discipline in that country. As I now am proceeding to shew, that 
 the acts of this synod of Barcelona are a forgery, 1 deem it right to 
 premise, that Coltimbatius has entirely misrepresenVed the drift of the 
 particular canon alluded to. Its piovision is not against intriiining 
 clergymen, nor against the slanderers of their rivals, but against the 
 sudden promotion of laymen. Here it is at length. " This also the 
 " synod orders to be revived and observed, pursuant to the ancient 
 " canons, as well as the epistles of synodical prelates, that henceforward, 
 " it shall not be lawful for any layman to ascend to the episcopal rank, 
 " either by kingly recommendation, by the consent of clergy and people, 
 " or by the eledion and assent of bis/topi, without observing the intervals 
 " by the canons prescribed. But, after he has mounted from rank to 
 " rank, according to the canonical interstices, has laboured in each, 
 " and is accompanied with the proofs of worthy life, let him be pro- 
 " moted to the chief priesthood, by the authority of Christ, if his life 
 " correspond to that dignitj'." The canon then directs the presenta- 
 tion of tzuo or three, in the words I have given in the text. 
 
 Passing over the synodalium ep'istolas praesuh/m, as a mere clerical 
 eiTor for sy nodicas liomanorum epislo]as praesulum, it cannot escape 
 any reader, that the attempt of the canon forger, was to engraft the 
 regulation of Justinian on the regulation of Siricius, anciently directed 
 to this very province. But Siricius had allowed a layman, after serving 
 during a stated number of years from adult baptism, to be elected 
 
 bishop. 
 
663 
 
 bishop. Justinian authorized the immediate election of a layman, 
 provided two clergrymen were presented along with him to the metro- 
 politan. The anonymous legislator at Barcelona revives the canonical 
 intervals of Slricius.'and, considering the man, once a layman, to be 
 always a layman, most happily superadds the rule of a triple pre- 
 sentation, without a why, or a wherefore. Such a provision as tlii* 
 is too silly even for Barcr^lona. Now to the point of fabrication. 
 
 The first canon prohibits the exaction of money or dues, by a bishop 
 or by any of his clersrv, for the consecration of piiesls or mhdcacons. 
 This canon is expressed in the following words. Hoc S. Ssynodus tatuere 
 elegit. I. Ut cum ad ofiicia ecclesiastica clerici provehuntnr, nil pro 
 henedictione aut saccrdoti" ant svbdiuconii collata, quidquam, vel sub 
 obligationis nomine, a quoquam episcopo vel ab ejus clero inqii'iralvr : 
 illud D. Jesu meminentes ediciiim; Gratis accepistis, gratis date. 
 This can^n, as well as the second, is travestied from the sixth chapter 
 of Gelasius, to the bishops of Italy. Lahb. IV. 1189. 
 
 The third canon is that first mentioned, concerning the choice of 
 bishops, which concludes with an enactment of deposition against the 
 ordainers and the ordained, who shall have trespassed against the 
 rule laid down. 
 
 These two canons equally b^ar the stamp of forgery. The Jitst 
 supposes the rule of blessing or consecrating svbdeacons, which means, 
 by imposition of hands, to have been usual in that age. This is false. 
 In the eighth council of Toledo, held sixty ypars after the date affixed to 
 this Barcelona document, the rule of blessing subdeacons is estnblished, 
 it being, as the fathers say, practised in some churches, in virtue of 
 a tradition, which thej' have examined and found substantial. Sicut 
 in quibusdam ecclesiis vetustas tradit antiqua, et sacra dignoscitur con- 
 suetudo substaie prolala. The fathers of this council, it appears, knew 
 nothing of the previous council of Barcelonn. Even Gregory I., 
 during whose pontificate this imaginary synod is dated, knew so little of 
 -a lanediciton for subdeacons, as to ha^e had them submitted, like minor 
 clerks, to corporal punisliment, because they had no imposition of 
 hands. 
 
 The 
 
564 
 
 The fhird canon is easily convicted. This pretentlfH) council was 
 held in the ]4th of Reccand. Out of the twelve bishops subscribing, 
 fix had already put their hands to the canons of the third of Toledo, 
 in the fourtli of the same king ; of whicli the first canon revives the 
 ordinance of the see of Rome, conc-rniiig pri-imoting to holy orders. 
 Now those canons were expressly confirmed by the king's proclama- 
 tion ; and a bishop, countervening them, was subjected by all the 
 bishops to excommunication. Lab. V. 1010. 1015. The fabricator was 
 little aware of this, wlicn he introduced a pnnincia! council attempt- 
 ing to resciiidj at the peril of their dignities, the ordinances of a 
 r?a//(5r?n/ council, to which they had been parties, and which continued 
 to be the law of the kingdom. 
 
 The Latin words, mistrnns'ated ly Cohnn! anus, are so manifestly 
 the attempt of a Greek to write Latin, or of a man ignorant of both 
 languages to translate into Latin from Greek, that, even without the 
 mqviralur, or the mcniinentei of the first canon, or the /icor of the second, 
 I rest upon their phraseology alone. Quern sors, praeeunte jtjunio, 
 Christo dornino lerm'nanie, momtri.veril, btnediclio cmsecrnlivn-i accu- 
 mulet ov av o kXt.oo; vtitnas t^nT'i'yovi/.itYi; tou xv^iau o^ktccvto; KitMii^t), 
 rourov h ^n^ohirta houffuvris f^iTiXiiuffai. It is haul y piis-sible to ima- 
 gine a c;ombination of Latin words so decisively betraying the original, 
 from \v!ii<-h liny had ht-en literally taken. A\'hereas, in th"- hypothetic 
 original sct'down by me, th*; meaning is simply, that that man shall 
 be fully made a bishop by consecratjon, whom the sors of Christ, as 
 deciding, shall have created. Th s lot of Christ deciding, I have said to 
 mean canonical election and ordination. " F.ustbius," Mrites the 
 Egyptian synod, " finds faidt with the ordination of 'Athanasius,.. .a 
 " man, who himselF, either has not had any ordination, or if he had 
 *' such, has abdicated". ..(by passing from see to see) ; " a man, who 
 " places religiousness in the magnitude and wealth of cities, and holds 
 " as of no account I'ne /of of God, by which bishops are appointed." 
 K«i Toy kX'/icov rov (tev x.a.ff' av trax^n ris , finaiv hyovfu-vjo;. " Cornelius," 
 writes saint Cyprian, " was made bishop m pursuance of the decision 
 ^^ of God and of Chriil." This he explains by the concurrent choice 
 
 of 
 
565 
 
 of clergy, faithful, and provincial bishops. Fac»us e«t Cnrneliu' deDei 
 et Chrh i ejus judicio. So in the constitutions, named apdstoliojl, in the 
 prayer for the consecration of a bishop, the Deity is besought to qua- 
 lify tlie elect, for the d'gnity rtu xX^au; ^iSovat, of giving lots. So ; pi- 
 phaiihis, jna tex; fonnerly quoted, men'ioiiS, that Anastasiussucoerded 
 to Alexander, Karti SovX)}fiv hou, by the delerndnal'wn of God, as we'i as 
 by the desienaiion of Alexander. In th<= same sense the eoun I of 
 EpliPsus (Labi). III. ..S49), ^fier dcp is'ng Nestnnus, intimates iothe 
 clergy of Constantinople, that ihey shall"t)e responsible for thec!:urch 
 property to h'm, that by the delerm'inntion of Gid, and with the assent 
 of the imperial pow»r, shall be o'd inH 'n the see of Constantinople, 
 vu Kara Souk'/Krn hou xai vivftotri rui ivaiZi^aruv kui i^iXo^^t^uv SairiXiuv 
 rifiuv ^'-'^''''''^'''i^w.y.tviu .\ hi( li precede ni, I) iii« i:e vciy bisc associating 
 the CO .s'lit of th" sovereign with the d v n*- So's, was literally copied 
 by the great council of Chalccd.n, atter the deposition of Di< scrus, in 
 its intima ion to the clergy from Al^xandii i, then on the spot, I.nbb. 
 IV. 462. In th s sense also, in the same council of Chalcedon, Aiiaioiius 
 (Act, XI. Labi). IV. 697), delivers his ji;(lgm°nt, for the rtmoval of 
 Bcssianus and S'( pben fmm EpJiesus, an'' for fbe sivir.j to <hat oily a 
 bishop, who shf li b -aa^a hov avaciniiyfji.ivo; xai vapa vavreov ruv usX~ 
 ?i.avTa)v ^oifiuiviS'ai tf^nfi^ofiivcs: at ouce di-signaudor creattd by God, and 
 voted fjv by all tho^c to be placed und^r his care. So, in the third 
 Roman council under Boniface II?., Stephen, bishop of Lai issa. 
 suggests, that he had beenformeily a layman j that on the di-ath of 
 Proclus, the clergy and people of the metrojxilis, and all necessary 
 parties framed a decrelum, comprising his name, as well as thr.se of 
 two other presbyters ; and that by superiority of voiubers, lift by lot 
 gained the best of the election; meliori testimonio, sortilo electionis 
 palmam promerui. This ordination, though irregular, yet is 
 maintained by Stephen, the petitioner, to be secundum Deum. Labb. 
 IV. 1692, 
 
 Thomassin, P. II. Lib. 2. C. X. §. 17, adverting to this thiid pseudo- 
 canon, of which, howf ver, he did not suspect the genuineness, liyd ihe 
 sagacity to perceive, that the lal was not to be taken merelv for 
 
566 
 
 tasting lots. •' The couucii of Barcelona," says he, " rcsenes the entire 
 " of elections to clergy and people; but with a /;/roi'ijn,that two or three 
 "should be elected, out of whom the metropolitan and pr<jvincial 
 " bishojis were to select one, ti'her luj lot, as the woidi of the canon 
 hint, or even by a different lawful mea7i." Vol sortito, ut canonis verba 
 innuunt, vel ratione quaih alia Itgilima. Now, the, soitilo, occurs in 
 the memorial of Stephen of Larissa ; and yet no lots were cast in that 
 election. The same TIi"massin, ibid. §. 18, acknowledges, that 
 there are no instances of this canon having been acted upon; I think, 
 that has been accounted for in this note. But it would not be easy, 
 even for the great Thomassin to shew, how the metropolitan and pro- 
 vincials could exercise their judgment by casting lots ; or with what 
 consistency, or by what authority the ordainers of a bishop, elected 
 by all the bishops of the province ■w'Uhoid lots, could be therefore 
 deposed in a provincial council. 
 
 With regard to the case of Stephen of Larissa, I observe a misap- 
 prehension of Thomassin, He is of opinion that the custom, alleged 
 by this bishop, is that which Justinian confirmed by law. It is true, 
 Justinian allows a layman to be placed on the list of three; it is true, 
 that Stephen held a secular office : but, it is equally true, that the or- 
 dination of Stephen was impeached as uncanonical. It is true, that 
 Justinian supersedes the consent of provincial bishops. It is equally 
 true, that Stephen does not rely on the custom ; but adds, that, over 
 and above, he had had the testimonies of the congregation, and of the 
 bishops of the province. Labb. as above quoted. 
 
LETTER X. 
 
 Attempt of Columbamis to justify the Veto by meaiis 
 of a new distinction^ and from the practice of Arian 
 
 kings. Absurdity of the distinction. Falsity 
 
 of the asserted fact. JVa?-ni?ig against the Veto 
 
 in the practice of those Arian Icings. The Veto 
 
 and arrangements briefly explained, Their con- 
 sequences^ as to national liberty and general society. 
 
 The catholic bishops in Ireland vindicated 
 
 from certain slanders of Columbamis^ regarding their 
 treatment of the Irish priesthood. 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 After thus cleady^ as we have seen, and satisfactori- 
 ly establishing from emmex\i fathers of the church, the 
 distinction between " the testimonies of the people, the 
 *' xvish of the gentry, and the election of the clergy;" 
 our author teUs us, that he is about to shew, that 
 " all three are all equally distinct from the subsequent 
 " nomination, confirmation or negative of the civil 
 
 *' power, 
 
368 
 
 " power."* I must confess, that I ain unable, in tlji» 
 stage of tlie discussion, to do more than to invite yoxir 
 particuhir notice to what follows. The article of 
 Columbaiiiis is entitled, " Distinction between election 
 *' and nomination. 1 he civil power, though protcstant, 
 *' may nominate." It begins spiritedly; *' What! you 
 *' will say, is a Xero^ or a Calignla, or a Biionajjcirfe, 
 *' to elect ^ Peter or a PcmlV^ The question is exqui- 
 sitely rational : the answer is admirably explicit.f 
 ** Patience, my friend." Next he hints to his corres- 
 pondent, that there must be some political designs at 
 the bottom of the sxvagge}-ing opposition and loud voci- 
 feration, which we sometimes observe raised by ap- 
 parent zeal against covftitatioii^ Jtoivever dear. Thus, 
 having drilled his anonymous friend into muteness, 
 he opens the body of his lecture. The election of a 
 bishop to a vacant see "is 07ic thing; his conjirmationy 
 or nomination^ is another^"" (thing).:}: Here we have the 
 first step of demonstration. There is a clear distincti- 
 on, forsooth, between election and Jiomination. Why? 
 Because election is one thing, co».firmation is ano- 
 ther, and conjirmation is the same thing with norni^ 
 nation. But what is the thing called election ? What 
 is that other thing called 7iomination ? You must for 
 a while remain satisfied with the oracular, *' Patience, 
 ** my friend ;" for Columhanus is going to explain the 
 whole by the medium of a story. " When ?l contest 
 
 *' occurred 
 
 . * Columb. first letter, p. 50. + Ibid p. 51. J Ibid. 
 
669 
 
 " occurred in the election of pope Syinmachus, A. D. 
 " 503, the clergy of Rome divided, some in favour of 
 ** SjTnmachiis, others in favour of Laurentius. After 
 ** much altercation^ both parties agreed^ that the no- 
 ** mination should be referred to Theodoric, a professed 
 " Arian. Theodoric deputed a bishop to proceed on 
 ** a visitation to Rome, to nominate wliichsoever of 
 ** the two he should find most xwrthij^ and to coiifirm 
 *' his election. The imperial deputy proceeded to 
 ** Rome, convened a synod, inquired into the merits 
 " of both candidates, declared Symmachus duly 
 ** elected, and coivfirmed him by an imperial decree."* 
 I hope this story is quite true, for it is well told. 
 We have then gained the material intelligence, that, 
 in a contested election, both parties having r^erred 
 their disagreements to their sovereign, though an 
 Arian, this sovereign did interfere, and ?iominated or 
 confirmed the person found upon inquiry to be the 
 more worthy of the candidates. Does not this prove 
 the clear distinction between a nomination by the civil 
 power, and the three points, of electiofi by clergy, 
 voishing by gentry, and testifying by people ? Does it 
 not evidently prove, that, because the civil governor 
 may be aj^pealed to in a case of strife by both parties, 
 the civil governor may therefore, without any appeal, 
 or any contest or invitation whatsoever, interfere 
 and decide ? This novel jurisprudence, which invents 
 4 D a clear 
 
 * Columb. firgt letter, p. 51. 
 
570 
 
 a clear distinction by obliterating all difference between 
 quelling a riot in the streets and making a domiciliary 
 visit J between going to dine upon invitation, and brea/c- 
 ing ope7i a house, without request, is entitled to wonder. 
 Yet, we are left in the dark as to the nature of this 
 nomination or confirmation. The deputy, says Columba- 
 nus, declared Symmachus didy cl'cled. Of course the 
 act of nomination had been unnecessary, if the election 
 were not questioned. The deputy confirmed Symma- 
 chus by an imperial decree. Of course this covjirma- 
 tion, being the same as nominarion, was but that, 
 which both parties had yielded to Theodoric by com- 
 promise. But in what did its efficacy consist ? You 
 must even take the answer of Columbanus, " Have 
 ** patience, my friend." 
 
 *' This fact," continues our subtle Columbanns, *' is 
 ^* acknowledged by the hireling and servile adulators 
 ** of the court of Jlome, by 'writers residing in the 
 ^* Roman states, "writing under the thumb of the pope, 
 ^* and under the lash of the inquisition. Sandini 
 ** says, that the two opposite parties referred their 
 M dispute toTheodric, that he might nominate which- 
 " soever of the candidates he pleased. Others pretend, 
 ** that Theodric claimed the right of yiomination, \i\ 
 *♦ virtue of a la^y enacted by Odoacer kirig of Italy, 
 *' that no pope should be elected without his consent. 
 M Certain it is, and all parties agree in this, that 
 
 ^* Symmachus 
 
571 
 
 *' Symmachus was appointed by the nominatiott of 
 " ail Arian."* 
 
 Now, CohimbaiiuSy if it is certain and agreed by all 
 parties, that Symmachus was appointed by the nomi- 
 nation of an Arian, why conceal from us all the texts 
 mid all the authorities, upon which you rely ? How 
 comes it to pass, that, although all parties are agreed, 
 yet not a single witness is called by you ? You assert 
 a distinction ; you forge a story ; you add, that all 
 parties are agreed on the point you had undertaken to 
 prove; and tliat, thus the one t/iing and the other 
 thing are settled. I will bring you back to your own 
 narrative, and shew, that in every cii'cumstance you 
 have deviated from the truth. 
 
 You say, that, " when a contest occurred in the 
 " election of pope Symmachus, A. D. 503, the clergy 
 ** of Rome divided, some for Symmachus, others in 
 *' favour of Laurentius." This is false. The contest 
 between Laurence and Synnnachus had occurred 
 nearly four years before j and this pope had held the 
 council of Rome, of which I refuted your account in 
 the preceding letter, more than three yearsf before this 
 
 date. 
 
 ♦ Columb. first letter, p. 52. 
 
 f Namely, on the first day of March, 499. Post consulatum 
 Pauhtii, Kal. Mar. labb. IV. 1312. In this j'ear Rome had no 
 consul, John Gibbus alone having been appc>intfd in the East. Mar- 
 relllni Chronic. 
 
572 
 
 date. It is true, that there had been a contest be- 
 tween the parties of Laurence and Symmachus. Let 
 us take the account of it from Anastasius, who is the 
 master authority for the fact, and upon whom you 
 have palmed a text, of which he has not one syllable.* 
 Anastasius. *' This Symmachus was ordained in a 
 ** division, on the same day as Laurence, the for- 
 *' mer in the Basilic of Constantine, the latter in the 
 *' Basilic of the B. Virgin, On which account the 
 ** clergy was split, and the senate went into parties for 
 ** Laurence or for Symmachus. By matter of com- 
 " promise, both sides covenanted, that Laurence and 
 "Symmachus should go to Ravenna to have their 
 *• cause adjusted by king Theodoric. There they ob- 
 *' tained the following equitable decision, that which- 
 *' soever of the two had priority of ordination, or on 
 *' which side the vast majority of suffrages should be 
 ** proved, that one should sit in saint Peter's chair. 
 ** After a fair and strict investigation, this was at 
 " length found to be the case of Symmachus, and 
 *' he became pope."t Such is the original authority, 
 
 upon 
 
 * Columb. in his note, ibid. " Visitatoiein episcopum Romam 
 misit, recrudescente discordia, synodum indixit, Synimacho Pontifi- 
 catum confirmavit. Anastasius Bibliothccarlus in vita Symmachi." 
 
 f Hie sub contentione ordinatus est uuo die cum Laurentio ; Sym- 
 machus in basilica Constantiniana, Laurentius in basilica B. Mariae. 
 
573 
 
 upon which all later historians have drawn, for the 
 contested election. Let us annex the statement given 
 by Platina, the earliest of the moderns. " Symma- 
 " chus is ordained in great strife. ..A dreadful sedition 
 " took place amongst the senate and people, divided 
 " into two parties. Wherefore, by general consent, a 
 ** council is summoned to Ravenna ; an investigation 
 ** takes place, in the ■presence of king Theodoric^ and 
 *' Symmachus is confirmed in the popedom."* In 
 which of these two statements are we to look for 
 the clear distinction and the appointment and nomina- 
 tion by an Arian King ? There was altercation 
 among the clergy, says Cohimbatius. This clerical 
 altercation turns out to have been a civil ivar, or a 
 dreadful sedition, wherein senate, people and clergy 
 were armyed on either side. On the very first day 
 
 of 
 
 Ex qua causa separatus est citr;;?, et divisus est ie7ialus. Alii cutn 
 Symmacho erant, alii cum Laurentio ; et, facta conventii;ne (not 
 contentione), hoc coiistituerunt partes, ut ambo Ravcnnam (jergerent 
 ad judiciurn regis Theodorici. Qui, dum rntroissent Ravennam, hoc 
 judicium aequitatis iiiveiieruut, ut qui primo ordinatus fuisset, vel 
 ubi pars maxima suffragiorum cognosceretur, ipse sederet in sede 
 Apostolica. Quod tandem aequitas in Symmaciio iuveuit et cognitio 
 veritalis, et factus est praesul Symmachus. 
 
 * Platina, Cologne edit, 1610- p. 69. Symmachus Pontifex creatut 
 non sine magna discordia...Seditio ingens in senatu ac P. R. bifariaiu 
 diviso orta est ; unde omnium consensu concilium Ravennae indicitur, 
 discussaque re, Vraoenfe Theodonco, Symmachus tandem iij PoMtificalu 
 confirautur, 
 
574 
 
 of this altcrcatioji^ the murder of Symmachus was 
 attempted by the dissentient populace.* Now, let us 
 suppose, that no contest had occuired during the 
 election of Symmachus; that he or any other Catholic 
 bisliop liad been opposed, after tAventy years of peace- 
 able episcopacy, by a formidable party of clergy and 
 laity, and that murders and riots ensued. Would not 
 the sovereign, in such a case, have a right to inter- 
 fere, to examine, and to be informed, from whence 
 the disorders arose; to enquire, in what principles 
 they were agreed on both sides, and by what autho- 
 rities or rules they would consent to have the cause 
 decided ? If the sovereign, whatever be his religion 
 or irreligion, liave not such a right, in stich a case, 
 I am at a loss to know in what sovereignty or govern- 
 ment consists. If moreover the contending parties, 
 aware of the scrupulous impartiality of this sovereign, 
 agree voluntarily to take him for their umpire, on a 
 question oi fad and possessiouy in consideration, that 
 by the medium of the public force the public tran- 
 quility shall be guaranteed ; the case of Symmachus 
 was evidently neither a case of appointment^ nor of 
 nomination^ nor of confirmatio7iy as distinct from elec- 
 tion^ or as essentially connected with an elcctiofi to a 
 vacant bishopric. It was an irregular remedy, if you 
 
 will ; 
 
 + In fragmento npo!ojj(^t. SvTnmacVii advcrsus Anastas. .Imp. 
 L^bb. iV. I'iPT. Inter imbri's lapldum lotus e%-a!<i. Judicavit Dtiu. 
 
575 
 
 Avill ; but it was the only or tlic best roincdy, from the 
 circumstances related by Anastasius, with whom the 
 entire credit of this history begins and ends. Now, 
 the words of Anastasius arc followed by Flemy, with 
 this difference, that, according to Fleury, Symmachus, 
 after the investigation, wa^ recognized the lawful pope. 
 *' II se trouva que c, etoit Synimaqiie ; ainsi il fut 
 ** reconnu pour Pape legitime." What does Coliim- 
 bamisP He claps down this French in his note, and 
 informs his believers in English, that *' all parties 
 agree, that Symniachus vs as appointed by the nomina- 
 tion of an Arian." There is candour! 
 
 For the purpose of giving size and circumstance 
 to the airy nothing of his distinction^ Columhanns has 
 soldered anachronism upon fabrication. He cooks, 
 and serves up, in one and the same dish, two facts, a» 
 separate as the battle of the Boyne and the Copen- 
 hagen expedition. He connects the sending- of a 
 visitator, from the court of Theodoric, with the con- 
 tested election -y although not only in time, but in cause, 
 those two facts are totally independent on each otheri 
 although, for the compromise we liave no ancient 
 authority, but that of Anastasius : whereas for the 
 visitator, we have the most abundant and most au- 
 thentic cotemporary evidence. * 
 Symmachus had been bishop of Rome without 
 opposition for nearly two years, when the emissaries 
 of Anastasius, the Greek emperor, upon an exparte 
 
 suggestion, 
 
576 
 
 suggestion, that the pope was guilty of capital crimes, 
 applied to Theodoric for summary vengeance. Theo- 
 doric, unfortunately, as Columbanus remarks, a pro- 
 Jessed An'atiy but then a most upright, as he was a 
 most accomplished prince, summoned an episcojial 
 synod, to judge on their colleague, instead of using 
 his civil sword.* Through the same partial sugges- 
 tion, a bishop, Peter of Altinum, was appointed 
 visiiaioj-y which, in English, means administratoj- of the 
 spiritualitlesy m Rome, until the synod should have 
 decided the cause of the pope. The episcopal meeting 
 passed from Ravenna to Rome. In the mean time, 
 the bishop of Altinum, who, against the canons, had 
 procured himself to be appointed administrator of the 
 principal church, was led to trespass further against 
 all law. He seized upon the temporalities of the see, 
 took possession of the Lateran palace, and carried 
 himself as ordinary bishop of Rome. Symmachus, 
 as became his own innocence and the majesty of his 
 
 station, 
 
 * Of thrse proceerlings, we have ypt i' maiiiinjr, the pifcep!s of 
 Theodoric to the bishop?, the message and commission from him to 
 bfi natl in synod, and the report of the bishops themselves, in which 
 ait the essential points are set forth. We have moreover, the vindi- 
 cation of the synod by Ennodius, then an officer in the conrt of 
 Tbef>dorio, and afterwards bishop of Pavia. From all these the ac- 
 count in the text is extracted. Labi). IV. from 1323 to 1333, and 
 ^rom 1340 to 1358. In the synodical proceedings, however, the order 
 of timi' is inverted in all the c<litio»6, and the last session of the 
 council is put fonniost. 
 
S17 
 
 station, retired from the capital. When the synod 
 re-assembled on the spot, the king's precept was read, 
 and a two-fold difficulty stopped the proceedings. 
 The regal message suggested, that the pope had been 
 accused before him of capital crimes, of which the 
 judgment was remitted to his compeers; while the 
 partisans of the administrator had declared, that the 
 king himelf had had full evidence of the guilt. 
 The second difficulty was, that no synod could be 
 convoked without the papal authority, much less 
 could a synod assemble to trj' a pope, upon a charge, 
 which by the temporal laws was capital, and there- 
 fore, if proveable, was to be proved elsewhere. The 
 pope, however, ajipeared in the assembly, in a second 
 session, authorized the meeting, and gave to it full 
 power to take cognizance of every misdeed, by what 
 order soever of ecclesiastics committed.* He merely 
 4 E insisted 
 
 * From the report of the bishop^-. Scd potentissimus princeps 
 ipsum quoque papain iu colligenda synoclo Toluntatem suam Uteris 
 demonstrasse significavit ; unde a mansuetudine ejus pagina: postulatae 
 sunt, quas ab eo directas constabat. Tlie bishops, it appears, would 
 not take the king's word, unless they had the papal consent in writing ; 
 ...et duip in venerabili collectione yernio de incipiendo negotio habere- 
 tur, sanctus Symmachus basilicain...iiigressus est et dt' evocatione 
 synodali clementiss. Regi gratias rgit et rem sui desiderii evenisse 
 testatiis est...auctoritatem ordin's carrigendi, si ut posoebant ec- 
 clesiast.ca instituta se dare profcssus est. On ths hunaility of 
 Symmachus it is remarked by Ennodius; Et quod posset fideli corda 
 justi doloris aculeis excitare, veneraudo «onc)lio auctyntacem etiam 
 contra se, si mereretur, indulsit. 
 
0/8 
 
 insisted on restitution of wluit Peter luid usurped 
 beibre a trial, as the luw commanded. A trial, how- 
 ever, was not what the other party wanted. They 
 wanted minder. Symmachus and his clergy, and 
 the infinite retinue of faithful and Roman matrons, 
 who accompanied with tears their pontiff, a convert 
 from heathenism, were set upon by the ribalds of the 
 other i^iarty. Several were massacred, amongst 
 whom was the saintly pi'esbyter Gordia)nis, the 
 father of pope - Hormisda, and the grandfather of 
 pope Silverius. Symmachus is rescued by an Arian 
 officer of court, and declines to attend the synod any 
 more. ^Vhereupon the bishops assembled frame a 
 process, reciting the material circumstances, and 
 thereby declare, that neither they nor the king had 
 any evidence of guilt before them; that the accusers, 
 after proceeding upon the supposition of guilt, ready 
 to be proved, had demanded, against all law, to have 
 the slaves of Symmachus put on the rack, in order to 
 make out a 2^^'oof of guilt ; that they, the bishops, 
 remit the cause to God, and declare the pope, fully 
 and efiecually re-established in his see, restoring to 
 him, in virtue of his commission, every exterior right, 
 possession and advantage, which to the bishop of 
 Rome appertained, or could appertain. This done, 
 Symmachus continues thexouncil. Tlie administrator 
 is anathematized,* and so the imperial commission 
 
 terminates. 
 
 * From the ««bmi«ion of John the Oeacon. l.abb. IV. 1401. 
 
.579 
 
 tennlnates. Such are the facts, which Culianbanvs 
 most wittily and adroitly hitched into his tiomination 
 and cip}>oiiitm('>it ; and whicli he thus related j ♦* Theo- 
 '* doric deputed a bishop, to proceed to Rome on a 
 " visitation, to nontinatc whichsoever he should Jind 
 " most worthy, and to conjiim his election. The 
 ** imperial deputy convened a. synod, inquired into the 
 '* merits of both candidates, declared Symmachus duly 
 •• elected, and conjirmed him by an imperial decree." 
 A stretch of boldness, 1 presume, not often paralleled 
 in the resources of imposture. 
 
 The supposed reference of the claims of Symmachus 
 and Laurence to the Arian king, I have explained from 
 the general rights of government, in a case of public 
 sedition. It is remarkable, that Theodoric himself, 
 in his second precept to the bishops, when Symmachus 
 was capitally accused, restrains his own interference, 
 and justifies it by this same principle : " It belongs to 
 " your cognizance and to God's, to decide this cause, 
 '*' in order, at all events, to restore peace, by your sen- 
 " tence, to the clergy, senate and people of Rome. If 
 *' you will even compromise this affair without atrial, 
 " you and God are to determine that; provided only, 
 " that, by your deliberation, tranquility be brought 
 *' back to the clergy, and senate, and peqole."* The 
 
 same 
 
 * Precept 6 Kal. Oct. Vos iioveiitisct Deiis, quid in ipsa causa 
 }udicajre debealis, pacem omnibu? modis clero S. et P. R. post judicium 
 
 I'dilituri, 
 
580 
 
 same reason he had alleged in his former precept;* 
 he repeats it in his third precept ;f and \vhen present 
 in the last session, he declared, that beyond this 
 stipulation, he had no concern with church mailers, 
 but to reverence tliem.X Such was the honour and 
 the conscience, or at least the decent moderation of 
 this Arian king. . His dotage was cruel, I allow; 
 but, his first years of government were exemplary. 
 He sought no dominion over the catholic church of 
 Rome; he neither insisted on, nor exercised a right 
 
 of 
 
 leddituri, ne qua liiibatio, ue ulla discordia in civitate remanrat : sive 
 vultis ut quod pn positum est tiaiisignalur {^not transeat) sine dibcus- 
 sione negotium, vos sciatis, et Deus qualiter ordinetis, dum pax clero, 
 senatui populoque R. sub vestia ordinatione reddatur. 
 
 * Dated, 3 Id. Aiisust. Ut non diutius urbs regia Itiibanim lem- 
 jiesiate faf]'^elur, sed vcstri xqiiitate judicii redeat ad quietcm...Fas 
 est vt-'Strae aestimare providentise, si. ..sit tolerandum, soluto sine aliqua 
 df finitiijne coiicilio, sub incerto ecolesiam, sub hoc cei tamine, Romanum 
 perdere civilalem. 
 
 + Oct. 1. Nee a nobis ordinis \eslri expectetiir forma judi.ii; sed 
 vos qnaiiter vultis ordinate j sive discussa, sive indiscussa causa, pro- 
 ferte sententiam, de qua estis rationem divino judicio reddituri, dum- 
 modo, sicut saspe diximus, hoc deliberatio vestra provideat, ut 
 pax, etc. 
 
 J Serenissimus rex talitcr, Deo aspirante, re?pondit ; in synodaii 
 esse arbitrio in tanto negotio sequrnda pracscribere, nee aliquid ad se 
 prsBter reverentiam de ecclesiasticis negotiis pertinerej committens 
 etiam potesta'i pontificutn, ut sive propositum vellent audire ne- 
 gotium, &c. Diimmodo venerandi provisione concilii pax in civitate R. 
 chrislianis omnibus redderetun 
 
581 
 
 of nominating, or of conjirming popes. Tlic aclinow- 
 Ic'dcd fact of Columhamis is a reverie. Who tliose 
 writers may be, tliat have confessed this reverie, under 
 •the thumb of tlie pope and the lash of the inq^iisiiiony 
 I know not. Anastasius compiled his Pontifical Bio- 
 graphy at Rome, undoubtedly. However, he wrote 
 about four hundred years before the inquisition was 
 mentioned in the christian world, and about seven 
 hundred years before it was introduced into Rome; 
 for, surely, Columhanns cannot be ignorant, that Paul 
 the fourth, the contemporary with our Elizabeth of 
 England,, was the first to establish an inquisition 
 in that city. As to the authority of.Sandini, it is less 
 than none; nor will I stop to convict Columhamis, of 
 having wronged even that miserable creature. But, 
 when our author gravely tells us, that " others pre- 
 *' tend, that Theodoric claimed a right of nomination 
 " in virtue of a law of Odoacer," I am amazed at the 
 ignorance of so deep a canonist. Pray, Colionbainis, 
 have you not read the origiJial of this fabricated law, 
 in the Roman synod ? Can you bo ignorant, that 
 this law, though a gross forgery, relies on the grant 
 of pope Simplicius to Odoacer l*^ That this law was 
 
 condemned 
 
 * Constitutum Syinmachi in synod. R. IV, § II. The following is 
 a copy of the pretended regulation. Cum in uniira apud B. Petruin 
 ApostoJum resedissent, (witliout any names or date), sublimis atquo 
 eminentiss. Vir, Prsef. Praet. atque Patric. agens etiam vices 
 
 pracel- 
 
5S2 
 
 condemned and annulled by Symmachus in full coun- 
 cil,* which that pope never could have done, if his 
 own election had been cojijinncd by virtue of its provi- 
 sion ? In truth, you knew nothing of all this, nov 
 did I mean to charge 3'ou with any such knowledge, 
 when I put those questions. 
 
 Yet, on such grounds as these, Columbatms argues 
 theologically, if so God please. Synunachus, he 
 argues, nmst have been validly a pope, notwithstand- 
 ing such (unsubsisting) nomination, else his pontifical 
 acts were void. But, it would be heresij to impeach 
 those acts as void. Therefore, *' the nomination by 
 ** an Arian, and a fortiori by a protestant prince, is 
 *' not inconsistent with coXhoWc faiths and conscqtiait- 
 ** It/y the civil j^owei'y ihmigh protestant, may exercise a 
 " limited negative in the appointment of catholic 
 " hishops."-\ Excellent logic, and clear deduction, 
 and right good theology ! But let us not cross our 
 
 author 
 
 praecellentissimi Regis Odoaciis Basilius dixit j Quamquam studii 
 nostri et religiunis iiiteisit, ut in eplscopatus electione concoida priii- 
 cipaliter scrvetur Ecclesiae, ne per occasionem sedttivnis status 
 civitat'is vocetur in dubiuui, tamen admunilione viri beatissimi Papat 
 nostri Simplidi, quam ante oculos semper habere debemus, hoc nobis, 
 meministis sub obtcstntwnc fuisse mandalum, ut propter ilium slrepiliim 
 et venerabilis ecclrsiae d(;tiimentum, si eum dc hnc bict migrate con- 
 tigerit, non sine nostra coiisuUatione ciijuslibet celebretur electio, 
 Labb. IV. 1334. 1335. 
 
 •» Ibid, f Columb. first letter, p. 53. 54, 
 
583 
 
 author in his full gallop. We .shall overtake him at 
 the winning post. 
 
 Columbanns passes to an amplification of his proofs 
 under this title; *' Popes nominated by Arian kings."* 
 Beginning with a falsified text from scripture, and 
 flinging a hoof at bishop Miiner, he informs us, that 
 a dcrgi/nian, before he exhorts us to martyrdom, rather 
 than grant a negative to the cixnl power, must prove, 
 that to grant a negative would be to renounce thejaitii: 
 that there is more danger to the independence of the 
 churchy from the imirpatiuns of bishops, who bequeath 
 their sees in spite of the (famous 52 Arabic) canon of 
 Nicea, than there could be possibly from a negative. 
 Because, in the bequeathing power there is no election^ 
 but under a negative, there would be real iiidcjiendence 
 of elcctijm.f Though it is somewhat dark to me, 
 liow real independence and real controid can subsist 
 together, yet I own this preface is splendid- Now 
 comes the reasoning. If even this instance (of Theo- 
 doric and the visitor) were solitary, yet the argument 
 is invificible : for if an Arian nomination were repuo-- 
 nant to faith, the church could no more admit of it, 
 even in one instance, than she could in any instance 
 allow us to deny the blessed trinity or incarnation. 
 The argument may be surely invincible for a certain 
 temperature of understa)iding. But let us hear the 
 other facts. Felix IV., says Columhanus, was not only 
 
 nomi- 
 
 • Coliunb. fifit letter, p. 53. j\. f IbiJ^ and b5, 5/.>, 
 
584 
 
 nominated by the same Arian king, but he was nomi- 
 nated ^previously to any election of the clergy. The 
 clergy remonstrated against ■previous noDiinatlon^ in- 
 sisting, that ecclesiastical election should precede all 
 civil interference. Theodoric persisted, claiming a 
 right in virtue of Odoacer's law, and the dis}:)ute ter- 
 minated in a concar datum. The clergy receivcil the 
 nomination pro Jiac vice^ on condition, " that, in future, 
 *' the canonical discipline should be observed ; namely, 
 *' that election and prese7itation&\\o\x\(\ be made by the 
 ''clergy, and that Thcodcnic and his successors should 
 ** confii'm or negative the pope elect, as he might deem 
 •* most expedient far the safety of the state. These 
 ^^ facts are admitted by Baronius and Sandini."* 
 
 I must stop Columhanus. Allowing, for the moment, 
 his Sanditii to be worthy of notice, I charge him with 
 gi'ossly wronging his voucher. Sandini, as appears 
 from the text quoted, asserts, that Theodoric 'is^eiit 
 heyond the usurpation of Odoacer. Columhanus asserts, 
 
 as 
 
 » Colimib. ibid. p. 56, 57, 58. " Felix, &c. Pontifex a Theodorico 
 " dcsignatus est. Quo facto Theodoricus non solum confirnmndi, ut 
 '• ante Odoacer, sed etiam cligetidi jus sibi usurpavit. JRestkit acriler 
 " clerus Seiiatusqtie Romamis ...ehct'iom. Ea dfmum lege composita res 
 •' est, ut in posteium more pristino clerus eligerel R. pontificem, quern 
 " rex confirmaret asseiisu suo. Haec eligendi ponllf.ch ratio tamdiu 
 " obtinuit, quamdiu stetit regnum^Gothorum in Italia; quo labefactato, . 
 '* earn sibi auctoritatem vindicaverunt Orient's imperatores. Sandini. 
 " Baronii Annales ad an, 526. § 24 and Pagi ad eundem annum, 28.'* 
 
585 
 
 as from Sandini, that Theodoric claimed the right of 
 previous nomination in virtue of Odoacer's la-jD. Again j 
 ** Sandini tells us, the clergy and senate of Rome Jiercely 
 ** resisted t/ie" (sole) ** election by Theodoric." Co- 
 htmbanus, in order to make out his distinction, which 
 gave election to the clergy alone, and gave xmshing to 
 tlie gentry, transmutes the election by Theodoric into 
 jprevious 7iominaiion, changes resistance into remon- 
 strance, and omits the senate altogether. Sandini 
 relates, no matter how absurdly, that the dispute 
 ended in a compromise ; namely, that, , according to 
 the ancient usage, the clergy should elect one, whom 
 the king should establish or confirm by his assent. 
 Columbanus turns ancient usage into ca^ionical disci- 
 pline: he metamorphoses election into election and 
 presentation J in order to give to the king's assent, not 
 only a pre-existence to this compromise, but to 
 make it a piece of the canonical discipline. Lastly, he 
 adds, from his own forge, to the word conjirm, these 
 following ; *' or negative the pope elect, as he" namely, 
 Theodoric ** and his successors might deem most expe- 
 ^■^ dient for the safety of the state-" thus stultifying 
 the whole compromise by the introduction of an arbi- 
 trary veto, and tacking to a conge d' elire a perpetual 
 letter missive of negative command. 
 
 Such is the fair dealing of Columbanus towards his 
 
 unhappy witness. We shall see ere long, to what 
 
 credit Sandini is entitled, as to the compr >mis€ and 
 
 its continuance under the successor of 'Iheod^jic. For 
 
 4 F the 
 
6S6 
 
 the present, let us expunge one or two ignorant false* 
 hoods of our author. *' Felix," says he, as if on the 
 authority of Baronius and of Sandini, *« was desig- 
 " nated without any previous election by the clergy.'' 
 He forgets, that a contested election during fifty-eight 
 days had preceded, and that a pretext v/as thus aftbrd^ 
 ed for putting in the cloven foot of civil interference. 
 ** The clergy," says he, " made a concordatuniy that 
 ** TJieodoric and his successors should confirm." He 
 forgets, that Theodoric had been dead, before the 
 senate of Rome consented to elect Felix ; and that the 
 successor of Theodoric returned to that senate un- 
 bounded thanks *' for having correspondedy in the 
 •* election to the bishopric" of Rome, " with the decision 
 «* of his grandfather,'"* <' Theodoric," says Column 
 banuSy " claimed in virtue of Odoacer's laiv." But 
 Odoacer's law had been openly declared null by the 
 council under Symmachus. But the successor of 
 Theodoric, far from alluding to any law, excludes this 
 surmise, when he informs the senate, that Theodoric, 
 though of a quite different religious persuasion, after 
 long council, had made his choice on one, to whom 
 none could possibly object; and that it was glorious for 
 the subject to yield his partialities to those of the sove^ 
 reign * This savours very little of a concor datum y or 
 
 of 
 
 * Graiissimo profitemur animo, qnod glnriosi domini avi nostri 
 rcspondistis in episcopatus clectione judicio. Oportebal enim honi 
 
 printipk 
 
587 
 
 of a claim through Odoacer's law, or of the clergy 
 receiving a nomination pro hac vice. ** We are com- 
 << pelled," says our author, " by the whole tide and 
 " current of ecclesiastical histori/ to confess, that the 
 ** nomination of the pope was vested in the Gothic 
 *• kings of Italy> "s^liether catholic or Arian^ during 
 *' the whole period of the Gothic government, from the 
 *' reign of Odoacre to the reign of Justinian." Colum- 
 banus here rises into the great sublime, and to the plu- 
 ral voe. Perhaps, after all, this tide and current^ that 
 compels him will prove itself a miry torrent. Perhaps, 
 he will be discovered here, as heretofore, to be a 
 deluded man. It manifests a ready and comprehen- 
 sire acquaintance, no doubt, with the ecclesiastical 
 history of those times, to talk of Gothic kings, ** "dohe- 
 ** ther Arian or Catholic" between Odoacer and 
 Justinian; as if one should guardedly introduce 
 Otaheitan kings, isohcther heathen or schismaticalj from 
 Captain Cooke until George the third. The broad 
 seal of his divi?ie right may reach collaterally, for 
 aught I know, to those little incidental questions of 
 vulgar history: so let the Gothic kings of Italy, 
 *' whether Arian or Catholic " pass unmolested, unless 
 by this remark; that, if those kings were Catholic, we 
 are out of the question: the title of his chapter had 
 had been *' Popes nominated by Arian kings." 
 
 In 
 
 pihicipis arbiliio obediii qui sapienti deliberatione pertractans, 
 
 qiiamvis in aliena religione taletn visus est elegisse, ut uulli uieiito 
 debeat displiccre. CassiofI, Epist. 15. L. 8- 
 
588 
 
 In spite of the whole tide and current of our author's 
 ecclesiastical knowledge, it will now appear, that 
 from the first to the last of the Gothic Icings of Italj', 
 neither by law nor by compromise was the subsequent 
 nomination of popes vested in them. From Simplicius, 
 in whose pontificate Odoacer took Rome, to Silve- 
 rius, when Rome was again conquered by Belisarius, 
 tlie intervening popes were, 1. Felix III., 2. 
 Gelasius, 3. Anastasius, 4. Symmachus, 5. Hormisda, 
 6. John, 7. Felix IV., 8. Boniface II., 9. John 
 II., 10. Agapetus. Of these the foremost three were 
 freely chosen, says Thomassin : the attempt of Odo- 
 acer on church liberties, i. e. that no popes shoidd 
 be made 'without his consent ^ being frustrated, on 
 account of the protracted war, which occupied him 
 and Theodoric for the sovereignty of Italy.* Tho- 
 massin appears to have considered the law under 
 Odoacer as genuine ; whereas, most plainl}', it was a 
 fabricated writing, of which the council under Sym- 
 machus had never knoAvn the existence, until alleged 
 by the schismatics.f Thomassin continues; The 
 
 schism 
 
 * Thomassin V. et Nova Disciplin. Part 2. Lib, 2. Ch. 16, § 3. 
 Primi quitlem lii et praelusorii fuere conatus. Sed ea quidem abriipta 
 et dissipata sunt consilia diutinis ciuentisque bellis Odoacnim inter 
 et Tbeodoricum regem.. .Felix, Gelasius et Anastasius post Simplicium 
 elect! fuere libcris secundum canones cleri populique suffragiis. 
 
 + Labb. IV, 1334. Di.Tfru^/ inter alia scripluram quandam WXnsitis 
 memoriae Basilium conscripslssc.Sancta sj'nodus dixit, deferatur iu 
 medium, itt aijKsmcdi sit possit agnoscj. 
 
589 
 
 schism, winch took place between Laurence and 
 Symmachu*, afforded an opportunity to Theodoric of 
 usurping the entire authority of election. But thi^ 
 excellent and wise king, though unhappily an Arian, 
 preferred the fame of equity and religiousness to an 
 increase of power. After the death of Symmachus, 
 be allowed Hormisda and John to be freely 
 chosen.* Thus we have got over six popes. In 
 approaching the cause of Felix IV. and the coticor^ 
 datum of our author, it may be proper to advert to the 
 exit of pope John. The emperor Justin in the East 
 had deprived the Arians of their churches. Tlico- 
 doric, now aged and suspicious, imagined the senate 
 of Rome and all the Catholics to have conspired 
 against him. He accused the senate of treason. 
 Boethius defended their innocence. The kins; seized 
 on Boethius and Symmachus, the principal senators, 
 and cut off their heads. He forced pope John to travel 
 to Constantinople, threatening to exterminate the ca- 
 tholics, unless the forfeited churches were restored to 
 the Arians by Justin. The pope's embassy failed ; 
 and therefore, on his return, he was shut up in a 
 dungeon, and murdered by duress of imprisonment- 
 Such was the preface to the designation of Felix IV. ; 
 and such are the inviting precedents, to which Colum- 
 banns leads us back. To proceed ; Felix IV. was not 
 «H'eated by subseqtcent nomination^ but l^y previous 
 
 dictation 
 
 * Thomass'n. Ibirr. 
 
690 
 
 dictation. This Colnmbanns grants. After the ^edllt 
 of Felix IV., writes Thomassin, a schism took place 
 between Boniface II. and Dioscorus. But Avhethcr 
 it originated from any attempt by Athalaric to force a 
 pope on the church of Rome, "we have no evidejice 
 'Whatsoever.* John II. and Agapetus succeeded mthout 
 any consent or knoisoledge of the Gothic kings, who were 
 occupied at a distance in various wars.f Thus we 
 have counted nine popes. Silverius, the last and 
 the most remarkable, is omitted by ColumbanuSi or was 
 drowned i7i his ecclesiastical tide. ** Silverius," ^^•ritcs 
 Thomassin, in the words of Anastasius, "was raised 
 *' by the tyrant Theodahates without any instrument 
 ** of free choice. Theodahates, having been bribed, 
 ** menaced the clergy by proclamation, that any one, 
 *' not consenting to such ordination, should have his 
 ** head taken off. Certain priests" (or bishops) " did 
 *' not sign for him according to the ancient usage, nor 
 ** coiifirm his election before the ordination. ^Jier 
 ** Silverius had been ordained under violence and 
 ** error, the presbyters signed for him, for the sal-e of 
 
 " re-unitin" 
 
 ' Post Foiicib obitutn scLisma nirsus eriipit.i.an ex eo quod Atlia- 
 Jaricus Pontificem obtrudere tentaverit, umnino non constat. 
 
 + Joannes et Agapetus sedcm Apostolicam obtinuere inconsultis 
 Gotlhis regibus, qui et ipsi vaiiis alibi bellis dislinebantur. Jbid, 
 
591 
 
 *^ re-uniting the cliurch and the ecclesiastical bod^J** 
 ^Vhat became of pope Silv§rius, we all know. 
 
 Such was the catastrophe of an interference by 
 Gothic kings. In the matter of fact, Columhanus has 
 asserted as generally true, what is universally false. At 
 the same time, he has hatl the wisdom to conceal the 
 effects of Arian iiominatimi. If even a concot^datum had 
 been entered into, we jfind, that it was bloodily vio- 
 lated. But we restore that dream to our author and 
 his Sandini. One passage more from Thomassin. "A 
 " power of electing bishops of Rome had been sought 
 *' after, and now and then seized upon by Gothic 
 ** kingsj but it could not take root, nor gain certainty. 
 <' It burst forth only twice or thrice, in the case of 
 *' tumultuous electionSy or on account of clerical ambi- 
 ** tion. Justinian claimed ity as a right for himself 
 " and his successors. So tliat, in Rome and in the 
 ** principal cities of Italy, no bishop could be made 
 ** without taking from Constantinople an imperial con-' 
 
 " confirmation^^ 
 
 • Silveriiis natione Cumpanus, 5;c, Hie Icvatus est a tyranna 
 Theodato sine tleliberatione decreti. Qui Theodatus corruptiis pecu- 
 nia talem timorem indixit clero, ut qui non conseiitirent in ejus 
 ordinalione gladio punirentur. Sacerdotes quidam non subscripserunt 
 ineum secundum morem antiquum, iieque decretum confirmaverunt 
 ante ordinationem. Jam autem, ordinafo Silverio sub vi et metu, 
 f roster adunalimem ecclesiae ft religionis subscripserunt prcsbjteri. 
 
59^ 
 
 ^'Jinnation."* Here Justinian claims as a righi tliat, 
 which the Gothic kings had not been able to establish 
 by force j and this is nothing else than the cuiifimia- 
 ^/on of a bishop elect. Thomassin, therefoiV, never 
 swam in the tide and current^ which forced our author 
 to confess a nomination, vested in the Gothic Arian 
 kings. But Thomassin was ignorant of all histories, 
 except those really existing. He had not the address 
 to create facts, and then quote them. 
 
 It is time to dispatch the invincible argument of 
 Colwnibanusy which I promised to pvertake, and which 
 amounts to this reasoning. The appointment of Syra- 
 inachus by an Arian, if inconsistent with the divine 
 rights, of episcopacy, if repugnant to revealed faith, 
 would have made his pontifical acts invalid^ would 
 have interrupted the succession, and rendered null all 
 ordinations by Symmachus. But to assert this, would 
 be heretical. Therefore, the nomination of a pope by 
 an Arian prince is not inconsistent with revealed 
 faith J and tlierefofre Ariati princes may nominate; that 
 
 is. 
 
 • Thomass. ibid. Teniata ergo et aliquando usurpata fuerat a 
 Kcgibus Gotthis Papae eligondi poteslas, nunquani satis fixa aut 
 firmata ; ut quae bis terve dumtaxat eruperit, ex occasione tumul- 
 tuosarum electionum et grassantis clericorum quandoque ambiti- 
 oiiis. Al illam sibi successoribusque sHiis Justinianus quasi certo 
 & constantissiino jure vindicavit, ut nee Romae deinceps, nee in 
 famo&ioribus Itaiiae urbibus episcopi creareutur ulii, n'ul qnos Impe- 
 ralor C. Politanus confrmasset. 
 
>93 
 
 is to say, may negative or coiifirm catholic bishops 
 elect. One instance of such nomination is sufficient 
 proof; because, the church could no more in one 
 instance admit of a nomination, being against faith^ 
 than could the same church in any instance allow us 
 to deny the incarnation. 
 
 I will not fasten on the word ajppointmenty so mis-r 
 applied to the case of Symmachus. But I will try to 
 match the invincible argument with one or two intel- 
 ligible parallels. 
 
 First. The surrender of a besieged town to an 
 enemy by capitulation, if inconsistent with the sacred 
 duty of allegiance, would make all the conditions of 
 such surrender null and void, as well for the con- 
 queror as for the conquered. But, to assert this 
 latter, would be immoral. Therefore, an enemy may 
 conquer a loyal town. Therefore, an enemy may 
 laivfully be received into a loyal toison. Because, an 
 enemy could no more in one instance be received, than 
 could the duty of allegiance in any instance be denied 
 to be sacred. 
 
 Another parallel. The parley and compromise with 
 a highwayman to take your purse and garments, and 
 to spare your life, is not inconsistent with the right of 
 'property declared in the ten commandments. If it 
 were, no man's life would be certain at times j and this 
 would be against self-preservation. Therefore, a man 
 may give up his clothes and money to a highwayman. 
 4 G Therefore, 
 
594 
 
 Therefore, a highwayman may, consistently 'with the 
 right of property f take your purse and garments. 
 Because the principle of such right could no more 
 allow the compromise to take effect in one instanoe, 
 than it could allow murder to be lawful in any 
 instance. 
 
 In these two parallels it may be observed, with 
 what taste and accuracy the transition is made from 
 the acquiescence of the party forced^ to the lawfulness 
 of the act generally. To this conclusion has the 
 U7iiversal rule) handed doxvn from age to age, by 
 our ColujnbaJiiis, at length arrived. The consent of 
 the majority of the clergy has been discovered at last 
 to mean the choice of a lesser evil, not an uncon- 
 trouled preference. The 'wishes of his gentry are 
 reduced to be content with that one, whom the Arian 
 prince may not deem it most expedient for the safety of 
 the state to negative. The rule of saint Leo, and the 
 homily of Origen, and the injunctions of pope Celestine, 
 •who sent saint Patrick into Irelafidy are most felicitously 
 reconciled with an unlimited controul of a greatest 
 politiQal expediency resting m ihc breast of an Arian 
 prince. This neis:! controid becomes a part of ancient 
 canonical disciplifie; it acquires three new names, 
 nomination^ confirmation) or apjwintmcnt, and, after 
 all, is very consistent with the real independence of 
 election. 
 
 I will not be so cruel as to ask Columbarius, on what 
 ground of theological calculation he rests his afortior> 
 
595 
 
 in behalf of a profesfant over an Arian civil power j 
 nor what *« means by limited negative in the nominal 
 fjafi of catholic bishops, after he had explained his 
 nomination to be the power of negativing or coiifirmingi 
 nor what was the effect of his Arian conjirmation. 
 But I think, that, without all that vertiginous argu- 
 mentation, under an Arian prince independent election 
 may subsist, on the principles of our author, without 
 the possibility of choice. Let us only suppose a Metro- 
 politan see vacant, and that, according to the direction 
 of Leo I., the bishop is to be taken from the clerks of 
 the Metropolitan church. May not the Arian king 
 deem it most expedient for the safety of the state^ to 
 banish all the clergymen but one ? Undoubtedly. 
 Of course, that one clergyman remaining will be made 
 the bishop, or else no bishop will be made. So that, 
 without either a previous or a subsequent iiominationf 
 our Arian prince reduces the free electors to take 
 what he leaves them. The independent electors are 
 perfectly at liberty (unless the Arian prince think 
 otherwise most expedient) to have no bishop, as con- 
 victed felons are entirely free to consent to stay where 
 they are, if allowed to stay, or to chuse their bread 
 and water. This, it will be said, is a case of slavery. 
 It is not, in the scheme of Columbanus. It is a case 
 of arbitrary greatest expediency. It is oppression, I 
 confess, or*hostility. Such however is the conciliating 
 principle, which, in the more elegant dress of a veto, 
 our author represents as canonical discipline. 
 
 When 
 
596 
 
 When Columhanus pai'allels denizing the faith with 
 alloisoing an Ariati interference, he first mistakes his 
 own opinion for that of those whom he contends with, 
 and he next overleaps the points of disparity. In 
 his system, very possibly the bishop, appointed thus, 
 might be no bishop, inasmuch as his universal rule 
 would fail. But in the persuasion of those, who hold 
 the validity of consecration to depend on the perfor- 
 mance of an episcopal function bj^ bishops, willingly 
 and seriously imposing hands on a subject capable of 
 episcopacy, the argument is not invincible, nor, in 
 truth, worthy of notice. Again ; to deny a point of 
 faith is not allowed in any instance. Why so ? Be- 
 cause in every instance it would be a crime. Why 
 in every instance ? Because it is in our •power in every 
 instance, not to deny the faith. On the other hand, 
 to admit of An-ian or Mahometan interference, such 
 as Columhanus has alleged, is no crime y because it 
 is not in our power, in the given supposition, to 
 ^void it. It is captivity i v.'hich may advance to the 
 extreme of persecution. The bishops are bound by 
 their office to ordain the most worthy. This duty 
 goes always to exclude the known uwworthy; it implies, 
 that thcj' shall seek for the more worthy, as far as 
 tkcse can he had. But the Arian prince draws a cir- 
 cle with his sword round a given number, and round 
 the bishops. Is the tyranny of the prince, the heresy 
 of the church? Is it violation of faith or of divine 
 
 rights 
 
^97 
 
 rights to compronuse with the highwayman, by giving 
 up your pvopeity and saving your life j to chuse for 
 ordination amongst the only fit persons, who are to 
 be found ? One should think not. Now, is there 
 any difference between the case of two candidates^ or 
 one candidate only, being on the spot, and the case of 
 all but two candidates, or one candidate being kept 
 back by the power of the sword ? 
 
 The question of Arian interference, or of any un- 
 catholic interference resolves itself generally into 
 the problem, how far the christian church can redeem 
 itself from death, by submitting for a while to chains. 
 In particular cases the question may be this; how 
 far the church, without selling out its birthright, 
 which is freedom, may render the exercise of its rights 
 auxiliary to the social rights of a commonweal. In 
 all these last-mentioned cases, although their variety 
 is infinite, yet the negative boundai'ies are the same. 
 The church cannot transfer its own judgment into 
 other hands by alienation, although it may conscien- 
 tiously engage to reconcile, as far as is possible, its 
 choice of subjects to the social principles of any 
 confederation, which will guarantee its free right. 
 In this, the church mei*ely exchanges a larger title 
 for a more peaceable security. Neither can it gratui- 
 tously, or without an implied exchange, or at least a 
 well-founded hope of advancing the cause of Christi- 
 anity, admit a foreign arbitration within its polity; 
 
 because 
 
d9S 
 
 because, by so doing, it admits that, which of its otvti 
 nature will seek encroachment, and which, if become 
 a tyrant, cannot, without infinite prejudice to christian 
 morals, be either shaken off or contradicted. It can- 
 not, in short, cither profess itself a slave, or bind its 
 spiritual authority to any exterior symbol or tenancy of 
 the temporal sword. For, considering the power of 
 Christianity, even as a mere empire of opinion ; as 
 professedly the consolation of mankind ; as compre- 
 hending all times and climates; as having proved 
 by the experiment of eighteen centuries, that it is 
 beneflcv?nt, faithful, and most likely to endure, as 
 long as men are susceptible of remorse, or liable 
 to misfortune, or anxious about futui-ity ; consi- 
 dering, that in its origin, in its progress, in its per- 
 manency, it stands contrasted to all political power; 
 if the church were to bind up all its authorities with 
 tlie duration of any temporal system, it would vainly 
 attempt to share its own perpetuity with that which 
 cannot be everlasting. Foi' which reason, we sec, 
 il^at in every instance, where even the exterior church 
 jurisdiction has been married with the temporal, the 
 fall of the latter has entailed persecution on the church 
 itself, and misery on the christians. To temporal 
 governments the church teaches fidelity. But with 
 no form of government can chinxhmcn irrevocably 
 engage, or pledge, or entrust the spiritual inheri- 
 tcinco. of the church itself; as no possible number of 
 iven can contract for all mankind to be born. 
 
 We 
 
S99 
 
 We have done ^rith Arian kings. Columlantis on 
 this subject 's no other than he has been on every 
 subject, rather presumptuous, rather over-confident 
 as to the ignorance of his readers, not candid, and not 
 very successful. We have next to consider the merits 
 of the X)eto^ as particularly spoken of for Ireland. The 
 subject may appear obsolete; but, forgotten as it may 
 be by the public, it is not given up by politicifins, 
 except in the name. 
 
 It is well known, that the idea of a "veto has been 
 rejected by the catholics of Ireland: that all our 
 pi'elates, in September 1S08, declared inexpetlient 
 any alteration in the mode of appointing bishops ; 
 asserting the ancient manner to be unexceptionable 
 and salutary : that these bishops, at the same time, 
 charged themselves with the burthen of recommend- 
 ing, as they had always done, to the holy see such 
 candidates only, as shoidd be unimpeachable, both a>; 
 to loyalty and pacific manners. It will never be foi- 
 gotten, that in February 1810^ the three surviving 
 metropolitans and twenty-one bishops published ample 
 resolutions, whereby they committed themselves, iu 
 the sight of the catholic world, for tlieir allegiance 
 to the empire, and for the integrity of their religior? 
 On the 2d of March in the same year, a meelin<^ 
 of the Irish catholic committee in Dublin resolved 
 that, as catholics and as Irishmen, they could never 
 agree to the veto. In passing this resolution, the meet- 
 ing did nothing snore than express t\ie nationai 
 
 determinatior.. 
 
^00 
 
 determination, which for some months previous had 
 been unequivocally manifested. So distinctly was this 
 famous resolution the expression of Irish sentiment, 
 that, although the declaration of the prelates had 
 been communicated to that very meeting, it was yet 
 agreed, that the committee sliould resolve, without 
 adverting to what had been just read. To some 
 persons that resolution appeared rash at the time, yet 
 glorious. But as the question could not be kept back, 
 neither was it possible, without incurring the suspicion 
 of treachery, to modify or to distinguish, where the 
 Irish heart rejected all. With what applause this 
 resolution was announced, what rejoicings followed 
 its success, what congratulations, what triumph, thej'^ 
 who were present will remember, as long as they 
 live. The enthusiasm of the Roman people, when the 
 death of Nero was proclaimed, may have been as vio- 
 lent J but it was neither so patriotic nor so pure : it 
 knew nothing of the spirit of religious freedom. 
 
 In the mean time our Coliimhanus had set himself 
 to enlighten the catholics of Ireland on the subject 
 of alarm, and on manj^ other subjects of lesser mo- 
 ment. His leading work, dated in March* 1810, 
 
 is 
 
 * From certain expressions in this letter, it has been suppos- 
 ed by bishop Milner, that the resolutions of the 24th Febru- 
 ary 1810, entered into by the Irish prelates, were known to 
 Q)lumbanns ; and that one resolution in particular, that " the bishops 
 
 " neither 
 
601 
 
 isentitlexl, *< Columhanus ad HibcrnoSi or a letter from 
 ** Columban to ^is friend in Ireland on the present 
 " modfi» of appointi?ig bishops in his native cotmtty." 
 His motto from Horace informs us, that wortJi is 
 a stranger to the humiliation of a repidse, such as 
 candidates for popular dignities must experience*. 
 4 H His 
 
 " neither desired nor sought any earthly consideration for their 
 '* ministry, beyond that, which their flocks voluntarily ofl'ered from 
 " a sense of religion and duty." Columbanus denies having had 
 any intimation of the resolutions of February 24, and solemnly 
 declares his unacquaintance, at the time his first letter was pub- 
 lished, with the proceeding in Dublin, three weeks previous. I do 
 not question the solemn declaration of a man still professing himself, at 
 least, not denying himself to be a christian. But, as lie has impudently 
 called bishop Miiner a calumniator, for making an assertion, ■which at the 
 very utmost was rash and erroneous, because it did not aggravate the 
 real guilt of Columbanus, I must observe, that all the proofs, whicli 
 our author giv.^s of the impossililily of his having known the purport 
 of the Irish lesoluLions, are either perfect nonsenscj or unworthy equi- 
 voca'.ion. I say no more for the present. 
 
 ♦ From the singularity of this motto, has arisen, I presume, the 
 common report, which, like all malicious reports, has gained credit in 
 Ireland, that Coliimianus indited his first homily to hisfriendia Ireland, 
 under the new smarting of a repulse in his search after a vulgar 
 dignity, commonly called a catholic bishopric. In general, no rule 
 for interpreting the motives of violent men is more everlastingly true, 
 than the excusatio non petila. But Columbanus is an exception to 
 every rule and every principle. Were this even not the case, it it 
 not improbable, that the province of selecting a motto was assigned 
 to his printer by Cohrnihanus in his hurry to publish. The motto in 
 qvustion has been, time out of mind, an item of typographical slock, 
 
 like, 
 
602 
 
 His introduction, of which it Is impossible to abridge 
 or to parody the singular composition, states, that he 
 had submitted to certain wise men of England a 
 letter from his friend, containing the account of Irish 
 squabbles, and so forth, which appeared to Columbanus 
 pregnant with future mischief: that, however, some 
 other informer had got the start of him: that, al- 
 though he knows not what any statesman may be 
 plannino-, he is free to tell his correspondent, that 
 England and Ireland begin to he better known to each 
 other ; that the monopoly of bishops and the ambition 
 of clergymen have provoked minute inquiries into the 
 state of the church ; nay, politicians are beginning to 
 weigh in their scales many circumstances regarding mar^ 
 riages, dispensations-, excommiinicatioris and parish dues. 
 Columbanus, like a brother statesman, forbears either 
 to mention the circumstances, or name the politicians, 
 who amuse themselves thus profoundly. He then 
 praises the excellent temperament of the constitution, 
 which permits neither ins nor outs to raise a religious 
 cry ; threatens the Irish squabblers with the interfe- 
 rence of the justice of peace ; is extremely sorry to be 
 compelled to acknowledge, that our ecclesiastical man- 
 ners are corrupt, and that the Maynooth imperium 
 
 in 
 
 like, Si quid noxii:U reclius istis, and, Vox Populi vox Dei. In the begin- 
 ning of the last century, it was used as the title page apology for plays, 
 either rejected by a manager, or damned in some minutes after ihe 
 ]»rologue. 
 
(303 
 
 in imperio has called forth the pity of sober antifana' 
 tical statesmep, who are willing to interpose the 
 salutarj' restraitits of legal responsibility y as an egis of 
 defence between the liberties of the people and the 
 Maynooth tisiirpatio7i. " The object," says he, " of 
 *' the insidious clamozir'" against the vetOy **is to gild 
 *' the pill of ecclesiastical domination by giving it 
 ** the colour of divine right, and to consecrate by a 
 ** sacred name, one of the most novel and most unge- 
 *' nerous usurpations against the second order of 
 ** clergy, the nobility and gentry, that ever disgraced 
 ** a christian counLrijy Then he tells the story of 
 the solemn compact for bequeathing sees. He advises 
 his countrymen not to be duped by the equivocating 
 tricks of usurping bishops, nor by their fallacious 
 promises, but to appeal to the protection of lata ; pro- 
 tests, that he does not appeal to the passions, because 
 amojigst rational beings truth is propagated only l)y 
 persuasion ; warns the nobility, gentry and clergy 
 of Ireland not to sacrijlce lives and properties in the 
 prospect of a croison of martyrdom y which the bishops 
 are so ready to promise for engaging in their cause, 
 until a national synod, such as was held anno domini 
 1111, of fifty bishops, three hundred priestSy four thoU' 
 sand abbots and. monks, and the chiefs of the Irish nati- 
 iiUy shall decide, whether we are to believe that bishops 
 may bequeath their sees like private property. lie 
 ^•onjures our bishops, by their salvation, to reform 
 
 themselves 
 
604 
 
 themselves in iime, or else the people will inflict re- 
 form on them, in an angry way. The population is 
 too great for the number of priests. ^ omew far gone 
 in childbirth, have been seen by Columhanus and by 
 his correspondent to fast until after sunset, waiting for 
 older and more infirm people than themselves to take 
 the sacrament first. — I have applied to more than one, 
 for an explanation of this coniplicated phenomenon, 
 regarding the women y^/r gone in childbirth. Hitherto 
 none have been able to guess its drift. — Moreover, 
 Columhanus assures us, that murder and robbery arc 
 increasing in proportion as private confession is hur- 
 ried over. — What species of priests that can be, which 
 so slightly examines and so hastily, as to skip over 
 the peccadillos of mtirder and rapine^ he keeps to 
 himself, like a statesman. — He next humbly informs 
 the bishops, that there is not one instance of bishops 
 electing their successors. He informs the public, that 
 every priest in Ireland is subject to be thrown on the 
 wide world by the bishop, without any reason assign- 
 ed, withdrawing his faculties. Again he conjures the 
 nation not to be duped by the hypocritical canti?ig of 
 the bishops, but to reform itself in union with the 
 bishops, with charity for surrounding sects, and with 
 love and loyalty for the unrivalled constitution. He 
 praises the laborious parish priests, whom he had just 
 before exhibited skipping over murder and robbery j 
 and gives it as a T^^e/Z himson fact, that men of the 
 second order of the clergy, deserving of the highset 
 
 stations, 
 
605 
 
 stations for their learning and character, have been 
 refused enipl.oj'«ient and thro-dm tipon the public by the 
 bishop, ^ov I'easons they will not tell out. 
 ■ Thus have I given, as nearly as I could, the 
 ultimatum of twenty-four pages. I do not piesume 
 to have represented the entii^e ; because, I confers to 
 have stepped across the groveling and sputtering 
 of inarticulate fatuity, and to have chiefly noticed 
 those passages, in which the idiot phi-ase swells up, 
 by the aid of paroxysm, into distinct features o{ 
 malignity. The remainder of his introduction con- 
 sists of certain atttempts at ridicule, and of bloody 
 accusation against all the opposers of the Irish Veto, 
 With regard to our bishops, Colimibanus M'as nor. 
 surprized at their opposition ; " because," says he, 
 ** experience shews, that men are never so artful or 
 *' so vindictive in defence of just rights, as in defence 
 " o^ usurpation " Again ; *' I do not wondei-," writes 
 ColumbaymSy *' that the bigotry of ignorance, x\\r 
 ^''jealcnisy to England, the democracy of revolutionists. 
 ** and the principles of rebellion and separafio7i h-ivr 
 ''coalesced against granting a //w//£'(Z negative.. On 
 *' the contrary, I foresaw, that the most outrageous 
 *' and opposite passions would confederate to prevent 
 ** any and every interference, which might tend to 
 *' restrain the uncontrouled dominion of Mavnooth 
 *' within the limits of just and legal and necesi-arv 
 *^ respo7isibility."*' This conclusion he repeats a'l-ain 
 
 and 
 >Ci.iluinb ibid. n. 25. 
 
606 
 
 and again. Indeed it was his best weapon, and is his 
 sole argument, now that we have disposed of his 
 Arian kings, and Arabian canons, " venerated from 
 ** pole to pole." *' Two descrij)tio7is of Irishmen," says 
 lie elsewhere, *' are hostile to a negative on the part 
 *' of the civil power j the bishops and the separatists 
 *' or revolutionists.* Both well know, that the 
 " negative has nothing to do with Revelatioji : that the 
 " JPrench protestants presented parish piriests to catho- 
 " lie livings in France. The bishops join in this 
 '* uproar, in order to preserve their lordly and nnli- 
 *' mited dominion," which is the " uncontroulcd 
 " patronage of 200,000 pounds per annum,"f 
 
 which 
 
 ♦ IbiJ. p. 109. 
 
 + Ibid. p. 5. I would not disgrace my text by admitting the fot- 
 Towing passage fVcim Columb. letter IV. p. 89. " For the purpose 
 " of (7pj)ointing their awn successors they have resisted Sklimncd negative 
 " on the part of the state, whicli, if it had been conceded, uould have 
 '•' led to extensive arrangements in favour of the poor. One million of 
 " our peasantry might, ere now, have been emancipated from parish 
 " dues and cessses." Our author is, I allow, as perfect in finance as 
 he is accomplished in the graver studies. Yet he has too flattering 
 an opinion of our national credulity. Were the Veto to have any efilcl 
 ,-;pon parish dues and cesses, it would have an effect quite contrary t« 
 that here allrgcd. But our Jimvicier omits some few vulgar difficulties 
 to his project ; namely, that if those cesses are removed from the poor, 
 the relief must be efl'-cted through the medium of a leal compensa- 
 tion to the clergy of the church eslablshcd, or by an equivalent from 
 the public money. In the foniur supposition, the landed proprietor, 
 pn whom the new burthen should alight, would naturally repriie 
 
 himseif 
 
607 
 
 " which a limited negative would restrain by the 
 *' iv/iolesome provisions of laiv. The revolutionists 
 *♦ wish to foment religious discord, that they may 
 *« vroxk upon the enthusiasm of the population, as 
 *' in the late rebellion." These revolutionists he stiles 
 desperadoes. 
 
 Such is the modest language, and such is the con- 
 scientious testimony of a man, stiling himself a catholic 
 priest. Such indeed we had reason to expect from 
 the unnatural slanderer of bishops. The revolution- 
 ists opposed the Veto, says this man of blood, in order 
 to keep the million under their control for the oppor- 
 tunity of a new rebellion. The prelates confederated 
 with the revohitionists, in order to retain their usurped 
 possession ; and both revolutionists and prelates affect 
 to act from conscience, while they were acting against 
 their conscience. The accusation is capital; but 
 where is the proof? Columbanus has no proof but his 
 own assertion. The zealot for ancient canons, which, 
 as he tells us, " requires a written allegation and proof, 
 ** before a priest can be suspended," deliberately 
 
 charges 
 
 himself in a further advance of liis rents. In the latter supposition, 
 the sum, raised by taxation, must come from the people, at the same 
 time that the consequential relief, thus afforded to the lands, would be 
 averaged between the proprietor atid the peasant, at the very best. 
 Nothing of what our financier throws out could be realized by the 
 creation of new funds. Nothing could be effected, but by a communi- 
 cation of funds existing, and appropriated to objects exclusively anti- 
 catholic. 
 
60b 
 
 charges all the catholic bishops in Ireland with abet- 
 ting treasonable designs, and -all the Irish catholics, 
 who are capable of forming an opinion, with an ima- 
 gination and purpose of rebellion j and this he 
 presumes to do, on the sole strength of his face. He 
 ha(\J'oreseen, as he tells us, that such coalition between 
 "bishops and rebels would take place. It was, there- 
 fore, his duty, as a loyal wizard, to have apprized his 
 wise men of England. Some weeks before the bishops 
 had declined t!ie Veto, I too had foreseen smA foretold , 
 that the tmdcrtakcrs of tliat measure, amongst our- 
 selves, would avenge the discovery of their unimpor- 
 tance at home, by betaking themselves to murderous 
 calumny. 1 think, that with the sole difference of 
 English, I represented, by anticipation, the identical 
 charges of this unliappy maniac. See Inquiry on the 
 Veto, p. 76, 77. 
 
 In every particular, his assertion is as false, as his cri- 
 mination is felonious. Neither hisJwps nor catholics of 
 Ireland opposed a J'eto, as liviited-, but as, of its nature, 
 uvlimited and destructive. Neither the bisliops^ nor the 
 ratkoii'cSy who opposed the TV/o, knew, that it contain- 
 rd nothing against revelation ; on the contrary, they 
 were sevcrall}- persuaded, that to admit such Veto, 
 would be ruinous equally to revealed religion and to 
 the hopes of freedom. Neither did they know, that 
 protrsftinfs did hy law present pnrisJi priests iti France^ 
 until Columhanns, as Icing of France, . settled that 
 
 matter. 
 
609 
 
 matter.* But they knew, that catholics in England 
 cannot present to livhigs, which vest, ijpso factOy in the 
 univei-sities, on conviction of popish recusancy. No 
 principles of separation or of rebellion were advanced 
 in opposition to the Veto\ but sound, and constitutional 
 principles, which Columhanus is incapable of under- 
 standing. No bishops opposed the VetOy for the sake 
 of appointing their successors. 
 
 In January 1799, on the proposal of Lord Corn- 
 wallis, and under the impression that the Irish catho- 
 lics, not only would be saved from the exterminating 
 
 4 I spirit, 
 
 * By the edict of Nantz, French protestant lords were secured in 
 the possession of all their seignorial right and honours. From.thig it 
 was inferred by some excellent lawyers, especially Dumoulin, who died 
 a catholic, and Louet, that the right of advowson, being an honour, 
 was also secured, Tht church of France iiever j'ielded to this 
 assertion. In the troublesome Jmes of fouis XIII., three cases 
 were resolved by the parliament of Fi>r ;,, in favour of collation 
 by protestants ; but this was done for the purpose of gaining over the 
 chief heads of the party :' in 1652, the kind's ordinance declared against 
 all protestant patronage. The protestants obtained an order of 
 council, that they might be allowed to appoint catholic proxiffs. This 
 order was n.t put in execution ; and the bishops collated freely, until 
 the infamous revocation of the edici of Nantz. What aUempts may 
 have been made by the deistical French parhament before 1h« yeai 
 1789, I profess to know not; nor would any great moral siijipori be 
 derived from any precedent established by miscreants, who could 
 resolve, that a priest was obliged to administer the eucharist, on serious 
 request, to a man, who should ask it plainly apd evidently from a 
 principle of impiety and defiance, 
 
610 
 
 spirit, which prowjed and shrieked at our doors, but 
 shortly would be admitted to the privileges of the 
 constitution J ten Irish prelates, being trustees of 
 IVIaynooth college, sent in to the Irish government a 
 contre jprojet of capitulation, of which the very first 
 article demonstrates, that their proposal was in answer 
 to a preceding summons.* Cohimhanus denounces, 
 in this proposal, the expressions, that *' in the 
 •* vacancy of a see, the clergy of the diocese are to re- 
 ** commend^ as usual, a candidate to the prelates of the 
 ** episcopal province, who elect him, or any other they 
 *' may think more worthy, by a majority of suffrages." 
 But so estranged is the man from every visitation of 
 common sense, that even in an instrument, rescinded, 
 ap this has been, by a greater authority than that 
 which framed it, he fastens upon points either unex- 
 ceptionable or praiseworthy, considering, that the- 
 project was in fact a capitulation, under the most 
 terrific circumstances of alternative. Columbamis, 
 alluding to the words, " recommended as usual," 
 says,f that *' this is the ^rst instance in Irish history^ 
 ** when the immemorial election and jpostulution of 
 " dean and chapter of a vacant diocese has been 
 
 " called 
 
 * " At a meeting of the R C. prelates assembled, &c. to deliberate o>< 
 " a proposal from gnvernmeni, of an independent provision for ihf- R. Co 
 " clergy of Ireland, vnder certain regulations, not incompatible wjti 
 " theW doctrine, discipline, or just principles." 
 
 f First letter, p. 121, 122, note. 
 
(ill 
 
 *^ called a recommendation: that, in no public document, 
 " would oui- bishops have ventured to arrogate the 
 " election to themselves." It has seldom happened, 
 that so much boldness and ignorance have been found 
 togetlier, as in this piece of criticism. First of all ; the 
 term, recommendcUioriy was 7iot misapplied to the so 
 called capitular election and postn/ation; because 
 neither before nor since the reformation has capitular 
 election in Ireland been conclusive with the holy see. 
 Secondly ; the catholic bishops, in their resolutions of 
 1808 and of IS 10, applied the term, rccommendatiojiy 
 to their own act of interference in favour of a candi- 
 date; although it appears, they considered such recom- 
 mendation as holding far greater weight than any 
 ccifpittdar election. Thirdly; in this very document 
 the words, ** as usual," arc added to the *' recom- 
 '* mendation," whereby the chapters and diocesan 
 clergy were left in the possession of whatever authority 
 they had exercised until then, with this difference, that 
 their application was to be made in the first instance 
 to the provincial bishops. Fourth; these woj-ds, " the 
 " provincial bishops elect him, the person recom- 
 *' mended by the clergy, or any other they may think 
 •' more worthy," are not, as our author supposes, 
 declaratory of a generally established practice, but 
 intrdductory of a new one, as appears both from the 
 preamble, "the following regulations seem necessary," 
 as well as from tlie conclusion, ♦* these reopulatious 
 
 '* cnn 
 
612 
 
 *' can have no effect, &c." Fifth ; Columhanus either 
 dissembles or forgets, that in the vacancy of a see, the 
 practice had been, not only for the chapter to elect 
 pro forma y but for all the clergy to recommend ^ and 
 that as the practical importance of these several 
 methods was similar, the word, recommendatioii^ was 
 fairly employed. 
 
 Columbanus gives some further specimens of reasoning 
 on this topic. " Let it be asked," cries he, *' voas 
 *• Doctor Troy elected to Ossory b}' the bishops of 
 ** Leinster? Doctor Reilly by those of Ulster? Doctor 
 *' Moylan by those of Munster ? Doctor French by 
 *♦ those of Connaught?" The question to be asked 
 was, whether those prelates had been appointed 
 through election and postulation by chapter j and the 
 answer would have been. No. Doctor Troy was in 
 ■ Rome, when appointed to Ossory. Doctor Reilly was 
 translated to Armagh without any capitular election. 
 Doctor Moylan had had the recommendation of all the 
 provincial bishops and other prelates (in all two Me- 
 tropolitans and twelve bishops), along with the recom- 
 mendation of the great majority of the Diocesan clergy. 
 Doctor French had some of the chapter and some of 
 the clergy ; but he, besides, had the recommendation 
 of bishop Fallon his predecessor, and of five or six 
 bishops. In conclusion, our author, under a Be it 
 remembered^ tells the public, that " the parish priests, 
 *' whom the ten bishops attempted thus basely tobetratj, 
 
 •* are 
 
(313 - 
 
 ** are they, who feed, clothe and maintain, by their 
 •* voluntary contributions, those very bishops :" and 
 he then makes his exit in this very affecting sentiment. 
 *' Englishmen ! Irishmen ! nature has united ycu by 
 ** vicinitijy by commerce, by languagCy kindred and 
 ** interests.^^ How puny does the, *' Reading and 
 ** writing comes by nature ^^ of Dogberry, the man of 
 acguiremetifs in the play, appear, when compared to this 
 exquisite tenderness of brain ! From this natural unity 
 of Englishmen and Irishmen Columbanus is led to 
 exhort them to " preserve to each other their resjpec- 
 *' tive rights;" on which condition he promises to 
 them *'a conquest over the tyrant of Europe." 
 
 But how did those bishops betray the parish priests ? 
 Was it by allowing a Veto P No such thing. Coltun- 
 hanus insists on a legal Veto, and on restraints besides. 
 Was it by not giving to the parish priests a right of 
 election and postidation, which they never had en- 
 joyed ? Surely not. Was it by preventing the 
 direct address of recommendations by parish priests to 
 the holy see ? But this could not be prevented by 
 the bishops. The men in office of that day wanted 
 to abridge, in future, the communication with the holy 
 see, if it should be re-established. They wanted to 
 hold inquisitorial power over the lives of episcopal 
 candidates. For this end, they required, that one can- 
 didate only, should be recommended to their millin'?- 
 process at a time. It would have distracted th^m 
 
 fron? 
 
0i4 * 
 
 from loftier curc>. lo \vatc!) or to work the srindiuff of 
 our bishops elect, if ihc hopper were crowded with 
 candidates. They would have the elective act com- 
 pleted, and the choice individualized, before tht* 
 gecrctary's officer put on his spectacles, and widened 
 bis ears for j^^'ivatc and loyal information from captains 
 of yeomanry, clergymen of the church established, 
 accomplished excisemen, grand jurors, petty jurors, 
 tythe proctors and sextons. The sole question Jeft 
 to the bishops was, to decide, whether in a dificrcnce 
 of choice, their own judgment or the recommendation 
 of the clergy should preponderate. They decided, 
 naturally and not unjustly, for the predominance of 
 their own judgment, Avhich had been in possession 
 of that greater weight with the holy see. I must 
 say further, that, unless they did so, they could not 
 have introduced the stipulation for the clergy, a body 
 of men, against which all the suspicion and rancour 
 of those times weie accumulated, and against who&e 
 datigeroiis influence, the propounders of the measure 
 pretended, it was necessary to ensure the state. The 
 express ground, on which those ten bishops proceed- 
 ed, was the consideration of a permament support for 
 the catholic clergy at large. The express limitation 
 of the admitted interference of the government was> 
 that the latter should, as was just, be satisfied of the 
 loyaltij of episcopal candidates. The government was 
 to inform the bishops of its objections to their choice : 
 and the whole project was declared to have no effect 
 
 without 
 
615 
 
 xvitiiout the sanction of the holy see, which the ten 
 tisliops promised to use their endeavmirs to obtain^ 
 as soon as might be. Here the matter dropped. 
 
 Moi-e than nine years after this project was handed 
 in, it became apparent, that what had been conceded 
 for ascertaining loyalty^ was construed in a larger, 
 and in a very different meaning : that the ten bishops 
 had imagined, they were securing their religion against 
 the possibility of reproach, but in reality had been 
 giving a colour for supposing, that our catholic chiu'ch 
 polity might be subjected to protestant prerogative ; 
 that the proper ohjection^ to the candidate could not 
 be defined, unless by the pleasure of the government 
 itself, deciding through the medium of rival or un- 
 fevourable suggestion ; that when once the wrenching 
 crow of church and state hq,d fixed its point in the 
 centre of our system, it could not be dislodged. It 
 would move and unsettle all, until it had cither bro- 
 lien our church to pieces, or forced it to a surrender-: 
 because this lever would necessarily proceed to nw-* 
 4erwork our catholic system, until at least it gained 
 the very corner stones, to which suspicion, jealousv 
 and repeated experiments would conduct it. Tliat, 
 jigainst this disorganizing process, the catholic church 
 would have no possible defence, no rallying stand, no 
 refuge of appeal j whereas the principle of state expe- 
 diency must countervail, being once admitted, all 
 remonstrance or protest in favour of oifr contrasted 
 
 ordinances 
 
616 
 
 ordinances and discipline : that, in fine, the politicv^l 
 i^owcr could assume every thing, while the catholic im- 
 potence could resume nothing, could protect nothing, 
 could justify nothiirg of its own. To the certainty of 
 this process the wJiole history of compacts between 
 j)rinciph and strevgih bears witness. But, in the case of 
 the VctOy the very misapprehension of most liberal pro- 
 testants was demonstrative proof. They explained the 
 catholic project l)y referring it to their own ideas : 
 they found in the document from the ten bishops an 
 unlimited negative, amounting to an absolute appoint- 
 maiii they found his majesty become virtual head of 
 our church ; they found ^^ajjaZ injluence at an end ; 
 and this Papal injluence was catholic hierarchy^ 
 What astonishment and sorrow took possession of the 
 Irish Roman catholics, when the text and the com- 
 ment were made known, I will not attempt to relate- 
 I myself was a sharer in that public distress, and can, 
 therefore, solemnly attest, that the very worst Irish 
 catholic was sincere in abominating the Veto, from 
 motives of conscience. Whatever Columhanus may 
 prate o^ jealousy towards England ; whatever may have 
 been angrily said or published, at the time, against 
 that supposed rapacity, which had promised redress 
 as the consequence of union, and, eight years after, 
 came to demand all, that still lingered at home, of 
 Irish feeling, before it would discuss, whether redress 
 were not impracticable -y the aversion to the Veto woij|}d 
 
 nc$ 
 
617 
 
 not have been less, if England Were catholiCy or if a 
 catholic king reigned in Ireland, and the J'eto were 
 demanded by that king. The sentiment was inti- 
 mately joined with the religious constitution of Irish 
 feeling; because the Irish, for centuries, had identified 
 the comforts of religion with escape and with retire- 
 ment from the inspection of Power. The very essence 
 of Irish catholicity is, that it is a matter of choice, of 
 predilection, and therefore of entire confidence. By 
 tampei'ing with this confidence, you leave no religion 
 for the Irishman ; and it is a problem of dreadful 
 conjecture, whether tlie Irish mind woukl not acquire 
 fatal energies by the subtraction of that, which at 
 once softens and consoles its giantlike character. 
 To think of binding the nation more firmly to the 
 safety of the established church, by taking into 
 political hands any leading strings of our catholic 
 system, is a mistake proceeding from ignorance of 
 fact. You may seize on those strings j you may pull 
 away the system from the people; but the people 
 you will not draw home into your hands. Give to 
 the people a share in your social freedom ; they will 
 fight for the constitution as for their lives. Allow 
 the people to retain their religious freedom; they 
 will fight for you as for their souls. You will get 
 back, in importance to the empire, a full value for 
 that liberty you allow at home : that importance will 
 give the durability to your establishment, which you 
 4 K erroneously 
 
618 
 
 erroneously seek to obtain, by'drying up a ready source 
 of imperial glory, and of influence throughout the 
 catholic world. 
 
 To return to 180S; all the catholic bishops iii 
 Ireland assembled and declared, as already mentioned j 
 first } that, any alteration in the appointment of pre- 
 lates would be inexpedient : second ; that, the existing 
 mode was unimpeachaUe and. salutary: lastly; that 
 they had always recommended, and would always 
 recommend men, only of unspotted loyalty and of 
 peaceable demeanour. 
 
 This declaration, so made by persons the most com- 
 petent to decide on the subject, in a religious point 
 of view, was given without explanations. Yet, in 
 the absence of explicit motives, our sagacious author 
 has discovered a coalition with the principles of re" 
 hellion. As to the political consequences of the cele- 
 brated VetOf they were laid before catholics and pro- 
 testants, when as yet the bishops had not assembled. 
 It was represented, that the attempt to gain a con- 
 troul over our religion, as accompanying a measure 
 of statutable redress, did necessarily indicate, that the 
 redress, which was to be granted along with such 
 controul obtained, would be the last redress for Irish 
 catholics; for this general reason, that the last at- 
 tempts of political warfare, and the last conclusions 
 of political treaty, are made against or with the most 
 sacred authorities of the weaker party. It was argued, 
 
 that 
 
619 
 
 that in the catholic case, the assertion was palpa,blei 
 because the catholic authorities of our relijrion being 
 once neutraiizetl, the medium, thiough which our 
 grievances were the grievances of a hody, would be 
 nullified, and our future complaints of a degraded 
 station, or of being allotted a base tenure of freedom, 
 would not appear the conscientious dissent of an 
 order of social men, but the obstinacy of a few, abetting 
 tlie ignorance of the many. The many miglit be di- 
 vided by art or by strife, in which supposition, the 
 catholic cause would be said, withoutfear of refutation, 
 to be the cause of that party, which declined to ask fur- 
 ther redress j inasmuch as the catholic^ authorities had 
 been rendered stationary, or captive. It was stated, that, 
 as the controul over our church, if once gained would 
 never be restored, the Irish catholics ought, if they 
 valued their religion, to demand, that such controul 
 should never be used for the overthrow of their pro- 
 fession. It was stated, that no mere statutable redress 
 of social grievances would adequately secure the 
 catholic profession from that overthrow; and that 
 the only security was to be found in a guarantee by 
 the constitution itself: that, as the constitution is now 
 understood, any controul given to the civil power, 
 or assumed by it over our church, has but one sense 
 and one me^ming, which negatives and excludes all 
 s])irltual jurisdiction, not emanating from an autho- 
 rity of its own creation : that, unless, in this respect, 
 an exception of allowance for catholic profession were 
 
 admitted 
 
620 
 
 admitted and recognized within the constitution, or by 
 some act or deed of durable and sovereign evidence, the 
 smallest coiitroul would necessarily travel to the great- 
 est dominion; because the principle of interference had 
 been granted, which the constitution, accepting in its 
 own sense, would exercise, as its own property, towards 
 Roman catholic, as towards eslahlished churches j 
 towards tlie latter in protection, towards the former 
 in estrangement. 
 
 It was argued, that every other method of securing 
 the existence of catholic profession was impracticable ; 
 and although other methods should be at hand, yet they 
 •would be dangerous to the constitution, as sovereign 
 protector and witness of all rights : they a\ oukl per- 
 petuate a distinctness in political duties, and would be 
 liable to occasional usurpations on every side. The 
 edict of Nantz gave to the French protestants other 
 guarantees than those of the constitution. Those 
 guarantees v/ere the cause of greater exasperation. 
 Tiiey established liodility in France under tlie n.nne 
 of adjustment, and through the mean of an indefinite 
 armistice. The consequences were miserable, and the 
 catastrophe was infamous. In Switzerland, the religious 
 warfare was short. The cantons returned to their federal 
 system. In Germany, the wars about religion were ter- 
 minated by adjustments, but tiie guarantees were aim- 
 ed states. In the case of Irish catholics, it is required, 
 not to give a separate independence, nor to establish 
 a perpetual truce ; but to reconcile the subjects to the 
 
 constitution 
 
621 
 
 constitution, and to enlarge tlie constitution, so that 
 the subject may be bound to it by all the tendencies 
 and sanctions of his catholic religion. These tenden- 
 cies anil sanctions are catholic, and, therefore, ought 
 to be recognized, as the inviolable pledges of his 
 attachment. 
 
 It was stated, moreover, that unless this recognition 
 of cathohc pi'ofession were granted, the most exten- 
 sive redress, hi) statute, of the grievances of catholics 
 would not tranquillize Ireland, nor amount, in feeling 
 and value, to total emancipation. Because, notwith- 
 standing such redress to the nation, the religious system 
 would be sunk below that, not only of the established 
 church of England, but also of that of Scotland, both 
 of which are recognized and guaranteed by the pacta 
 conventa of the union, and besides are dominant 
 within their local spheres. The religion of the Irish 
 catholics cannot dominate locall}^ j nor can it demand 
 support by compulsory means. Therefore, its rank 
 would be none j and therefore its exsitence, at least, 
 should be guaranteed. This security should precede 
 all innovations upon the religious, or esteemed reli- 
 gious usages of catholics; because, when once 
 granted, the party secured may conscientiously and 
 honourably' yield what otherwise he could not : be- 
 cause, this security, being the gift of the constitution 
 to the catholic system, would equitably call for and 
 justify a return of free but permanent tribute, from the 
 latter to the former. 
 
 It 
 
622 
 
 It was- also suggested, that the principle of the 
 constitution, as last settled, abjured the idea of a 
 political coiitroul over the mit'ional religious system, 
 by a chief magistrate adhering to a different religion : 
 that the oath taken by Roman catholics, excludes, 
 for evermore, all foreign pretensions to interference 
 with the temporal rights or powers of the state: that 
 the state, by proposing and by accepting this oath, 
 has virtuall}'^ distinguished that which catholics de- 
 nominate spiritual^ from that which they acknowledge 
 to be temporal ; and that consequently to exact further 
 from catholics, would, by most protestants, and by ma- 
 ny catholics, be considered a victory over the catholic 
 system, and would be followed up as a victory over 
 the religion itself. . 
 
 It was said, that, supposing a veto to be used not 
 adversely at the first, the idea of an extraordinary 
 infiuence^ belonging to the ministry of catholic worship, 
 and on this ground alone claimed by and transferred 
 to the sovereign executive, would become a chief 
 source of jealousy for the other protestant churches j 
 and for all the sects unfavourable to Catholicism, as 
 well as for sincere and rational adherents to constitu- 
 tional freedom: that this jealousy would claim 
 inspection over the executive Veto: that, this jealousy 
 could not be slighted or opposed, nor could it be 
 satisfied, unless by one or other of these following ways, 
 ot by both : that is to say, by diminishing the influ- 
 ejice of the catholic religion amongst catholics^ in order 
 
 to 
 
6^23 
 
 to disarm its supposed or pretended influence in the 
 state: or, secondly, by submitting the interior and 
 confidential polity of our christian system to the 
 periodical, wanton and immodest curiosity of the 
 lowest sectaries, whose ignorance would suspect, and 
 whose antipathies would impeach, oyer and over again, 
 each article of that polity, until our most venerable 
 >isages should shrink into inaction, rather than con- 
 tinue to expose themselves, like criminal things, to 
 unsparing search and contemptuous accusation. 
 
 All these reasons were given to the protestants and 
 catholics of Ireland, before the meeting of the bishops 
 in 1808. Over and above, there were adduced many 
 reasons to shew the iniquity, that would ensue from 
 the proposal of 1799, and the wrong, which would 
 be inflicted on our clergy, by the enforcement of that 
 proposal. The arguments, which I have particularly 
 adverted to, may be insufficient ; but to p-otestants 
 they did not appear treasonable, as our Cqlumbanus, 
 taught, 1 should presume, to utter his lesson, has 
 miscalled them. The wise ones of the state dissem- 
 bled those reasons, because what was inferred as 
 consequence^ had been already in premeditation as 
 concomitant with tlieir P'eio ; above all, because the 
 recognition, asked and supplicated for by the tenor 
 of that argument, could not be digested. 
 
 The Veto was put down in Ireland, as soon as pub- 
 licly mentioned. But the passion for conqucrino- the ibr- 
 tresjsei of oiu* catholic association, was not discouraged 
 
 by 
 
624 
 
 by one failure. The project of 1 799 was disallowed, 
 in its principle, by the episcopal assembly of 1808; 
 for, as to any practical subsistence or bindiii"- oblio-a- 
 tion, it was alike destitute of both, in the judgment 
 of reasonable and honest m^n. The political design, 
 for which the Vdo had been calculated, came up in 
 1810, under the name of arrangements. The cele- 
 brated letter of Lord Grenville to the Earl of 
 Fingall declared generally, that those arrangement."i 
 were complicated and extensive -y that, in particular y 
 he had considered an effectual Veto on the appoint- 
 ment of our bishops, to be necessary at least in the 
 substance, and that such had continued to be hi>~ 
 persuasion since the epoch of union. As a sample of 
 the stile, in which arrangemenis were to be conducted, 
 there appeared, at the same time with that letter, the 
 draft of a bill, as intended for relieving his majesty's 
 catholic subjects of the united kingdom j in which 
 draft, a Veto is proposed to be enacted, under the 
 sanction of a premunirey and the Veto itself is unre- 
 stricted. The framing of this latter document Is 
 ascribed to a gentleman, whom, in justice to my own 
 feelings, I will not name without a preface of respect. 
 As a Roman catholic, I am his debtor for great ser- 
 vices to the common cause: as having enjoyed formerly 
 some portion of his acquaintance, I may declare my 
 persuasion, that whatever be the line of his political 
 movements, his course is shaped and influenced by 
 
 conscience 
 
625 
 
 ooHsciciice. To ret urn j Sir John Cox Hippisley, the 
 framer of the draft in question, is author of a tract, 
 entitled, *' Substance of additional observations, &c. 
 *' in the debate on the catholic petition, 13th and 
 " 14th May, 1805;" in which work, more justice is 
 rendered to the catholic system, and greater gene- 
 rosity displayed, than ever had been attempted by a 
 protestant j nuich more than latterly had been shewn 
 by writers stiimg tliemselves catholics. The profess- 
 ed intent pf these observations was to repel certain 
 calumnies, afterwaixls published in the shape of a 
 grotesque harangue, as the speech of a Doctor 
 Duigenan: but the performance went infinitely beyond 
 the provocation. Tlie catholic doctrines of spiritual 
 supremacy, and episcopal mission; tlie rights of 
 conscience, the purity and independence of catholic 
 discipline, are stated with such integrity, are vindi- 
 cated with such truth, are Itandled with such religious 
 tenderness; nay, the expediency of cultivating a 
 political intercourse with Rome is so frankly avowed, 
 and the liberality and kindness of the late sovereign 
 pontiff so gratefully and elegantly set forth, as must 
 impress every reader with the author's worth ; and, 
 in every catholic, must have excited the same wisli, 
 as arose in me on perusing the argument, that the 
 Hon. Baronet were employed as a conciliator near 
 the holy see. To me such liberality appeared the more 
 valuable, as, at the same time that a most sincere 
 protcstant was advocating the freedom of our hierarchy 
 4 L from 
 
626 
 
 from protestant nomination^ attempts had been set cu 
 foot by some catliolics to force their way to 
 episcopal chairs, in opposition to our bishops, and 
 through jirotestant intervention. 1 expressed my 
 grateful feelings to the Hon. Baronet, and the ac- 
 knowledgments, then made, I now confnin. 
 
 The circumstance of Lord Grenville's publication 
 concurring in point of time v,ith the appearance of 
 the ])7-emu)iire draft, threw Irish catholics once more 
 into a disagreeable amazement. Some cried out 
 treachery; others questioned the authority of the 
 latter document, and endeavoured to explain away 
 the former. The bishops were importuned by the 
 general voice to meet. The catholic committee re- 
 ferred his Lordship's letter to a sub-committee; which 
 reported, that no reply was possible, but a general 
 negative or a general concession : it was agreed, that 
 the determination of the catholic prelates should be 
 ascertained. The bishops were assembled after some 
 delay. The catholic committee awaited the result, 
 not without anxiety, but yet ^^ith decorum. In all 
 the agitation of the public mind, in spite of foreign 
 artifice, and notwithstanding a considerable variety 
 of opinion, as to the practicability of conceding some- 
 "iSoJiati tjie Irish committee preserved its attitude of 
 catholicy and its magnanimity of deference to those 
 authorities, which Irishmen obey, because they love 
 them. Force they dread not, and slavery they 
 
 ablior i 
 
f)27 
 
 ft'ohor; but thej are used to feci generously j to pio- 
 tect that, which has no defence but blushing, and to 
 yield to that, which has no compulsion but reverence. 
 
 The i-esolutions of our prelates, of February 1810, 
 are universally known, and have been already advert- 
 ed to in this letter. Yet, as they establish a new age 
 in the catholic question, I shall dwell upon those points, 
 which seem to have been rather too little considered 
 by the advocates of arrangement for securing their 
 church and the state. I will take up the episcopal 
 decisions in that order, which may best shew their 
 application to previous, and then existing circum- 
 stances, as well as to supposed approachmg danger. 
 
 1. The Irish bishops established, that is to say, 
 they announced their undoubted right, under the 
 law christian, of being the judges in doctrine and the 
 enactors in general discipline. Whether, in proclaim- 
 ing this necessary article of the polity founded by 
 Christ, they but repulsed a novel attempt upon the 
 good faith and old religion of Irishmen, or sought, 
 as Columbanus teaches, to overawe discussion, because 
 their pretensions must fall, if examined by the public ; 
 every man will be able to decide, from the foregoing 
 pages of this work. Whether, by claiming their 
 right, they gave any colour for those accusations, 
 which Cohimbanus has piled up and cemented with 
 venomous slaver, of lust of dominion, of atrocious 
 motives, of hypocritical cajoling, of maintaining 
 principles of faithbreaking and perjury ; of continuing 
 
 the 
 
(328 
 
 the foreign influenced Riniiccini system, that causeti 
 massacre of the protestants in 16 II, and ended in the 
 dcsohition of Ireland ; of being men, from whom 
 oaths of allegiance are tvorsc than migcdory ; and of 
 all the other crimes, presumptive enormities and 
 blood-guiltiness, which that prodigal child of malice 
 has uttered by wholesale j the man who thiiiks and 
 who feels, be he catholic or be he protestant, wilt 
 determine according to the rules of justice, and by 
 the instincts of our common nature. 
 
 2. The bishops, taking notice of the ficccssmy VcUr 
 of my Lord Grenville, declared their unalterable ad- 
 herence to their resolutions of 1 808. By this resolution, 
 ihey not only confirmed the revocation of the partial 
 resolution of the Ten in 1799{ but seem to me to have 
 meekly expostulated with the loose faith of those, who 
 upon that pretended ultima fum of 1799, expressl}^ sav* 
 ing catholic doctrine, discipWie and religious ivjlucnce^ 
 had, under ground and clandestinely, superstructed 
 extensive and complicated arrangements, in derision 
 of that faith, which civilized and christian men arc 
 bound to maintain, in all matters of treaty, or of 
 preparatory compacts before a treaty^ 
 
 3. But still, as in the project of 1799, the considera- 
 tion of a cmnpetent and properly secured siij)port to 
 our catholic clergy had been taken notice of, and was 
 not adverted to in the rescinding vote of 1808j the 
 bishops assembled in 1 8 1 0,. thought it necessary to cut 
 
 up 
 
629 
 
 tip totally the plausible consideration. According] v> 
 tliey voted, that they sought no earthly support, beyond 
 that, which would be given voluntarily by theii' flocks : 
 thus, at once, nationalizing, as far as was laM-ful, their 
 authorit}', existence and influence ; and, at the same 
 time, refuting the suspicion cast upon them, even in 
 parliament, that they lay in wait for regaining 
 the endowments of the chiu'ch established. Against 
 this resolution, the forlorn cfTrontory of Columhanus 
 has taken an exception^ He has said, that the 
 bishops, wlio depend not on the flock for subsistence, 
 presumed to speak for the parish priests, who are. 
 <lependent on their flocks. If the parish priests are 
 dependent on their several flocks, as thej' are, by 
 wliat privilege of imposture does Columhanus talk 
 of lay patronage in Ireland-^ of the patronage of 
 Casilerca, if any such parish there be, or of any 
 other advowson ; whereas patronage supposes a sub- 
 sisting endowment ? But, oven in the fact, he is a 
 false witness, as usual. Out of the prelates, who 
 signed the resolution impeached by him, all but 
 one, the catholic bishop in Cork, are dependinn- 
 on their parishes for their principal subsistence, as 
 churchmen; and several, namely, those of the pro- 
 vince of Ulster, are almost totally depending on 
 their parishes and flocks. Again ; the prelates 
 did not speak for any but themselves. They knew, 
 undoubtedly, that their subordinate parish priests, 
 by accepting pensions, would forfeit the confidence 
 
 of 
 
6.30 
 
 of the people. But they resolved not fof any parisli 
 priest. They resolved for themselves j because, as 
 prelates, they were called upon so to do, in the fore- 
 most place. 
 
 4. Whereas amongst the arguments, broached 
 against the continuance of a papal influence in Ire- 
 land, an extreme supposition was urged at the time, 
 namely, that the FrencJi emperor would com))cl 
 Pius VII,, by duress of captivity to resign, in order 
 to the election of some creature devoted to French 
 ambition ; and, as the argument presupposed for the 
 purpose a lasting hostility between the French and 
 British empires] the bishops resolved, that Pius VII. 
 should not resign, as to any effect upon the Irish church, 
 until reinstated unequivocall}' in his freedom of assent- 
 ing and dissenting. They resolved, that, if he should 
 even die a prisoner at large, they would hold the see of 
 Peter vacant, until they should have full and cano- 
 nical proof of the free election of a successor; which 
 election should also be made according to the canons. 
 By this resolution they consulted two essential 
 points ; the one, of not innovating vipon the spiritual 
 prerogatives of the holy see, as by such innovation they 
 xvould stand degraded before their colleagues through- 
 out the Roman catholic world: the second, that, 
 without presuming a necessity, they consulted for the 
 case of extreme necessity j namely, the possibility of 
 a suspension of intercourse with a future ostensible, 
 yet questionable head of the Roman catholic church. 
 
 5. Lest 
 
631 
 
 5. Lest this mention of a deprecated possibility 
 vliould, in the mind of the Roman catholic churches, 
 be deemed a preparation for schism, or the premedi- 
 tation of an anticatliolic national-church indepen- 
 dence, they resolved and avowed the grand federative 
 principle of christian communion to be everlasting; 
 to be not repealable by human policy j to be luicon- 
 nected with human animosities; to be independent 
 of temporary warfare or temporary amitj^j to be 
 auxiliary in the liighest degree to native or sworn 
 allegiance : though not liable to be enslaved by the 
 passions of mankind, in their wars, truces, hatreds, 
 or momentary reconciliation : because the peace of 
 christians is the sabbath of that charity, which the 
 Saviour bestowed, 
 
 6. Coming to the dreaded subject of catholic 
 bishops appointed in Ireland by a foreign ixjluenccy 
 they declared, that, during the seventeen years pre- 
 ceding, their concurrent recommendation of episcopal 
 candidates luid been advancing in importance; so 
 that it substantively originated the choice of bishops, 
 and was uniformly condescended to by the holy see, 
 as directory: that this privileged recommendation 
 j-endered the appointment of our bishops totallif 
 inaccessible to foreign infuence ; that it was growing 
 up into a usage of our discipline ; that it was granted 
 or yielded by the holy see, in honour to the zeal with 
 which they, the bishops, maintained those two great 
 ^nd divinely founded principles, of allegiance to God 
 
 an4 
 
0*32 
 
 and of loyalty to tlie king: tliat thus, nnder the 
 auspices of his majesty's tolerating spirit, the hierar- 
 chy of Ireland enjoyed a degree of independence, 
 which raised it in the estimation of tlie catholic 
 church, and brought back a tribute of glory to the 
 empire. 
 
 It may be asked, what security is held out, by this 
 resolution, against foreign political influence. It 
 may be said, that our bishops mei'ely declare a fact, 
 pr at most a tolerated practice. I answer, that, in 
 (leclaring a j)'^'^(^tice^ they have alleged a tiflcy not 
 compulsor}^, if you will, but yet sacred, I answer, 
 that every security is held out by this resolution, 
 which our bishops had it in their power to shew: 
 lastly } that no concordatum on the appointment of our 
 bishops could do more, without subverting the catho- 
 lic religion, than herein is implied. The declaration 
 is not merely of a tolerated practice: it is o{ a j)rivilege 
 conferred on express grounds. Tlie fact is, that, dur-f 
 ing seventeen years, the holy see had yielded an entire 
 trust, in the selection of episcopal candidates, to the 
 catholic hierarchy, when agreeing ; and this agree- 
 ment, as we have seen, did not require a physical 
 unanimity, but a concurrence of the many. The 
 reason assigned for this important trust is, that our 
 bishops were possessed of two titles j of catholic zeal, 
 and conspicuous loyalty. These titles, therefore, 
 were recognized by the holy see as good in themselves ; 
 
 as 
 
633 
 
 us essentially meritorious towards itself and towards 
 the catholic church} a3 principles to.be guarded, 
 inculcated and maintained by the Roman catholic 
 churches in Ireland. Now, let us suppose that most 
 desperate case, in which a pope shall be set up for 
 ihe mnbitious designs of the French emperov upon 
 || Great Britain. In truth, this man has expended 
 Very little of spiritual ammunition hitherto ; nor 
 does his warfare calculate on the philosophical process 
 of conipassino- tlie overthrow of this kingdom, by 
 singling out a pope, who shall single out 'a most con- 
 fidential Irishman, without knowing him from Adam j 
 which Irishman, being consecrated bishop, shall 
 t-.ingle out, from time to time, confidential priests. 
 Then are thcSe priests to single out parishioners for 
 Ihe same mystery: and thus, when the whisper has 
 travelled down six generations, it is to end in a direful 
 jiothing at Jill. This theory of his foreign irtfluence 
 undervalues too much the stratagems, and rates too 
 high the patience of the French warrior. He did 
 not wait at the foot of the Alps, until its eternal 
 Snows dissolve**' '.'nto dew-drops, nor did he try to melt 
 them with rM-hot ijimlets. He did not sit down 
 by the river-side, until the Danube had ran its chan- 
 nel dry ; nor seek to hasten that event by tracing 
 outlets with his finger. He perched above the clouds 
 with the steep flight of the Alpine eagle, and rushed 
 downwards with the crash of a mountain ; he stepped 
 across the great river, like a fiery apparition. His 
 4 M irigks 
 
6'34 
 
 Iricki! arc the stratQ^ms of Vcsuviu?; tliiuulefbclts., and 
 clamorous tempest, and consuming lava. .So little docs- 
 he count on papal influence, that he has restrained the 
 pope: so little does he expect from relJ<rious opinion, 
 that he has proclaimed force alone to be the sove- 
 reign of the world. Against this inan all christian 
 independence is arrayed; and yet, his frtscinatinij 
 influence over religion is seriously apprehended 1 
 
 But let him have already gained a pope sul>missive; 
 even zealous for his ambitious designs. First of all j 
 this pope must give proof to the catholic chuixh in 
 Ireland, that he had been canonically elected. Next j 
 he will be pleased to take notice of, and to accej)t the 
 resolution in question j for, as to the matters of fact, 
 it is incontestible. Then, let a catholic diocese be- 
 eomc vacant, and cur bishops have recommended the 
 ©bject of their choice. Will not the pope condescend, 
 as his predecessors had done ? Undoubtedly he 
 •will : because the relation of our bii>hops to the ca- 
 tholic church, as pastors, and to the state, as loyal 
 fcubjects, remaining unchanged ; and.th^ double trust 
 
 g^-nxT ; a. 
 
 having been confided in them 1 y the holy see, when 
 that see was independent and unsuspected of bias; the 
 attempt to change the practice would bring along 
 with itself a detriment to his spiritual influence, by 
 substituting in our church that, which would be 
 questionable, for that which had been secure. Our 
 bishops would remonstrate even to a freely elected 
 
 pope. 
 
6S3 
 
 pope. *' We were trusted by your predecessors," they 
 uould say, " with the choice of religious men; we 
 ** were trusted by them with the choice of uriitnpeach- 
 ** able men. In the hitter point, we were then Jit 
 ^* Judges: we are now //-f ic'it judges. The catholic 
 " church approves of oui- hokling the religious trust 
 "granted by popes: the state is secured and our 
 *' ministry is sheltered by our continuing to hold 
 •■* the social trust. We are attached at the same time 
 ** to the di\'ine rights and honours of saint Peter: 
 ** but we suggest, that, if even the practice had never 
 ** been, your pastoral charity would rather introduce 
 " it for tlie common peace of the kingdom, whose 
 *' subjects we are, than resume it under our circum- 
 *' stances so well known. We cannot trust the social 
 " faith of a candidate, whose demeanor is not trusted 
 ** to our judgment." What will his holiness i&y 
 in such a case ? Wliy, truly, he will let things go 
 on as usual. I have given to our bishops the lan- 
 guage of humble remonstrance; because such 
 language would be theirs, and because their reasons 
 would be invincible in any shape of address. 
 
 7, But, even for tlie object of keeping up that suc- 
 cessful title of recommendation, it was necessary, as I 
 have said, that the bishops should preserve unchanged 
 their relation to the catholic church j that they should 
 not innovate upon the known discipline : much more ; 
 that they should not yield to innovations, having for 
 their preteoco, that dan,gers to the state were to be 
 
 apprel^ondo^ 
 
636 
 
 apprehended from that discipHne, and that the coiu*- 
 terbalance of oatlis ar,d snc/rd promises were not 
 enough to do away alarms, sincere or feigned, to wliicli 
 a distinctness of ecclesiastical polity might give oc- 
 casion. By innovating, our church would surrender 
 its continuity of life: by yielding to an innovation 
 grounded on slander, our bishops v;ould, as in the 
 former supposition of their encroaching on the papal 
 office, surrender their claim of orthodoxy, and that 
 most important right of defending their usages, as 
 those of an uncorrupted church. They would not 
 be proper in court: they would entangle themselves 
 in personal defence, instead of remaining judges in 
 the catholic church. Upon this ground also, our 
 bishops disallowed the idea of making episcopal 
 elections determinable by chapters, or by chapters 
 and metropolitans. .Without going into the mischiefs 
 of contested elections, and of secular interference to 
 be apprehended from such a change j without touch- 
 ing on the unsuitableness of the project for Ireland, 
 it was plain, that the bishops could not delegate iheir. 
 trust. 
 
 8. Of the arrmigements, to which Lord Grenvilte's 
 letter had alluded, the prelates, as they knew nothing, 
 resolved nothing. Their being kept in ignorance, 
 from the period of wnon, with regard to every tittle, 
 of those arrangements, was certainly depriving them 
 of all hunfan means of meeting the plan, whenever 
 it might be produced, on equal terms, or on any. 
 
 terms 
 
637 
 
 Jenns of ncgociation. Yet our bishops declared, that, 
 iiiving the essential point of catholic communion, 
 of the catholic moral code, and of the necessary disci- 
 pline and subordination, which frame the exterior 
 constitution of our church, they require nothing; 
 tliey are averse to no conciliation : thus, giving up 
 and renoiuicing every idea, and hitting in full frojit 
 (jvery suspicion of their seeking temporal power 
 or dominion, or that they are rivals to the churchmen 
 of the establishment, in any flatter \yl)ich the state 
 can bestow, or take away, or apportion. 
 
 9. To confirm tiieir right of dissenting from any 
 change of discipline, as aftecting to secure the [)resent 
 establishments, the bishops rest upon the oath of 
 i+llegiance taken, as v/ell by other catholic subjects, 
 as by themselves. Really, on this subject, the future 
 times will not only do justice to their sentiment j but 
 they will make merry with the infatuation of those, 
 \yho tsoished to have 2)ledges from the Irish catholics ; 
 and with the perverse tyranny of those, who alleged 
 tlieir necessity, as the previous condition of admit- 
 tance to a free and most equitable constitution. The 
 bishops declare, that the sole, paramount and exclu- 
 sive right of all sovereignty, in temporal laws and 
 civil establishments, belongs to the domestic autho- 
 rities, now protestant, of the empire; that they have 
 abjured, and that all Jrish Roman catholics abjure, 
 all interference, intermeddling, or right of interfe- 
 rence, by or on tlie part of any foreign temporal or 
 
 spiritual 
 
638 
 
 spintiuil power in this behalf: that tliis article is A 
 POINT OF Roman catholic religion in Ireland, 
 not privately maintained, /but authoritatively incul- 
 cated by them, the bishops; and, as such, is allowed 
 by all the Roman catholic churches. To carry thi» 
 assertion to the utmost point of evidence, those very 
 vsame bishops, in the very same meeting, and in a. 
 circular letter to every dignitar}' and teacher in the 
 Roman catholic church, re-assert this doctrine. They 
 not only re-assert it, but they bind themselves by ft 
 most solenm, recorded oath, before their Redeemer, 
 3.nd in tl>e presence of the dispersed council of the 
 christian world, to uphold this doctrine to the 
 spilling of their blood. They commit soul, and 
 conscience, and catholic truth, and personal fame, 
 iind national honour, to God, and to the judgment 
 of their peers, and to the tribunal of the world for 
 good and for evil, on this single point. They give up 
 their souls to condemnation, their persons to infamy, 
 their catholic church to blasphemy, their loved native 
 i,oil to a ctu'se, if they shall not make good this oath. 
 And yet pledges ai*c called for by protestants, a« 
 JwiJier securities. 
 
 In the name of God, unless you want the catholic 
 religion itself iu pawn j unless you mean to set 
 your foot on the gi-eat neck of the Reman catholic 
 persuasion, what securities can be as high as the 
 creed of oia* faith itself, ajjainst vour alarms ? We 
 
 have 
 
63D 
 
 hxne told you, and you mliet believe Jl, or never will 
 you believe our oaths or actions, tluvt we rank out 
 ^xclusiofi of foreign influence, as to all interference 
 . with your establishments and legislation, along with 
 our exclusion of niurtler and of sacrilege : that we 
 associate this profession of loyalty with the command- 
 ments of our God: with the articles of our rclio-ion : 
 that we inscribe it in our sanctuaries j that we re-- 
 member it in our prayers. We hate, as Irishmen, 
 foreign invasion, more than you, English, liave ever 
 been known to do. You warred on us, as on bad 
 catholics, until Henry A'^III., for grumbling against 
 Peter-pence: you suspect us, under George III., of 
 wishing to yield the independence of the state to a 
 pope, \^ho ma?/ be elected for the may-he desin-ns of 
 Bonaparte. If even such a pope were installed, 
 if even a pope were to misuse his spiritual office, 
 which \^X' now do not think possible, we are prepared 
 in heart to resist, and in tongue to refute the 
 abomination. In truth, tee have never loved the 
 attempt of popes to bestow kingdoms. Ireland was 
 secured by the Bull of an English pope to Henry II. ; 
 and you stem, to be liaunted by the furies of this 
 original sin of your cvi?u. 
 
 Suppose, that ',ve had abjured till foreign spiritual 
 pre-eminence. Would, you trust us to correspond 
 ia any case with a foreign country ? lk> you not 
 trust yourselves i\\ popish countries ? Surely ye^ih do- 
 T«t» what is your defence against tlie seduction of 
 
 forejfifn 
 
640 
 
 foreign mfluencc? The dilterence of religion, y6ri 
 will say, the love of countiy, the sense of indepen- 
 dence, the possession of freedom. And which birt 
 the last of these motives is wanting in the case of 
 Irish catholics ? Not one. The catholic has motives 
 besides yours. The honour of liis religion j the jier- 
 ception of a distinctness, between spiritual and tem- 
 poral power- The catholic has often lost power,, 
 and kept his Jbreign religion and his domestic alle- 
 giance at the same time. He has retained power 
 and retained his foreign religion, while he excluded 
 the foreign temporal influence, even of popes. But 
 you, as far as I can learn, have so uniformly con- 
 joined both, as to have adopted or rejected per- 
 petually both together, until the reign of Jam.es 11. ; 
 when you cast off your temporal allegiance to the 
 prince, because his spiritual communion was out of 
 the kingdom ; and you received a foreign prince in 
 defiance of your own religious independence. Our 
 catholic religion, in all that regards your national 
 independence and political establislnnents, is as safe 
 and as trusty, as if we acknowledged no successor to 
 Peter the Apostle. Our principles are more dis- 
 tinctly avowed with respect to you, than are your 
 principles with regard to us. If any source of danger 
 remains, if any temptations to treacheiy are still sub- 
 sisting, that danger and those temptations are such^ 
 as catholic and protestxint are equally liable to be 
 
 seducec( 
 
641 
 
 seduced by. If the temptations are not common, 
 they must be directed chiefly to your passions and 
 your pride. Yet, in sucli a case, we catliolics are not 
 entitled to demanJ any such securities from you, 
 ulthouq;li we have no solemn nor sacred standard of 
 your opinions with regard to us ; although you neither 
 plight your faith to our safety, nor your x-eligion 
 for our safe enjoyment of your good will. There 
 is nothing that you, protestants, have bestowed or 
 will bestow, but you may resume. What is given 
 by statute, you can take back by law ; what is lent 
 by courtesy, you may reclaim by ill humour. Against 
 your everlasting majorities in the legislature, against 
 crown prei'ogative and church ascendancy, against 
 the coalition of all sects not catholic, we shall hold, 
 if emancipated, no security for the continuance of 
 tlie grant itself, beyond the duration of one parlia- 
 montary session aiid one recess. Neither parliament, 
 jior church can pledge itself to the permanency qf 
 our freedom. No single department of the state 
 will suffer controul, or tolerate inspection by catholics. 
 How then will you preterfd to term an equal share 
 of freedom, that sort of emancipation, which would 
 stipulate for a despotic and inquisitorial controul 
 over all our religious actions, after our principles had 
 been allowed for honest .'' 
 
 No security can thsrefore be demanded hrfare 
 emancipation, or as a drawback on emancipation (if 
 the benefit intended be equa.1 freedom), beyond that 
 
 4 N security 
 
642 
 
 security, which the religion of Irish cat holies- ha?* 
 ah-eady yielded. No greater daiiger is passably to 
 be apprehended to the state from a religion cxcltid- 
 jng papal influence in every tcni].)oral matter, than 
 from a religion excluding pt'i*jietuany all papal in- 
 fluence whatsoever. This diilercncc ajone. exists, 
 and it is considerable, that a religion, like the catho- 
 lic, cannot shift its boundaries, nor innovate- upon 
 its moral code without evident convulsion in the bc;d\, 
 and manifest symptoms of distejnpcrj whereas a 
 system, barely resulting from domestic arrangement, 
 and holding its authorities within its grasp, may, 
 almost instantaneously, displace its leading principles, 
 and yet be not inconsistent with itself* 
 
 From this review of those' episcopal decisions, a? 
 far as they apply to political circumstances or possi- 
 ble dangers to the state, it has appeared, that ouv 
 bishops refused nothing, which they can grant j that. 
 ' what they declined conceding, would have been 
 uselessly conceded to the state, and was necessary to^ 
 De retaineil by them, for the very purpose of shutting 
 out the possibility of an abuse of the papal authority. 
 No statute of premunire, enacted by a protestant 
 parliament, could have any other effect than the 
 worst. Not to speak of the undistinguishing rigour 
 of such a law, involving every gradation of acting 
 in the perif of so gi'cat a punishment ; not to dwell 
 ©n the ominous conjunction of premunire with ca- 
 ^hilie eihancipaiion^ or on the paradox of inflicting 
 
 such 
 
643 
 
 *iiuli pains and such pcnnltics, as are inipiictl in tlu: 
 tcrn\ premunirr, upon a usiigc, hitherto rather benefit 
 i-ifil, but most certainly innoxious, and by no means 
 connected cither with a proxijnate danger or with 
 proximate guilt 5 what would such penal enactment 
 intimate to the public foe ? What sort of catholic 
 and protcstant reconciliation would it hold out to 
 the world ? There remains to be told one resolution 
 more, which truth and justice oblige me to advert to. 
 I mean tlie vote of thanks to bishop Milnerf for op- 
 posing a pledge, agreed upon in an English-catholi/s 
 meeting, but worded by illustrious protestant states- 
 men. Of that pledge, called in Ireland the 5th 
 ^^^''//sZt-catholic resolution, I wish to say as little as 
 possible. It gave either nothing or all to the security 
 of the church established. With the respectable 
 lay persons, who are said to have submitted te 
 that pledge, I do not presume to intermeddle ; 
 in truth I know not who tlicy are, nor shall I 
 seek to know. I doubt not, they meant well m 
 spme sense or other. But Doctof Mibicr resisted 
 the pledge on two grounds. He asked, that the 
 fleterminatipi) of the Irish prelates, with regard to 
 the extensive atid comjdicated arrangement s^ should 
 be waited for: again; he considei'ed a lay assembly 
 incompetent to stake the catholic system, for an unde- 
 fined change of catJwlic usage. Unluckily-, tlj<? 
 place and time were ill ?nll.cd to ]iis exertions. In 
 
 ihf 
 
644 
 
 tlie oecumenical cou7icil of the love feast, Avhere solid 
 gaiety and liarniony and vocal music presided, it was 
 scarce to be hoped, that arguments of a religiousj. 
 savour would go down. The bishop was npt in unison 
 ■tvith the symphonious liberality of the instruments, 
 brandished by his lay brother-doctors of the churcli. 
 He was invited to sit do'n.m while pleading. He pcrbistr 
 ed: he stood aloBe: he stood it out alone. However, 
 the catholic bishops in Ireland, considering, that he 
 had acted and suffered for them, as well qs for the 
 rights of the christian church, thought it just to effiice 
 the slight, which their colleague had experienced, 
 by a deliberate testimony of honour : they thanked 
 HIS APOSTOLICAL FIRMNESS, in resisting the dangerous 
 pledge. By this vote they recorded in their annals 
 the name of Milner "along with their own constancy. 
 They blessed a shamrock-wreath, and hung it aroun({ 
 his trophies. Its leaf docs not fall ; its catholic gvQen 
 docs not fade. 
 
 The declaration of our prelates was not unproduc- 
 tive of good. It manifested to catholics and to pro- 
 testants, that the resolution of 1808, disallowing a 
 Veto^ had not been extorted from the fears of those 
 prelates. It shewed to protestants, that the existing 
 members of our catholic hierarchy cherish, as well as 
 adequately teach the divine precept of allegiance; 
 that their repugnance i<y a new organization of 
 eur discipline is founded in honest, intelligible and 
 conscientious argument; that, in short, it would be 
 
 harsh 
 
645 
 
 barsli to exact, as a condition for the emancipating 
 of catliolics, that which it is not in the power of 
 catholics to transfer, and which, if taken by violence, 
 ivould leave thejn more abjectly enslaved than befoi'e. 
 The grand Irish question shortly after was for the 
 tliird time submitted to the legislature. Of our 
 distinguished parliamentarj' advocates they, who per- 
 sisted in wishing for a change, but whose humanity 
 would not incline to compulsory direct methods 
 ag^nst religious feeling, allowed our present bishops 
 to be loyal men j they granted, that no danger is to 
 be apprehended from them ; but that there is still a 
 possibility of danger^ against whigh it would be proper 
 to guard the establishments in church and state ; 
 that the spiritual magistracy^ i. e. the bishops of the 
 Roman catholic persuasion, derives title from a 
 foreign authority; that the holder of this authority 
 is now, and is likely to continue the vassal of the 
 French ; that this foreign inficnce and all foreign 
 influence should be perpetually excluded, before 
 emancipation can Avith safety be condescended to. 
 This reasoning, urged by our avowed patrons in the 
 legislature, could not but produce considerable effect. 
 It was a concession made by arbitrators, as it were, 
 of our ov.n chusing; it widened the field for suspi- 
 cion ; it terrified by a twilight display of undefined, 
 unshapen, and thus more ugly horrors. It assumed 
 the pride and the irritation of national independence 
 
 along 
 
646 
 
 along with existing hatreds to Fiance, in aid of ifs- 
 boundless imagination of evil; and it stopped the^ 
 power of reply, by standing on its (m?i fears^ as the 
 immoveable basis of the question, and bj' avowing its 
 fears to be infinite. 
 
 The Irish catholics were dismaj'cd at the new im- 
 pediment raised up against their claims: they felt 
 surprize, that this pei-petual exclusion of foreign 
 influence should be staked as the sine qua non of 
 emancipation, by their own cherished defenders. 
 The catholics had abjured upon oath all foreign 
 influence over the establishments, and all right from 
 abroad of interfering in temporal laws, or national 
 rights, or regal prerogative, or individual possession, 
 within this united kingdom. What more did the 
 newly broached principle, therefore, go to exclude? 
 Undoubtedly something not temporal ; something 
 that had been enjoyed, either by law or by toleration, 
 until then j perhaps more than something ; perhaps 
 ALL. In the distress of principle, occasioned by the 
 unexpected intelligence, craft, not Irish craft, but 
 soothing and 5^% and tre^-cherous, was labouring to 
 unsettle the understanding of our people, and to 
 instigate discord between the bishops and their flocks. 
 Since I am presently to defend my own conduct 
 on the question, against the legal knowledge, the 
 dialectical prowess, the veracious evidence and the 
 §wcet benignity of our archrct^npiiist of Toledo, I 
 
 •wn. 
 
647 
 
 ©wn, that, for iny part, I lost all temper with the 
 excluding projectors. Have Irish catholics forgotten 
 Clare ? They have not, I fancy ; so it would be need- 
 less for a catholic to describe him. As to the libe- 
 rality of his politics, the loftiness of his moral instinct, 
 and the usual elegance of his revenge, there is, I 
 know, a diifereuce of opinion. The people has voted 
 on one sidej but Clare's eloquent Juneral scrmott, 
 has vutiid differently. One instance, however, will 
 determine his Lordship's philanthropy in matters of 
 conscience. James II., said he, was expelled the 
 fhrone for die notisense of toleration. Such was Lord 
 Clare's avowed idea of the glorious revolution^ antl 
 of its comforts for the oppressed. This sentiment, 
 as I can best recollect, was divulged in a speech of 
 reply to IMoiR.t, whose genius, like the farewell visit 
 of angelical ministry, had descended to the gloon^, 
 and Babel, and blasphemous howling cf Irish asceil- 
 dancy^politics, aiid there interceded in vain j as he 
 . would have vainly interceded with the damned spirits, 
 in the behalf of et|nal justice, and of divine clemency. 
 Moira was scouted, and most deservedly. For what 
 business had Cato to intrude upon Floral games ; 
 or Moira on the domes-day session .•' He was an- 
 swered, with upstart insolence j with the nonsense 
 of iolcration ; and he decoroudy retired. The oracle 
 of law had been already gagged : the appeal to ?ioLle 
 fjclings was then a mockery : tlie altar of mercy was 
 about to be kicked down : free quarters, scourgings, 
 
 stranglings 
 
648 
 
 strangliiigs were ready to succeed : orange j-eomen 
 (whom, rashly, I once named the exterminators of the 
 people, but whom, now, under the criticism of terror, 
 I will salute as the redeemers of the people; although, 
 I think. Lord Cornwallis disbanded two-and-twenty 
 of their companies by one dash of his pen; 
 althouo'h the case of Woollaghan is still tino-linfT in 
 my ears) ; these redeemers of the people, and along 
 with these redeemers, the murderers of old men, 
 the ravishers of children, the outlaws from human 
 nature, the house-breakers, chapel-burners, rob- 
 bers and torturers were about to break loose. 
 Wliat business had Moira, what business had 
 honour and disdainful abhorrence of villains, in a 
 murderous low drama ? Yet what did Clare say at 
 that time? *' Let the papists renounce foreign 
 ** jurisdiction, and they can he as free as protestants.'" 
 Thus spoke Clare, at the very time he thought our 
 tutelary deity, Henry Grattan; was held fast in the 
 toils of death; when the object of our worship waS 
 pursued, not with bloodhounds cased in armour, as' 
 our ancient patriots had been hunted, but with felons 
 cased in privilege. Could it have been thouglit, tluit 
 eleven years after this, HeniIy Grattan would 
 insist, not as an enemy, but as a chief advocate ; not 
 on the renoimcing of foreign jurisdiction, but on the 
 perpetual exclusion of foreign infucncc, which is ca-^ 
 tJiolic religion, as the necessary condition of catholic 
 
 freetlens 
 
649 
 
 fi-eecloni ? But G rattan did not mearh to abridge 
 the Jrccdom of' consciencCf oi^ 'whkh he has been uni- 
 Jbrmly the champion, even in times of infamy, lla 
 spoke under the delusion practised upon him by those 
 who liave made Coliimhanus their unhappy organ. 
 These men continue barbarously to ascribe to oui* 
 Religion those abuses which it has abjured. 
 
 At a meeting of catliolics, held July 1810, I pre- 
 sented myself, on the summons of friendship, and 
 without a minute's notice. I then and tliere alluded 
 to the objection oi foreign injluence, and being m'ged 
 by my countrymen, I delivered what reason suggested 
 and indignation wi'ung from me. I displeased some j 
 but I broke the ice, and I dissected the cnigmaticaJt 
 supicion. 
 
 Columhajws has sent to the English market of 
 intellectual dead stock, his refutation of my argu- 
 anents in that catholic meeting ; he informs his herd 
 of virtuosi beyond the water, that all my reasoning 
 consisted in the following argument. *' Every argu- 
 ** ment, which applies to the exclusion of foreign 
 " influence in the nomination of bishops i applies equally 
 " to co7ifession and to every article of the catholic 
 ^■^ faith P " The orator," writes Columbanus^ *< ex- 
 " ulting in this magnifcent argument, una niagnifica^ 
 *' appeals to the chairman, whether it does not put an 
 *' end to further inquiry ! !'** 
 
 4- o .Sucl), 
 
 * Cvlumb. second leUcr, p. P. 
 
650 
 
 Sufb, Reverend Sir, was the one magnificent srgu-. 
 meht, the una magnijicayjx^ it has been teruictl^ I know 
 not whence or wherefore, if I may believe tlie scrn^ 
 pulous veracity of Cohimhanus^ rather than my own 
 recollection of what I said j rather tlian your remem- 
 brance of what you heard me speak in the presence 
 of several hundred men; rather than the published 
 accounts of that argument. I will not expostulate 
 with this gentleman, until I have given you his rcfi^ 
 tation of the one niagvijicent argument. 
 
 Columbanus protests, that "'he would \\ixxd\y have 
 ** supposed, that Doctor Duigcnan himself would //arc 
 ** ventured to degrade the Religion of our ancestors f, 
 ** by thus identifying it with foreign iiilrigues and the 
 "profligacy of an Italian court! that, until the 
 ** 12th century, no foreign i)ifuence in the nomination 
 *' of our bishops was heard of either by our clergj'- 
 *' or by our hingsy and yet the catholic Religion had 
 *• existed in Ireland and produced more saints, than 
 " it has done since." Columbanus *' little expected, 
 " that any Irishman would have ventured to say, 
 ** that the catholic Religion can ?io longer exist with-- 
 <* out the interference of a liinucciniy who dared to 
 *♦ imprison our nobility and gentry in 1646, because 
 *' they had agreed to an lionourable peace mth the 
 *' king: or without the interference of a Castabaluy 
 ** who in 1810 dares to inform usy" that, ^^ he and 
 ♦* the exchtsiv>€ Doctors, the foreign influenced bishops 
 
651 
 
 ^* uf Ireljind, liavc decreed, that Ireland shall net 
 " enjoy the liberties of the Gallican church ! !" Co- 
 lumbaiius iiitbrms iis, tliat ^'■this was the language 
 *' wliich Paudolf used, when lie compelled king- 
 *' Jolm to appear bareheaded before him, and to 
 *' resign his crown to the Pope, to lay tfiat crcrjim at 
 *' his (Pandolf's) feet, and then, qfter' Jceephig that 
 *' crtAon for some days in his custody^ to receive iiy 
 " in the same humiliating attitude^ on the ignominious 
 ** condition o^ a. feudal vassal, and a yearly rent T* 
 
 This inimitable piece of good mannei's, good 
 tiiith juid good English is but the prologue to his 
 legal demonstration. *' Our catholic statesmen y'' says 
 Colwnh'anuSi *' who enacted. laws against foreign infcu- 
 *' enccy never objected to confessio^i or to any article 
 *^ oi call/ olic faith ; but they prohibited, under pc- 
 *' iialty of confiscation and deaths the suing for, or 
 " obtaining from the court of Rome archbishoprics, 
 " bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries ^ 8cc. (this sta- 
 " tute against pr»cisors is as old as the 25 th Edwai"d 
 *' I., for it is recited in the preamble of the 25th of 
 " Edward III., and there stated to have never been 
 " defeated or annulled.) They enacted, 88 Edward 
 *f III., that any person, passing over the sea or send- 
 *' ing out of the realm to provide for himself a 
 " benefice within the realm, should be out of the 
 *' King's protection, and the benefice void: that if 
 
 " any 
 
 * Columb. No, 3. p. H. &«. 
 
" any person, 12 Kichard II., accept of any beiicljce 
 " contrai-y to the statute 25 of Edward III., he shall 
 *' remain banished for life; his hinds and goods for- 
 " feited to the king: they enacted, 13 lliehard IL, 
 *' that if any man br/'/ig or said, ^c. any summons, 
 ** sentence of excommunication, &c. against any person 
 *' for motion or execution of the statute of provisors 
 " of 27 Edward III., lie shall be imprisoned, forfeit 
 " all his goods, and moreover incur the jiciin of life" 
 These important law-discoveries our author gives i>s 
 to understand inaij he seen m the statutes at larg^, 
 printed London 1618, and in Cuy^s alridgment, Lon- 
 don 1739. However he *'docs not flatter himself 
 " in the hope, that such arguments, hco^cver conclusive^ 
 '• and though derived from catJioUc acts of parlin- 
 ** ment, will be deemed conclusive with certain 
 " oratorSf M'ho, to /lis knoivledgc, look li'ith a itisJiful 
 " eye to a federal union with their brethren heyoni 
 " the Atlantic"* 
 
 I thank the inmiodesty of ColuTfibanuSy A\hic'}i has 
 prompted him to grapple with that oratory who wish- 
 fully looks to a federal union with his brother oratorSy 
 beyond the Atlantic. I thank the heart of Cohonha- 
 miSy which, as from the Ijps of a catholic priest y could 
 have thrown out a slander affecting life. I thank that 
 incapacity, by which he has been whipped on to cross 
 my path. In the laughable etiquette of precedenc}-, 
 
 I confess . 
 
 ♦ Columb, No. 2. p. 13. 
 
653 
 
 1 confess myself at a lo8S, whether I slioukl compli- 
 ment first his impregnability of face, or of heart, or of 
 liead. I therefore consolidate his three prerogatives 
 in and by one greeting, and declare Columbanus tlie 
 07-nament of human nature, as long as truth, candour, 
 genius, benevolence and learning shall bo held 
 precious. I remit all observations on his unacquaint- 
 unco widi the liistory of tlic ]*2nglish lav.s against 
 •provisors; with his statute of ii 5 Edward I, because 
 even Coke fell into that mistake,* since then frecjuentlj 
 copied J with his 25th Edward III., vrhich is aiUc- 
 tfated by twelve years; I forgive his suppression of 
 tj'uth,- when he quotes the twelfth of Richard IL, 
 making it felony of death to bring in monitions, and 
 falls to add, that the capital punishment was changed, 
 in the Kith of the same king, to the elder penalty of 
 2)remu/iire. 
 
 I will allow his statute texts for accurate in matter 
 and ill form, but I must say, that in every assertion, 
 in every syllable, A\'hcther stating the onemagnlfcent^ 
 cr in refuting tlie 07ie argument, Columhanus has 
 
 betrayed 
 
 • III llie preface to Ijis 5lh Report. However, after tlio ca ligaiion by 
 P. Parsons, and notwitlvstatidin!^ his siilkiness in the preface to liie 6lh 
 report, he retracted iiis error bwi!t on the greatly sus;)iiicus p:' aniblc 
 of the first act of Edward 111. ,• and in his commcrrtary '2, iiist. on the 
 statute of Carlisle, p. jSO, he restored the true year, namely, tlit 35ll), 
 which was ihe last of that king, ar.d the thi d of Clement V., who first 
 reserved biihoprics by prorinon, of which bishopri(;s, liy the hye, no 
 mention is made, nor could by posiibiiity have been n^ade in tho 
 ■ statute of Edward I, 
 
654 
 
 betraj'cd himself to be the same \vi»c and honest 
 treature as heretofore. Bv foreign influence I did not 
 mean the nomination of bishops by the pope. I had 
 previously shewn to the palpable sense of eA'cry man, 
 that, -whereas the jwssibilitj/ of danger was the g-round 
 for Uie exclusion of foreign infnenccy and as the ^;oi- 
 sible danger regards the establishments m Church 
 as well as in Slate ; that, as the practice of catholics 
 vras set aside by the argument, ilic ])ossibilitj/ of dan- 
 ger would have no standard but the suspicion of 
 Church and the suspicion of State. I next demon- 
 strated that, if even the papal office were abolished ; 
 that, supposing our catholic bi&hops and priesthood 
 abolished, the foreign infuencc^ as to every purpose 
 o^ suspicion, would still remain j because that infucnce 
 i&xhc force of opinion, collected into a system, autho- 
 ritatively impugning the religious system of the estab- 
 lished Church, to which Church the regal prerogative 
 must be auxiliary, in all that concerns its safety or 
 supposed safety. 
 
 I brought the instance of confession, amongst other 
 Instances. I shewed, that as foreign influence is resolved 
 into catholic influence, and as this must be an object 
 of suspicion, wherever it holds a confdence inaccessi- 
 ble to Church or to State, but yet obtains as a 
 catholic principle of association ; this confession would 
 be liable to the utmost possibility of danger, in the 
 .•>uspicion of both establishments: if defended as a 
 
 catholic 
 
tiafhalic ii<age, Uiat is to say, us u iifsagc, wliich asslmi- 
 jatcd our Jiuiiic practices ■vvilli J'urcign j)j-acticeSf 
 Ijccaiise Jliirign practice must be a rule for us ; 
 confession^ would necessarily become a treasonable 
 nuisance with the possibilili/ men. It would, at tlie 
 very best, be inspected and circumscribed, and even 
 by this mean, would inevitably be disconthiued and 
 destroyed. Tliis I proved from the obvious instance 
 of the church of England, which, thouiih confessino- 
 tlic power of tlie key«, could never succeed in reviving 
 the practice, when once deprived of its privilege of 
 inviolable secrecy. After eonjession, I shewed, that 
 oar EUCHARIST should be withdrawn j because our 
 doctrine regarding that mystery stands in extreme and 
 irrcconcileablc opposition to the established doctrine, 
 and at the same time in most intimate alliance of 
 practice and identity of reverence with foreign 
 clnuxhes. 
 
 Again; I shewed, tliat the nationalizing of a church, 
 towards a political change, is an introductory and une- 
 quivocal step to the destruction of the polity of that 
 given church. When Henry VIII. resolved to make 
 himself supreme head in the earth of the church of 
 England, he proceeded exactly as the exclusive men 
 would have us to proceed. First of all, he declared 
 the Church of England to be as learned and capable, 
 as any other church existing ; and he enacted, that the 
 iodif of the English deigy should be paramount in all 
 
 spiritual 
 
65 i5 
 
 Spiritual tilings, xvifJiout the intcymcddUng of any cx- 
 iirior (i. e. foreign) person or persons. This is most 
 litcnilly the step, to whieh catliolics were invited in 
 1810, and to take whieli tliey are snnin)oned by the 
 good Coliimbaiius. The secontl sttp of Henry vas to 
 transfer tiie supremacy over this indepeiidcnt Churcli 
 to Thomas Craunier, Arehbishop of Canterbury : the 
 last process was to . i)avc himself declared supreme 
 head of the indcpeixdcnt English church, and to make 
 l»is bishops and beneficiaries to account for the ar- 
 rears of tliose annaici i<i\u\ first fruifs, by the abolition 
 of which, as of papal exactions, lie had liu'cd these 
 coYctovis and unworthy churchmen to surrender their 
 principles. The ecclesiastical revolution was com- 
 pleted within three years j from the 2 1th to the 26tU 
 of that king's reign. 
 
 I touched also on the principle itself, which Henry 
 VIII. employed. If once it be granted, that, in order 
 lo throw more elements of po^ver into the hands of a 
 local despot, the communication bctv.eeri a society, 
 founded on reci})rocal and wide intercourse, may be 
 broken up in its generally known rules of subordina- 
 tion J it must be granted, that no part, no fractional 
 denomination of that society can plead its own usages, 
 built on that anterior law of intercourse, against 
 political jealousy. Now, political jealousy, as it is 
 conscious of being hated by, and opposed to every 
 rite, gesture, word atid association of ideas, super- 
 structed on that con fcder; lion of mind, which it is 
 
 anxious 
 
657 
 
 anxious to obliterate, will examine, watch, subjugate 
 iiiul disfigure every trace of external correspondence, 
 and eveiy germ of reconciliation in future. It will 
 assault the morals, because they are the result of 
 inveterate education under those hated social rules ; 
 it will debase or force the manners, which are the 
 result of the morals, acting through the medium of 
 sympathies more or less cultivated j it will lighten 
 the society, over which it rules, of the burden of all 
 those duties, which had served as links, to connect a 
 widely disseminated association. It will give a vision- 
 ary freedom in this respect; wiiereas, in truth, it 
 will have neutralized the feelings of general charity, 
 which rendered the burthen light j and will have 
 usurped for itself all the interest and all the capital, 
 that had been expended upon those duties. 
 
 In fact, if once we allow that the enjoyment of any 
 right is to be bounded by an arbitrary suspicion, without 
 any other existing cause, but a fear of possible abuse, 
 although the use of that right has been fully ascertain- 
 ed ; we shall not have a single right left us. Instead 
 of laws of punishment for the abuse of freedom, we 
 must have preveiitive laws to confine its use j that is 
 to say, we must be punished beforehand, lest we 
 should hereafter deserve punisliment. 
 
 I shall now recall you to Columbanus, and to his 
 statement of the one magni/icent. First; it is false, 
 that I asserted, that *' every argument, which applies 
 *f tQ the exclusion o^ foreign nomination of bishops^ 
 
 4 p " applies 
 
658 
 
 <* applies equally to the exclusion of confession and of 
 " every article of tlie catholic faith." This is gross 
 and notorious perversion, I argued, that^ if the pos- 
 sibility of danger toprotestant church and state be a 
 justification of the perpetual exclusion nl foreign in-^ 
 fuence, notwithstanding the evident ivsx, that no 
 mischief from ^hoX, foreign influence exists; if the 
 security of the cstablislimenls is to be assayed by ap- 
 prehensions of danger from foreign influence, and if 
 this foreign irfuence does really consist, as demon- 
 strated, not in papal vfluence^ but in that which 
 upholds papal influence, namely, in the federative 
 polity of catholic religion ; there is no argument of 
 possible danger, which, after the exclusion of papal 
 influence as foreign, might not be applied to confession - 
 as catholic, and to every part of our religiou spystem, 
 which we would continue to hold, as catholic; that is 
 to say, as entertained by us, under the authority and 
 hfluence of \\\c.foreigii world. I argued, that suspicion 
 would multiply itself in the same proportion as our 
 catholic articles would be diminished : that our Catho- 
 licism, if reduced to one article, would more promi- 
 nently shew the contimiittj g? foreign and domestic 
 opinion, in contradiction to the opinions of the estab- 
 lished system : that the one article still adhered to, 
 as catholic, would be considered by the fearful, as a 
 brief and efficacious watch-word against their estab- 
 lishments, and by the catholic world would be noted 
 
659 
 
 OS the signal of distress, and the intimation of con- 
 stancy, notwithstanding an apparent estrangement. 
 From wliich Iconchided, that the possibility of danger 
 is not a principle, through the medium of which the 
 foreign infuencc sliould be viewed. 
 
 So far, as to the argument, which I stated, and 
 whicli Columhutuis mutilates, that he may shape it for 
 his reply. Observe now the splendid rtfutation. 
 Columbamis " did not tliink it .possible that any Irish- 
 " man would have desradcd the religion of our 
 " ancestors, by identifying it with the intrigues of 
 ^^ foreigntrs and the prq/Iigacy oi sen. Italian court !" 
 To what description of readers, to v.hat class of luna- 
 tics is this wicked trash addressed? Byivhat operation 
 did the man extract, even from his own false quoting, 
 a wish in me to identify the religion of the ancient 
 Irish with intrigues of foreigners^ or with profligacy 
 of Italian courts F \yhen I spoke on the question, 
 no Italian court subsisted. If Columbanics mean 
 Rome by tliat Italian court, the couit of Rome had 
 been overthrown, and the father of the catholic 
 church, Pius VII. , had been made captive a who.e 
 year before my argument was uttered. I sought 
 indeed to identify the foreign influence with the exterior 
 force of caiholic opinion. I sought to abstract it 
 from court influence on every side. All courts, for our 
 author, may be receptacles of purity, saving the 
 court of a pope, when the pope has nothing to be- 
 
 bestow : 
 
660 
 
 stow : yet, if Columhanus were accessible to the toucli 
 or the rebuke of decent shame, it might be an act 
 of kindness to remind him, tliat he has inconsiderately 
 heaped upon himself a thousand suspicions of bad 
 purpose, by his monotonous growl and cynical ii-reve- 
 rence, whenever he either stumbles upon or drags 
 into his text the church of Rome, and its sovereign 
 bishops. In order to justify resistance to authority, 
 the opinion of social men docs always require, 
 that the resistance be not indiscriminate; that, in short, 
 the adversary of legal command be not a highway- 
 man by trade. In order to prevent the scandal of 
 irreligion, arising from a marked dislike and under- 
 value for the possessors of sacred authority, the 
 sentiment of christians exacts, that either singular 
 imworthiness shall be proved against the man holding 
 that authority, or great consistency of austere virtue 
 be preserved by the censor. When, therefore, chris- 
 tiatis detect an'author, holding truce with all vices, 
 but the vice of subsisting authority in the catholic 
 thurch J when they observe him grinning to every 
 protestant English prejudice; croucliing to every 
 excess and insolence, miscalled ascendancy; deifying 
 obscure wealthy men, as models of perfection, and as 
 beings, whom the world looks up to as its last hope ; 
 tvhen they catch an author so devout and so toil- 
 some in pacing the mill-round of adulation, yet so 
 §tout and soldierly in outraging helpless men, in 
 reviling persecuted men, in exercising ostentatious 
 
 brutalitv 
 
661 
 
 brutality towards a fettered pope, and tovvardb a de- 
 fenceless hierarchy in Ireland; when they find this 
 same author alternately borrowing the licence of a 
 wagtail parasite, and the prerogative of a butchering 
 enthusiast ; the conclusion they naturally draw is this ; 
 that the character of the zealot is made up of consti- 
 tutional malice, of petulant cowardice, of ungenerous 
 pride, of raging ambition, using the ministry of 
 blighted intellect, under the sign-post of an unblush- 
 ing visor. The judgment may be most erroneous in 
 the single instance of our unknown autiior ; but the 
 rule is of immemorial, and sagacious, and salutary 
 feeling. 
 
 Shall I detain you with animadverting on the otlaer 
 inference of Columoanus^ as if I had said, *' that the 
 *' catholic religion wanted \a\q inter ference of aHinuc- 
 ** cini^ who impiisoned Irish nobility in 1646, for 
 *' the crime of' /taving made a lieacc ^■csiih their king F 
 Shall I dishonour Milner and our bishops by taking 
 notice of his maniacal slanders ; or shall I stop to 
 laugh at his latigiiage of Pandolf and his anecdote 
 of John appearing bareheaded before Pandolphj at his 
 calculation of the relative productiveness of Ireland 
 in sai?its, before and since the 12th century? No, 
 surely. I-^et Culumlanus enjoy the satisfaction xjf 
 taking back this garbage, as he sent it to market. 1 
 must come to his lanxtycrship^ his jure divino learnii jo- 
 in tlie statutes, vdijch mat/ he seen in the stahdra oi 
 larg.\ 
 
 '* Onr 
 
66'2 
 
 " Our catholic statcamen" lie tells us, " did /zy/ ob- 
 " jcct to cotifcssiun, nor to any othci- article o^ catJialic 
 " faith." Granted, that his statesmen, if catholic^ 
 -did not object to articles of cr/Mo//c faith. Yet, argues 
 Columhanus, catJiolic statesmen enacted hinh penalties, 
 even of life, against persons procuring from Rome 
 ecclesiastical dignities and benefices. If they did so, 
 ■it was not because the}' entertained a jealousy of the 
 catholic religion ; it was not because thc}^ dreaded its 
 Joreign iivflxicnce. It was not upon any such ground, 
 as the exclusion o^ foreign ivjlucnce is now built upon 
 by our protestant statesmen. The catholic statesmen 
 of old rccogmzed the catholic religion, as fundamental 
 in the kingdom. The modem protestant statesmen of 
 Colmnhamis recognize an opposite establishment as fun- 
 damental; to the fears of which oj^posifc establishment 
 the mode and measure of exclusive laws must conform. 
 The enactments of catliolic statesmen could not, as 
 such, go to destroy the catholic religion of the then 
 state. Tlic enactments of protestant statesmen, on 
 the principle of general exclusion, must go to destroy 
 our catholic religion, if this religion should survive 
 on the continent. Our autlior, when next he is 
 pleased to lecture in statutes, will vouchsafe to bear 
 in mind, that Caifs abridgement does not teach 
 common sense. 
 
 But did those catholic statutes go on the mere j^os- 
 sihilily of danger ^ Did they ground themselves on 
 ."^ny principle of excluding that spiritual influence, 
 
 which 
 
663 
 
 ^vhich Irish catholics ascribe to the holy see ? Cer- 
 tainly not. They left to the pope the confirmations of 
 archbishops and bishops, dispensations, appeals from 
 all ecclesiastical judgments; even the decision upon 
 contested episcopal elections in the first instance. 
 What did those statutes assume as facts, as intolei'able 
 grievances ? That visitors of monasteries, coming from 
 beyond the seas, assessed those religious houses so as 
 beggar them, sent the money awny and disappointed 
 the intentions of the founders of those houses, by 
 stopping obits, anniversaries, choir-service and hos- 
 pitality. I cannot well imagine a more provoking 
 grievance than this single one, against which the 
 statute of Carlisle was made; yet that statute ex- 
 pressly saves the privilege of foreign visitors to impcct 
 and order the discipline of their monasteries, provided 
 they assess them with moderate sums for defraying 
 their visitation. What else did those statutes assume 
 for facts, and, what is more, for innovations on 
 the immemorial catholic usages of the English r 
 That English bishops were created cardinals, then 
 summoned by the court of Rome, whither the revenues 
 must follow ; that the king's council of state was thus 
 deprived of its prelates; that aliens without number, 
 •and absentees, were piovided by the holy see with 
 English dignities and benefices, even those with cure 
 of souls ; that heavy and exhausting ^;^«s/o7i5 to 
 foreigners were imposed on bishoprics and deaneries 
 by provisit)n. Tiicse were material grievances, 
 
 not 
 
664 
 
 not p6ssibilities of detriment. That the spiritual mis- 
 chiefs resulting from such innovations were exagge- 
 rated, is more than probable; that a real temporal 
 loss and prejudice had been incurred, is beyond a 
 question ; and upon the most catholic principles I 
 hope it may be said, and, as an Irish catholic, I am 
 free to say, that if the temporal powers re-acted with 
 too severe a punishment against the abettors of this 
 innovation, professing at the same time their attach- 
 ment to the spiritual rights of the pope, I have no 
 right to dictate upon the peculiar feelings of a legis- 
 lature, in vindicating a real alFront. I will only look 
 to the consequences of that severity, when enacted 
 into a perpetual law. 
 
 In the first resistance to 2)rovisors, the cause of the 
 nation was most just, from the things alleged by the 
 nation itself. Those spiritual benefices had been 
 richly endowed, and established in secular authority. 
 The bishops, and the more modern abbots, at that 
 time, were holders by military tenure. The bisho]Tts 
 and the chief abbots made up more than one third of 
 the upper house of parliament. It was just, I am 
 convinced, in the catholic king and catholic leo-isla- 
 ture to resist invasion of temporal right, althougli 
 the instances should be few, if yet the principle of 
 invasion were avowed. The catholic nation and the 
 king expostulated ofter^ and feelingly with the holy 
 gee, The popes remitted early the intermeddling with 
 
 la^ 
 
00 J 
 
 ^y patronage; and if, in the latter years of Edward 
 III., that pretension was revived, it must have beenj 
 in reality, in cases of lapse, by the resistance ot Englisli 
 bishops to the presentations of Wicklifnte patrons. It 
 must beside have galled the national spirit, that 
 Clement V., a Frenchma)i, was the introducer of reSfer- 
 vations"^of bishoprics; and that the pensions on En- 
 glish benefices were intended for natives of France. 
 When the great schism aroee in the time of Urban 
 VII., the antagonist popes were compelled to drivG 
 the new pretension to extremes : they had each the 
 burden of keeping qp a court and subsidizing friends. 
 The statute of 'premunire^ bearing date the 25th Ed- 
 ward III., was not put in use, and most probably was 
 not enacted until the 38th of the same king. It was 
 varied to greater severity by Richard II., and theii 
 mitigated. It was revived in appearance by Henry 
 IV., but shortly after reduced to a dead letter by his 
 general licences to take 'provisions from beyond the 
 seas. After the destruction of the grand schism, the 
 pope did still provide, until the time of Henry VII., 
 notwithstanding the statutes. Here I stop, in order 
 to make some observations. 
 
 First of all, I do not find, that the prerogative writ 
 o^ prerniinire was ever enforced in the case of cjnscopal 
 elections, until Henry VIII. From this I infer, that, 
 in spite of the catholic enactments of the catholic states- 
 men of Cohtmba?mSf the severity of the punishment, 
 
 4 g ill 
 
666 
 
 in that chiefest case, did not accord witli the gcnitf* 
 of the Roman catholic reh'glon. 
 
 Secondly, I find, that, by virtue of this tremendou? 
 engine, Henry VIII. made himself head of the church, 
 and Elizabeth established the reformed religion. 
 
 Thirdly, that, whereas the object of the statute 
 against provisors was in the Jirst insfpice^ to secure 
 the freedom of episcopal elections; although Uns 
 freedom was the prominent article of the two great 
 Charters, and of the coronation oatli ; although it was 
 sworn to by Edward III., after the enactment of pre- 
 mimire, with a solemn addition, that he vould not 
 interfere with elections, unless in aid of that freedom i 
 yet the consequence of the excessive penalty was no 
 Other, than to reduce all that same freedom into a gootj 
 understanding, isoithout a treaty y between the pope and* 
 the king. Whenever the chapters nominated a person, 
 not a favourite, the king, either by himself, or through 
 the nunority of electors, contested the choice: the 
 appeal went to Rome ; which device the premtmire 
 statute had countenanced : the pope confirmed the king's 
 choice, and, in return, the pope occasionally was al- 
 lowed to provide without any election.* In either 
 case, \h.Q freedom was a nullity, because neither against 
 the Jcing^s choice could the statute be appealed to, 
 
 nor 
 
 • The instances of mutual concession are given by Harpsfield in 
 ^ inconiparable history of the Eng'jh church. Ages 14 and 15. 
 See especially p. 512. marginal numb. 41. 
 
067 
 
 ijor could tlie poj^e be appealed from, in the papal 
 judicature. The distinction of powers lay in this; 
 that the authority of the pepe depended, for its ex- 
 ercise, on the pleasure of the king. For the king had 
 prcmiinire ; the pope had excommunicatiori : but pre- 
 munire intercepted this latter, when the king did not 
 tall for it. 
 
 These reflections would alone suffice to exemplify 
 wliat I asserted in the catholic meeting of 1810, that 
 to nationalize any portion of the catholic church, by 
 perrcanent laws of grievous penalty and of new im- 
 pression, is to translate the centre of attraction in that 
 church, and to destk)y eventually its catholicity. 
 
 It is also worthy of notice, that the catholic bishops 
 of those times, although zealous and loud in complain- 
 ing of the oppressions resulting from the abuses of 
 ^rovisors, yet never did concur in the severe remedies 
 <3evised. They declared against carrying away th^ 
 national treasure; against impoverishing the church j. 
 against four-fold and five-fold translations of a bishop ; 
 against depriving the king of his counsellors: but 
 they protested in favour of ttie spiritual right generally 
 iibiding in the holy see. The catholic church of Eng- 
 land did not agree with the catholic statesmen, in those 
 tatholic acts of parliament, as Columbamis terms 
 them. 
 
 I quit this subject with two observations more, 
 which are personal, as between me and Colu?nbamiSc 
 
 This 
 
Ci68 
 
 This genilenian refutes my one magnificent by quotings 
 the statutes of pcmunire, Kow, it hr«}^pcns, that I 
 too mentioned those statutes so far, as to advert to 
 the consequences of securing the established church 
 and state by such a remedy, against possible danget\ 
 If Colmnbajius was aware of this, when he trumped up 
 his refutation^ I can account for the trick of his omisr 
 ^ion, by the singular vanity of the man : but I cannot 
 account for the immoral resource of charging the 
 orator with disafFecUon to his natural government, 
 unless by referring it to his general character, herein 
 before ascertained. I will not select epithets, though 
 at hand, for denoting that character, which alone 
 can explain an outrage of such bloody die, 
 
 Again ; I cannot but reproach Columba7ius, if a 
 catholic, with dissembling the fad of that, which J 
 stated as theory, regarding coifessicn. I did not 
 argue from the great existing suspicions against con- 
 fession: I threw it into the mass of catholic principles j 
 and drew it forth, because its secrecy gave an illustra- 
 tive parallel to the mysterious possibiltti/ of danger. 
 With what good faith did Columhanus suggest a simi- 
 litude between ancient catholic statesmen, Jiot object- 
 ing to coifession, and modern "protestant statesmen, 
 who do object to confession ? Was he ignorant, that 
 the Irish catholics are forced to swear to a long decla- 
 ration, in wliich king-killing doctrine and the uncofi- 
 ditional pardon of sins in confession are equally abju- 
 red ? Was he ignorant, that statesmeny not long before 
 
 the 
 
6oO 
 
 r.he lime I was speaking, had deliberated to reduce 
 the influence, supposed to be held by priests through 
 the organ of coiift'ssion : that the catholic prelates had 
 been examined, and cross-examined by persons in the 
 Irish gwvernment, for the pui'pose of ascertaining, 
 whether our clergymen might not share their informa-' 
 tiouy at least on certain points, with the government ? 
 Was. he ignorant, that, even since the Irish rebellion, 
 French prisoners in the English dejjofs have been 
 refused the assistance o# French, and even of English 
 priests of acknowledged loyalty, at tlie point of death ; 
 that when, at length, English priests were sufTered to 
 attend those sick, they were to be admiitcdy under a 
 special order, and not until ihe sick were despaired of 
 end sjieechless? Did he not know, that, in 1793, no 
 confession was allowed in the capital of Ireland to 
 catholics, about to be executed for rebellion ; or that, 
 in 1803, after some executions had taken place, the 
 importunity of our prelates at length prevailed over 
 the rancorous suspicion ? Columoanusy perhaps, never 
 heard of the case of Irish soldiers under Sir John 
 Moore; or of catholic soldiers, in Sicily, in Malta, 
 in the Ionian Islands. The liberal creature ! He 
 reads, in the siuiulcs at large^ that catholic statesmen 
 excluded provisors, yet excluded not their own 
 catholic faith ; thence he infers, that it is disnjfection 
 to argue, that jyrotestant statesmen, who are not of 
 , the catholic faith, v>'ill intermeddle with confession^ 
 \i they are suffered to carve out the lion's share of 
 
 securities 
 
670 
 
 sec\irkies against even possible diinger. L.i^ily, I mu ^t 
 point to another combination oF fraud and folly. I 
 had not charged any statesmen^ llicn in being, vith 
 a design to aboii.sh confcfision. I had charged the 
 distrustful system of fear, in its necessary progress, 
 with that design. Columbamis refutes a demonstra- 
 tion, of which every term liad been rigorously defined, 
 by alleging an instance from the acts of c'aihnlic states- 
 nicu ill former, times: and by shewing, that those 
 catholics spared cor.fession, Itfe thinks to have proved, 
 that future statesnum^ whose religion is not discover- 
 able, except as far as it must be adverse to foreign 
 iy\fluence^ vi^ili spare confession also. 
 
 From the consideration of lIm? old premuniie sta- 
 tutes, one great result has appeared, which, I think, 
 ^>ould deserve to be shaped into these general maxims: 
 tliat no church freedom can be permanent, where tem- 
 poral power in churchmen is superadded to cumbrous 
 property ; that no christian principle can be secure, 
 if laws restraining the abuse of ecclesiastical power, in 
 temporal things^ be applied to the permanent consti- 
 tution of the church ; that even church canons, when 
 assumed by the state as data for its separate lasting 
 enactments, will become engines of death against 
 the church itself. In the tim.e of Edward L, the 
 English bishops might have canonically remonstrated 
 against the exportation of monies by those monastic 
 visitors. Even canons might, after that time, have 
 been made against the abuse of provisors. The state, in 
 
 enactinsf 
 
761 
 
 enacting penalties, would have but given errcct to the 
 tanon?. But this course was not pursued ; because 
 the prerogative wanted to hold the power of letting 
 in, and of keeping out so nnich of foreign iiifiucncc, as 
 it should think it proper or profitable, for its own 
 behoof, to admit or exclude. Jf canons had been 
 passed for the virgent necessity, those canons wouki 
 have fallen into a dead letter, when the abuse had 
 subsided. "Whereas law once made by tjje state, 
 and adding power to the executive, and influence to 
 "he wealthy, and pride to the nation, doe*' not stag- 
 nate by the extinction of first abuses; but seeks or 
 creates analogies, on which to operate. 
 
 This reflection I wish to apply to the canon of 
 Antioch against designation of episcopal successors. 
 Tiiis canon has been wonderfully cried up in those 
 countries, which rejected its material provision ; and 
 the reason is plaiai enough. Wherever the sovereign 
 claimed the contingent profit of the revenues of va- 
 cant secSf the churchmen were allowed to descant on 
 the prohibition of designating successors, as a most 
 sacrtd right ; as one never to be departed from. As 
 to the essential part and enactment of the canon, 
 namely, that the bishop should be appointed by tlie 
 provincial s}nod, that was ovcrlopked, because the 
 practice went contrary. 
 
 The catholic practice of Ireland has admitted, as we 
 have seen, the recommendation of successors, for more 
 fhan half a century. It always admitted provincial 
 
 recom- 
 
 # 
 
6?^ 
 
 recomracnclatioii ; it continued tlie rccommendatioti 
 by chapters, termed election with postulation : since 
 1790, the decided voice of the national bishops has 
 been decisive, as of a home court of delegates and 
 trustees for the chief christian see. From the multi- 
 plied checks and counterclaims, subordinate to the 
 episcopal college of Ireland, but gravitating upon the 
 decision of this last body, the see of Rome, instead of 
 enlarging its claims, which were not contested, and 
 could not be contested, remitted its judgment to Irish 
 Roman catholic piety j reserving that, which it coukl 
 not relinquish, the authoritative emblems of its ina- 
 lienable jurisdiction. A fair man, not unexperienced 
 in Christianity, would deduce from this statement, 
 that ounbishops were, on catholic principles at least, 
 religiously chosen. Columhanus, who is not a bishop, 
 thinks quite otherwise. How long will this method 
 continue ? I hope, and I fear, and am silent. But 
 if you demand proofs of the excellent choice, I will 
 give one proof, in the words of Wren's epitaph, 
 vrho raised the wonder of saint Paul's; Si monumen- 
 TUM ouAERis, ciRCUMSPiCE. If you Seek for proofs, 
 go count the population. " Here am I," each bishop 
 will say, in the words of the patriarch, " and here 
 are the children, whom God bestowed me." So may 
 say our bishops: so may say our priests. Wliat 
 right had Columbanus to invade this system .? 
 
 Amongst the third-hand texts and topics of exas- 
 peration, urged by Columbanus^ I am forced to take 
 
 notice 
 
 "^ 
 
67S 
 
 notice of tlie charge against our bishops, of malici- 
 ously suspending priests without a reason assigned. 
 This charge is repeated at every turn, and as if foi: 
 the purpose, a canon of" the council of Seville is exhi- 
 bited in various shapes of mutilation. Tlie canon of 
 Seville refers to a case, not of suspension, but of de- 
 gradation from office; and of temporal punishment 
 superadded to degradation. Columbanus surely does 
 not pretend, that our bishops attempt, either singly 
 or without a cause assigned, to degrade priests or 
 deacons. As to the malice, which he more than 
 insinuate^, against the use of suspension, I allow, that 
 all power and all discretion are liable to be perverted ; 
 but, until Cchimbanus, who fears not to attack by 
 wholesale, shall flivour the public with some one 
 instance of unquestionable oppression, I leave jhe cog- 
 nizance of tlijs impeachnient tp him whose inquest 
 awaits us all; who will judge in equity the bishop, 
 that oppressed his priest, and the priest that reviled, 
 his bishop. In the mean time, I am bound to let the 
 catholic reader into the sccvcL of this great zeal. Its 
 end is to destroy tlie movulily of the catholic system, 
 by levelling all distinctions of character between the 
 \vorthy and the unworthy clergj'man. In the civil 
 constitution of the French jacobin church, the same 
 principle, which Columhanus advocates, was the key- 
 stone, and crammed that system, as it was intended to 
 do, with every thing contagious and abominable. It 
 privileged all guilt peculiarly clerical: it destroyed 
 
 4 R all 
 
674 
 
 ftll confidence in the priest, and hoisted the standard pf 
 fttheism over the eucharistic altar. Colu?/ibanus would 
 have no priost suspend^;d 'u)itkouf a reason assignedf 
 nor without a case alleged in 'iiTitivg and supported 
 hrj proof. Very well. Let us take as a case his own 
 <jharge against Irish priests, " that murder and raj-ine 
 *' are increased in proportion as confession is hurried 
 *' over by the priest." Suppose a man, habituated 
 to such grievous crimes, to have acknowledged them in 
 confession to one of those clergymen, who, as our 
 zealot insinuates, hiu'ry over confessions^ and by their 
 ncfylieence or leniiii have contributed to the increase 
 of cnpital misdeeds. Suppose the delinquent, being 
 afterwards reclaimed, discloses privately to a catholic 
 bishop the misconduct of the clergyman, with sucli 
 circumstances as leave no doubt of the vei-acity of 
 the accuser. What is the duty of the ordinary ? Is 
 it not his duty to suspend the clergyman .? Must he 
 continue to entrust the souls, for whicli he is responsi- 
 ble, to a clergyman so improper .'' Must he compel the 
 penitent to meet, face to face, that clergj-man, and to 
 acknowledge himself guilty of felony in writing, and to 
 jprcwe it? The clcrgj'man who should insist on this, 
 would not scruple to prosecute that man, directly 
 or indirectly. If even directly, would a judge of 
 Gaol-delivery admit this challenge to the competence of 
 the clerical witness, that he had gained his knowledge 
 through confession P Tliat he had gathered his proofs 
 
 from 
 
^75 
 
 fi'om the penitent's o',yn complaint? This case, it 
 may be said, is a case of monstrous supposition. I 
 grant that. But in the catholic moral system there- 
 are acts, which, like felonies against society, imply 
 a capital abuse of confidence ; and which to attempt 
 establishing by proofs, such as ColumbauKS requires, 
 would overthrow at once that moral system. "V\iier- 
 ever cotifidcnce exists, fewness or relative solitude is 
 implied: a system of confidence cannot subsist, un- 
 less they, for whose benefit it had been made, hold 
 everj' possible advantage over those who are its depo- 
 sitaries. If Ccluinhaniis is sincere, he will perceive 
 my meaning: if he calls for more explanation, it will 
 "be manifest, that he seeks not to gain intelligence, 
 but to compass ruin. To cut the matter short, I 
 maintain, from my acquaintance with the spirit of 
 U Irish priests, that they would not associate with any 
 clcrirvman, who rested his titles of honour on the 
 ground, that he could not be juridicallij convicted of 
 misdeed or indecorum. Tliat the spirit of Irish la^^ 
 catholics would more than suspend a clergyman, ap- 
 pealing to this test, I need not say : for every Irish 
 catholic, who reads this, will decide. It is not by such 
 methods, it is not by picas of not guilty, the priest- 
 hood has preserved its baptismal White from suspici- 
 on. It is not by such avowals they hold the confidence 
 of the tlock. Were even suspension , the usual maik 
 of unequivocal blenjish, as it is not; but more fre- 
 quently a deference to probability, and a symptom of 
 
 - ' jealous 
 
675 
 
 jealous precaulion j were it as frequently overstrained, 
 as it is sparingly applied, the priests of Ireland would, 
 as they now feel and arc constituted, prefer the 
 continuance of such power to that degrading eman- 
 cipation of Columhanus, which would obliterate the 
 reverence of past life, the ambitious purity of their 
 aggregate fame, and the trust and confidence so pur- 
 chased j in order to bring in a legal standard of wo/ 
 convicted ; which would re})lace innocence by impu- 
 nity, would guarantee the exercise of sacred functions 
 to those, whom the catholic sentiment had degraded ; 
 and which for the priest whose visit had made a 
 lucky day, whose intimacy had been the pledge of 
 domestic virtue, would infest us, with a brood of 
 ecclesiastics, such as no catholic, unless provided with 
 legal ivitncsscSy would admit under his roof. Such is 
 the defence I would make for the practice impeached, 
 «s uncanonical and tyrannous. Columhaiius will easily 
 justify to his own conscience his representing thi« 
 practice of msj^etisiouy as an episcopal grievance 
 peculiar to Ireland, whereas it is a diciplinar}- rule in 
 Roman catholic countries j and is recognized in the 
 council of Trent.* The catholic priest well knows, 
 that the pov/er, thus exaggerated and defamed by 
 ColumhanuSy is neither arbitrary nor final j that it is 
 not exercised in hostility, that it cannot be exercised 
 in hostility. He knows, tliat, if aggrieved, he has the 
 
 resouixe 
 
 » Sess. XXIV. Cap. I. De Reform. 
 
C77 
 
 resource of application to higher authority.* I stand, 
 however, not on the legality of the practice, as niudi 
 as on its necessity. If Ireland were entirely catholic at 
 tliis monient, even so the religious spirit of the land ^ 
 would require such practice to be contiuued. What 
 then would be the consequence of relaxing the tone of 
 catholic morals nowj of depriving bishops of the 
 power to guard the reputation of their clergy j of 
 taking away their mediation, as well as their authoritjr 
 of paternal rebuke ; of swelling up little storie*; 
 into the bulk of criminal records ? If once the re- 
 Jaimation sought for by Columhanus were introduced, 
 does lie imagine, that the new bishops-court proceas 
 would be fmal on either party ? Does ho not surmise, 
 that all this would terminate in tlie courts of law ? 
 And surely no place can be mor-e competent than those 
 courts to. handle the most delkate point;? of our reli- 
 gious system. If Columhanus is serious in calling ovit 
 for the improvement^ let him think on the consequences. 
 I have concluded the labour undertaken at vour 
 command. Whatever the ^performance may be, 1 
 shall not repent of the motives, whivh determined toe' 
 to begin, and which sirpported my resolution thi-ou'di 
 the ii'ksome journey. Iflliavedone service to the 
 catholic cause, the measure and efficacy of that ser- 
 vice will be appreciated, when I shall be alike insensi- 
 ble to calumny and to praise. But I have cheered my 
 
 w:»./ 
 
 • Benedict. XIV. De Synod. Dioces. LU 12. cap. %. J IV 
 
678 
 
 Way through the inhospitable wilds and bristling 
 thorn-groves of ColunibanuSj witli this reflection. 
 
 I have addressed these letters to you, Reverend Sir, 
 by name, not only because your authority had prevail- 
 ed with me to take up the subject, but because I 
 esteem you a fit arbitrator on pretensions, advanced 
 as in the behalf of the priestJiood^ to which rank 
 you adhere, as to the highest object of your ambition. 
 If to these public grounds it is allowed to subjoin the 
 motives of honourable gratitude, I wished to testify 
 what I cannot requite; the kindness of friendship, 
 for many years enjoyed, and the advantages of your 
 instruction, to which 7 owe much, if the present 
 undertaking be not contemptible. If not contempti- 
 ble, this will introduce the commemoration of our 
 friendship, when nothing shall remain of us to be seen. 
 Your name will vouch for my sincerity in defending the 
 christiaa church against an assault, which would add 
 contumelious disgrace to the persecutions it cudnre^. 
 When those persecutions have ceased, may catholics 
 who shall read these letters, join your name, Hamill, 
 to mine in one christian remembrance ! 
 
 I am, Reverend Sir, 
 Yours, 
 
 JAMES BERNARD CLINCH. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 While tlic ninth of the foregoing letters was at 
 press, I received, out of England, the account, that 
 a ^7^/7: production of Columbayms had come to light. 
 Soon after, I was favoured, through an unknown 
 hand, with the publication itself, entitled, '* No. 2 of 
 *' an historical address on the calamities occasioned bj 
 " foreign influence in the nomination to Irish sees." 
 This historical address, in other words, this crazy 
 rhapsQdy> is, with considerable insult to the English 
 Peerage, fastened, by the medium of a dedication, 
 upon tlie most noble the Marquis of Buckingham, as 
 an undertaking conunenccd and perfected under /lis 
 ausjjiccs, and as likely to do much in Ireland, on the 
 strength of his Lordship's prctcction. 
 
 I had delayed for several months the printing of 
 my letters, in the expectation of those further docu- 
 ments and proofs, which Colamhamis threatened to 
 eir.battle. I tarried .so long, that many became im- 
 patient, and some even mistrustful : I therefore re- 
 •-.'^Ived to proceed ; being certain, from a metnaphysical 
 
 dissection 
 
680 
 
 tlissection of ilny valorous Doctor, tliat, although he 
 night get the start, and wriggle for a while in his cage, 
 he could not run away; Sicut exiguaanimalium, quae 
 suis in circulis niicant, campo dcprehenduntur. 
 
 I have looked into ximjifth number. I have abided 
 in its atmosphere, as long as human breathing could 
 struiTffle amidst the most unwholesome exhalations. 
 All that I deem expedient, for the present, to remark 
 en its general tendency and scope, has been expressed 
 in my introduction. I am now to animadvert on 
 those passages, 'which regard the principle of my 
 ■work. The passages I have culled out and endea- 
 Tourcd to classify, under the heads to be mentioned 
 jrj order. 
 
 1. Of ihe jttdkial right of the second order ^ *' to 
 " determine o7t faith and discipUiie 'with ihe bishops, 
 *♦ (H. A. p. 72), a right which they always enjoyed, 
 *' (p. 59 ibid.), and which was tlie grand palladium 
 ** of religious liherty^ and the grand restraint upon 
 *' ibc intrigues and passions of exclusive synods of 
 *' bishops," our author gives such proofs as he always 
 o-jvcs. Although it must aj^pear now superfluous, to 
 t;\ke notice of assertions, so often and so variously 
 refuted in the foregoing letters ; yet, as Columbamis 
 !;:is scraped together some new authorities, I shall 
 «)riefly go through them all. 
 
 I lis proofs from scripture are three; first, the coun- 
 cil of Jerusalem, which I have examined. Secondly, 
 
 that. 
 
681 
 
 that, when Paul was desired by James and the prsb^tas 
 to defiay the costs of two zealots for the law in per- 
 forming their vow, and to have an offering made for 
 Paul himself, in order to do away the reports against 
 him J " those presbyters," (supposed by Colmnbanus 
 priests of the second order), " made a doctrinal 
 *' decree .^ and that Paul submitted to their decreed 
 This is certainly a happy discovery of judicial right 
 in matters oi faith and discipline ; as well as of the in- 
 feriority of PuuFs judicial right to James and the 
 j>resbyters ; although saint Paul himself thought other- 
 wise,* and though he declares his principle was ever 
 to be a JexD with tiie Jevos. Third argument : that, 
 ** when Paul brought up money (ibid. p. 61) from 
 •* Antioch, he did not give it to the bishop, but to 
 ** the college of presbyters, to be distributed by com- 
 *' mon consent: that consequently those presbyters had 
 ** a power from the Holy Ghost to gover7i the flock 
 *' over which he made them overseers." On this 
 mixture of fabrication and frenzy it is needless tp 
 dwell. *' Saint 'Paul expressly declares so in that 
 *' text; which .the vicars apostolical have corrupted 
 ^ in order to prove the reverse !" ibid. We have 
 heretofore examined that corruption. It is the cor- 
 ruption of the council of Trent. It is the corruption 
 of Celestine, uj/zo sent saint Patrick into Ireland '^ and 
 fv'ho, in his doctrinal letter to the council of Ephesus, 
 4 s declares 
 
 * 1. Cor. cap. 10. 52. Cor.^^cap. 10. 11, 
 
()82 
 
 dechrcs, tliat Paul properly and specifically addressetl 
 those words to bis/iopsy who succeed to the rank of 
 apostles. It is the corruption of the council of Ephe- 
 sus, which not only accepted this doctrine, but cried 
 out, " To Celestinc the new Paul, to Celestine the 
 *' guardian of the faith, to Celestine TVianinwus with 
 ** the synod, the entire synod gives thanks:" " One 
 ** Celestine ; one Cyril ; one flilth of the synod ; one 
 " faith of the world." If saint Patrick held the faith 
 of the then *voorld, he must, as a vicar apostolical, have 
 corrupted this text. Unhappy Columhayms ! Concil. 
 Ephes. Act. 2. Hardouin p. 1467, 1468. Spiritus 
 sancti etc. " Respiciamus verba nostri doctoris, qui- 
 bus PRoPRiE APUD EPiscopos utitur. Attendlie -cohisy 
 tit. Inde (namel}' from Ephesus) advocates hos legi- 
 liius qui istud audirent, quo nunc sanctitas vcstra 
 Convenit. Last argument of Coluvibamis. " The 
 *^ preshyters joined in the ordination, in the lading 
 <' on of hands. 1. Tim. IV. 14. 2. Tim. II. 6." 
 Exactly so. They laid hands even on bishops, aiid or« 
 dained them. But were those preshytcrsy priests of 
 the second ordevy who according to you, Columbanus, 
 cannot ordj^in ? 
 
 After this scriptural demonstration of his palladium ^ 
 our author fastens upon Ignatius the martyr, bishop 
 of Antioch. His success in establishing the judicial 
 right of the second order, in matters ol faith and 
 discipline^ in synods and along with bishops, is such 
 
 Sit, 
 
ess 
 
 4S miglit be expected. " Tlie great Ignatius," wites 
 Columbajius, p. 62. *' in his epistle to the Tln-allians 
 *' says: what is the presbj'terj', but an holy assembly, 
 ** in which the presbyters are the comicellors and as- 
 *' sessors to the bishop ?" Unluckily the martyr 
 has notlijng of that. The interpolated epistle has it 
 surely. Were the text even genuine, what is it to 
 the purpose ? *' He repeats," adds Colunihaim$, " the 
 *' same doctrine in the same lettei*. Reverence the 
 *' deacons as the order of Christ, and the presbyters 
 *' as the synod of God, and the constitution of the 
 *' apostles. Without these there can be ?io church." 
 I answer ; the words of saint Ignatius really are 
 these J "Reverence the deacons as Christ; in like 
 *' manner the bishop as the Jignre of the Father' ; and 
 *' the presbyters as the council-meeting of God, and 
 ** as a united band of apostles ; without thesie," (i. e. 
 bisliop, pj*«sbyter and deacon), "no church," i.e. 
 no faidifui congregation *' can be assembled." Did 
 it ever enter the heart of man to allege such texts in 
 proof of a judicial right to determine in synods and 
 along with bishops P The martyr is exhorting the 
 faithful to reverence the three most sacred names 
 of hierarchy. If the simiUtudes used by Iffhi be rigo- 
 rously taken, he has represented tlie deacon as supe- 
 rior to the presbyter. The bishop, with Ignatius, 
 represents the Father: the deacon, as. the angel, 
 minister, and instructor sent by the bishop, represents 
 
 th« 
 
684 
 
 the Son of God, when on earth : the presbyters, seated 
 in a body around the bishop^ represent a council-as- 
 sembly before God, and a company of apostles with 
 regard to the deacon ; because the deacon, as Christ, 
 announces to them the will aiid purpose' of the bnhop 
 as of the Father. This is a strange argumciit for the 
 judicial right. Cotumbanus announces himself for a 
 presbyter. Does he represent the dut}^ of an apostle 
 to the Creator^ in his dealing with bishops ? *' Ignatius 
 ''concludes," according to our author; "Farewell 
 *' in Jesus Christ, being subject to the bishop, as the 
 " commandment of God ; likewise to the college of 
 *' presbyters." Nearly so. For you, Colionhanus, as 
 I perceive, give wiih new interpolations your English 
 from the old Latin version, published by Usher and 
 by Cotelier j and yet you give your Greek from the 
 spurious, and long since damned epistles of the sixth 
 century. Now, in that Greek, to which you last re^ 
 fer, you have treacherously omitted afte7- the presby- 
 ters, these words; **and to the deacons." This was 
 a most salutary and necessary admonition, by the 
 blessed martyr, and addressed to the laity, not to 
 bishops, that they should treat with reverence all the 
 sacred orders. He was exhorting the laity to esteem, 
 to retain, to reverence the apostolic form ; wherein 
 the apostolic primacy of bishops was beautified, and 
 exalted into a regal sj^stem by the assemblage of pres- 
 byters, like a senatorial meeting, and by deacons, 
 who, though of greater antiquity were not of more 
 
 certain 
 
685 
 
 certain apostolical institution. He was speaking for 
 the concord of the church, and against oligarchy and 
 anarchy. But you, Columbantis, who, amongst your 
 acquirements^ seem to have forgotten, that, when Igna- 
 tius wrote, the senatorial power was but the pompous 
 circumstance and display of state for the regal authori- 
 ty ; yon, who Iiave entirely forgotten, that, before our 
 Saviour's expiation, the chief senate of the Roman 
 world was a meeting of honorary title, and of voluntary 
 pon?ultation, are pleased to infer from a supposititious 
 text, that the presbyters, because a syncdrium before 
 the bishop, as before Gody liad a judicial right in 
 collision with their bishop or God. You are too 
 learned^ and too ardent. Be pleased to become rati- 
 onal J if possible, to become honest. Your learning 
 we will most willingly forego. 
 
 But how comes it to pass, that, in quoting this great 
 martyr, you have dissembled all those texts, which 
 come home to the very point j namely, those which 
 declare the relation of presbi/ter to bishop ? For ex- 
 ample; why omit (to the Ephetia-i^, IV. Le Clerc 12. 
 Aldr. 42), that not only laity, but presbyters must 
 conform to the '•/^u^n, or decision of the bishop ,- that 
 (Ibid. VI.) a bisliop is to be reverenced even the more, 
 if he should appear ineloquent ? 'Why pass over (to 
 the Magnesians, III. p. 18.), that the holy presbyters^ 
 whom this martyr had known, yielded to their 
 ffishops, and thus yielded to God, the bishop of all ; 
 
 that 
 
686 
 
 that (Ibid V.) he, who affects Independence of his 
 bisho]!, is not a christian ? WTiy suppress in the very 
 letter to the Thralliam {XII. p. 24.), that it is the duty 
 of all, but it is the peculiar duty of presbyters^ to give 
 contentment to the bishop j or, in the letter to those 
 of Philadelphia (XIII. p. 31.), that all who belong to 
 Christ, are to be found along with the bishop ; that 
 he is compelled by the spirit of God to declare. Do 
 nothing without your bishop ? Why not mention, 
 that, according to the flnartyr (to Smyrna §. VIII. p. 
 36.), No ecclesiastical act can be performed^ no eucharist 
 eclebratedy without his, the bishop's permission ,• that, 
 wheresoever the bishop is seen, thither the flock must 
 rally ; that (Ibid IX.) it is right to keep God and 
 the bishop in view ; that whoever honours the bishop, 
 Js honoured by God ; that he, xcho clandestinely acts 
 "idthout the bishop, offers homage to the Devil ? Why 
 skip over all these passages ? Would they not have 
 helped to make out your assertion, that the grand pal- 
 ladium and the grand restraint upon the intrigues and 
 passions of episcopal sj-nods lay in the judicial rights 
 i*hvays enjoyed by the second order in councils.^ 
 I^istly, when you quoted the spurious text, " What 
 '* is the presbytery f ^. " why corrupt even that 
 lext, by omitting the preceding words concerning 
 tUc bishop; namely these, "For what is the bishop y 
 *' /;;//," (I copy your manner of rendering) *' but 
 ** one ^vho fransccndantly and. beyond all power holds 
 
 *' dominion 
 
6S7 
 
 •* dominion over all ; being, through the miglitin&ss 
 *' of Christ, the representative of God, as far as mortal 
 ** can hold such dominion ?" 
 
 The third battery is this j " In fact," (p. 68, 69.), 
 ** the apostolical canons, Lib. 2, Cap. 32. declare 
 ** expressly, that the priests are the bishop's counsel, 
 ** the senate and the sessiojis of the church," I pass 
 over the mistake of canons for constitutions ^ as well as 
 the false quotation. The words quoted are in the 
 28th chapter j wherein the faithful are enjoined to give 
 an equal share to the deacon and to the presbyter 
 in their Ayctntxi-. to the former in honour to Chist ^ 
 to the latter in honour to the apostles, whose rank- 
 the presbyters obtain, as I have already explained. 
 But, ColumbamiSy you hail promised to shew a judicial 
 right, in spiods, along with bishops, and in matters oi* 
 faith and disipline: yet here you shew no r?'^/?/ whatsp- 
 everj and your text excludes all pretension o^ a. judicial 
 right. Did you ever look into those constituticmsf 
 The chapter, which you misquote, is against the im- 
 piety of a deacon resisting or slighting his bishop. 
 Now, the deacon is set abo\'e the 2)reshytcr in this \cvy 
 work. Cap. 30. The bishop is the- miappealable 
 judge over priests, princes and doctors: all power 
 and authority of loosing and binding is given to him, 
 as sucli, by Christ. Cap. 11, 12. The bishop is tlic- 
 kingand potentate after God. Cap. 26. 29. 31<. " On 
 trials in the congregation, the presb/ters and dcacoiis 
 
 tire 
 
ass 
 
 arc to be assistants, and to eudt>avour to reconcile tli* 
 parties, before the sentence of the bishop, which is ra- 
 tified by Christ. Cap. 47. Coliimhanus knew no- 
 thing of these matters. Having picked up a text, 
 wherein presb3'ters are named a senate of the church, 
 a council and assessors for the bisliop, and not know- 
 ing, that these denominations negative a judicial 
 authority, he inferred, tliat the consultors are judges^ 
 not only in the domestic judicature of a single bishop, 
 but in all episcopal councils. 
 
 His fourth string of proofs for the judicial right, is 
 from saint Cyprian. 
 
 ♦' Saint Cyprian" (Columb. p. 72.), " says, tluit the 
 •* synods of Africa were councils of bishops, priests, 
 ** deacons and confessors, the people standing by ,- colla- 
 *' tione consiliorum cum episcopis, presb} tcris, dia-r 
 *' conis, confessoribus pariter ac stantibus lairis facta. 
 *« Ep. 66." 
 
 Softl}', Columbanus. First ; the v.-ords, cjuotcd as of 
 saint Cyprian, are found in a letter from the Roman 
 clergy, scde vacantCy to that bishop. Again j you 
 marvellously interpret the, stantibus laic is. Lastly^ 
 you cut off the beginning and end of the story. The 
 Roman clergy, being consulted by Cyprian on the 
 mode of rigour or indulgence, proper to be used with 
 those, who had fallen in persecution, reply, that since 
 Fabian's martyrdom, they had not been allowed to 
 have a bishop^ ncho xviih authoritij and cojisultatio/i 
 might settle the question of the lapsed : that, however, 
 
 9$ 
 
?89 
 
 as the question is momentous, they approve of Cyprian's 
 idea; nanielj, to await the restoration of peace to tlie 
 cuuicli, and thereupon to examine the matter in a 
 general conference of bishops, priests, deacons; of 
 conftrssors for the faith, and o^ all the laity that should 
 not have falleyi. In order to prove a jW/c?flf/ right in 
 presbyters^ you make the iaity statid by. Now permit 
 the Roman clergy to assign their own reason; 
 ** For we consider it liable to great odium, as well as 
 " to great responsibilitj', not to examine, through 
 *^ the medium o^^ great number^ a case, that implicates 
 ** in guilt a multitude. Perquam enim nobis invidio' 
 " swn et ojierosujn vidctur, non 'j^er viujtos examinare, 
 ** quod per midtos admissum videatur fuisse." 
 
 Ibid. '* Priests attended in councils held by Cyprian 
 *' himself, not pro forma and by connivance ; they Judged 
 ** and determined with the bisliops on matters of faith 
 ** and discipline." Our author gives very prudently 
 his texts in Latin. The first is, " I and my colleagues, 
 '* who were on the spot, and our brother presbyters, 
 ** who sat on either side." Is not this demonstrative 
 of a judicial right ? Columbantis forbears to tell, what 
 was then defined or by whom: and, in*fact, it turns 
 out, that there wa§ no council alluded to by Cj'prian. 
 Our author quotes this from Cyprian, Ep. 66. He 
 will find the letter itself in Fell, Ep, 1., and be pleased 
 to read the annotation. 
 
 Second text; " Concerning which affair" (of 
 
 fc-bnptizing\ *' that you might know, what very 
 
 4 T *' many 
 
.690 
 
 •' many of our brother bishops have determined in 
 ** synod, ih company with brother presbyters, who 
 ** were on tJie spot." Docs not this prove the judicial 
 right and privilege, always enjoyed, of restraining 
 episcopal intrigues ? 
 
 The third text j " If the number of those biehops, 
 <' who pronounced judgment on them last year, be 
 *' computed, along with presbt/iers and deacons ^ it 
 " will appear, that more were present a.t tha-tjudg' 
 *' mc7it and examination, than all the now partizans 
 " of Fortunatus." Is it not a good proof, that the 
 seco7id order held a judicial right, to shew from saint 
 Cyprian, that diey had \i not? 
 
 Fourth text; " Saint Cyprian" (Columb. p. 64.) 
 " writes to pope Cornelius, Ep. 55." Fell, 59. "that 
 " he had a Nourishing clergy presiding with him at 
 " Rome." Over whom presiding, Columbanus? 
 Does the justice of peace, because he presides, as wcU 
 as the chief justice of England or of Ireland, over the 
 peace, appear to you coequal, in judicial right, with 
 the general conservators of a realm ? It is your 
 fate to deal in apocrypha. I do not deny, but I main- 
 tain, that the presbyters are, in the catholic polity, 
 •3-g«r«T«<, ■sr^osSgatj zirg«))yBj«£vo{j 2ir^««i«fl«|ttE»e« ; and that their* 
 acts are acts of spiritual magistracy. But you are 
 perpetually shuffling the question, as here. Instead 
 of proving a right, affecting the bishop, you allege a 
 superiority, affecting the people. Having said thus 
 much on the principle, I beg to add, {ot the informa- 
 tion 
 
69i 
 
 tion of persons, not so learned as yourself, first, that 
 i\\c , Jlorenthsivio dero tecum praestdetitij is a most 
 doubtful reading on the very face of the manuscripts ; 
 that J'oii7' manuscripts in England, of very good mark, 
 have praescnti ; that praesidcre is used by saint 
 Cyprian, and by Tertullian, to whose discriminating 
 stile he conforms, for the episcopal primacy, and for 
 ho other 2^^'^sidents, Lastly, I su.o;gest, that the true 
 reading is necessarily, tecum praesideiite^ i. e. united 
 with thee, as governor. 
 
 The fifth text of Columhaims is, that " on the 
 *^* death of Fabianus the pope," (Columb. 65.) " the 
 *' second order, or Roman clergy governed that see, 
 *' stiling themselves jL'ra^j905/7? or prelates.'*' He adds 
 sometliing very foolish, as from Baronius, whom, by 
 the bye, he misrepresents. Now the Roman clergy 
 do not stile themselves, praepositu In the vacancy 
 of the first chair, and wliile the emperor Decius 
 was more afraid", as saint Cyprian states, of a bishop 
 being made for Rome, than of a pretender setting up 
 for the empire, the priests and deacons of Rome, 
 hearing that Cyprian of Carthage had absconded 
 from persecution, wrote an anonymous letter to the 
 clergy in Carthage, asking tliem also to stand in the 
 breach, and using these words, as applicable to both 
 churches ; ** We," namely, of Rome and Carthage, 
 •*' who appear to be now left governors, and deputies 
 *' of bishops. Nos qui videmur esi)e pracpositi, et 
 ** riccm pastori.s snstinere." Will Columbevnis never 
 
 have 
 
092 
 
 liave doiie witli furgcxj ? His helps from BaroniuS 
 are not worthy even of refutation. 1 revere that 
 holy man : I respect his devout prejudices, as well as 
 his. invaluable labours. However, it is not for our 
 author to defame at once, and to implore such au- 
 thorities. 
 
 His last argument from saint Cyprian is also Latin, 
 " The Roman clergy had a share in the government," 
 (p. QS^ note), "and were, as saint Cyprian exprcssli/ 
 " says, in his epistle to Lucius, Ep. 58. Cum pres- 
 ** bytero episcopi sucerdotali honore conjunct!." I 
 have deferred to this last text an observation. Co- 
 lumhanus purloins from some French catchpenny all 
 his authorities. He perpetually quotes Cyprian from 
 the editions anterior to Fell, as this quotation is 
 
 from the numeration of Pamelius. In truth, tlie Ro- 
 
 ■t 
 
 man clergy Jiad a share m the government; and, 
 though the example of a patriarchal see, especially 
 that of Rome, is no pi'ecedent, as I have demonstrated, 
 unless for apostolical missions; there is nothing al- 
 lowed, or alluded to, in any ancient document, con- 
 cerning presbi/terSf which our parish priests do not 
 enjoy in a far higher degree. Now, what is the text 
 of Cyprian, so garbled by the impostor ? The bishop 
 congratulates the church of Rome, that the persecu- 
 tion had spared the Novatian conventicle, and had 
 singled out the successor of Cornelius; '< to this pur- 
 *' pose, that Cu.rist, for the confusion and conviction 
 " of the heretics'^ (so Cyprian termed all schismatics), 
 
 '' should 
 
693 
 
 " should make it plain, which was the c/iiiirJi" of 
 Rome; *' who its one oiilij hishop, selected by divine 
 •' ordinance; who the presbyters, united Aviih tlui* 
 " bishop, as connected with him by the magistracy 
 " and insignia of 'priesthood." Intelligimns unde ilHt- 
 5^*' repentina persecutio exorta sit, ...ut ad ccnfundtTt- 
 " dos haereticos et retundendos ostendcrct Dominu.:;, 
 "' quae esset ecclesia; c|uis episcopiis ejus unus diviua 
 ** ordinatione delectus; qui cum episcopo preshjtcri 
 '* sacerdotali honore conjuncti." 58. Pamel. 61. Fell. 
 Now that we have got over these formidable proofs of 
 a judicial right in the second order, and have scanned 
 tlieir folly, emptiness and fraud, I will make one or two 
 observations wifh regard to Cyprian. First of all j no 
 judicial right has been proved from him ; no judicial 
 interference has been shewn, £ven of caiicession. Se*- 
 condly j it has been most grossly concealed by Cohim- 
 hanus, that this neophyte bishop of Carthage avows 
 himself the introducer of a rule, that he, the bishop, 
 should cojisidt his presbyters and deacons, and moreover 
 seek the conseiit of his flock, before he established 
 any regulation of discipline. Ep. 14, Fell 6. Palmer. 
 A primordio episcopatus mei statui, nil sine consilio 
 vestro, et sijie consensu plehis iiiea privatim sententiu 
 gcrere. Would n<jt even this dcc1aratio}i suffice to 
 shew, that the very privilege of :onsnUai!on hixd not 
 aki-aj/s been enjoyed by the second order? Agriin; 
 if Cyprian had mentioned, as he does not, a^jitdicial 
 vrvrht in the «econd order; if \]^or^^ remained only 
 
 a doubt, 
 
a doubt, \\liether sucli right were inherent, or derived 
 from courtesy, humility and kindness in the bishop, 
 and exercised in dutiful reverence towards the bishop 
 by the presbyter, ought we not consult the martyr 
 himself, and trust to his express words, rather than to 
 forced and captious inferences of a rights from an 
 equivocal practice. Hear then tlie martyr. " From 
 ** no other source have heresies originated, and schisms 
 " taken birth, than from this ; that obedience is not 
 "yielded to the priest of God:"' (i.e. the bishop) ; 
 *♦ that it is not considered, that one priest for the 
 ** time being, and one judge hoWs the lieutenancy 
 " of Christ in each church. If the entire bodT/ re- 
 *' mained dutiful to him, according to the divine 
 ** precept, no man, after the divine election, after the 
 *' popular choice, after the consent of the brother 
 *' bisliops would attempt to make himself a judge, not 
 " merely of a bishop^ but of God himself.'" Ep. 69. 
 Fell. 
 
 Let us next take up our author's arguments from 
 councils. 
 
 1. "In the council of Eliberis, held A. D. 306., 
 " the bishops were only 19, the presbyters were 26,"* 
 I have settled this matter already. 
 
 2. *' Eusebius says, that so many of the second 
 *' order attended in the great council of Nice, that it 
 ** "iVOtdd be tedious to mention tliem individually. 
 *' Tillemont computes them at 2048, Beausobre 
 
 agrees." 
 
 'b' 
 
 Historical address, N'o. 2. p. 71. 
 
69o 
 
 /* agrees."* I have settled also the passage from 
 Eusebius. If Tillemont and BeausobtVj some thirteen 
 )mndi'ed years after that council, commuted the num- 
 Jjer at 2048, Columbamis will be pleased to under- 
 stand, that the imperial saloon must Iiave been half a 
 mile in length, in their supposition. However to ease 
 him of this scruple, I beg to let him know, that those 
 2048 are taken from the notes of Abraham Ecchel- 
 lensis to the Arabic canons ; and that the words of 
 Ecchellensis are these: "According to the Coptic 
 f^ preface i the 318 fathers were selected from 2348: 
 " according to the Melc/iite, from 2048 bishops,'* 
 Labb. 11. p. 394. C. 402. Abraham Ecchellensis 
 confesses, that in writing against-Selden he had con- 
 jectured, that priest Sf deacons and monks contributed 
 to make up the number; but in these notes he re- 
 ti-acts his error. CoUmbanus builds on a third-hand 
 mistake, although retracted by its original broacher. 
 
 3. Of the council of Ephesns Columbamis writes 
 merely; "Compare the subscriptions of the second 
 " order. Bakiz. Nova Collect. Cone. 1. 507. 519."t 
 The reader may save himself that trouble j for this 
 council is sertled. 
 
 • 4. " In the council of Chalcedoti,/'-iY.' hundred and 
 " iitentij attended^ where the bishops were only 356." 
 I refer the reader to the preceding letters, and I leave 
 Jiim to his retiections on Culunibanus. 
 
 5. " The 
 
 • IJislorical Address, \\-'. 'i, p. 71 . + liii'. p. 90.. 
 
696 
 
 5. " Tlic fourth of Toledo assigns their proper 
 *' placfe in synods to priests, &c."* All settled. 
 
 6. *' The council of Tarracon enacts, that the Me- 
 *' tropolitan should send letters to his brethren, that 
 " they bring with them, not only some of the presby- 
 ^' ters of the cathedral churchy but also of each 
 *' diocese."]- Jt is true, that there is something of the 
 kind, mentioned already: but Columbanus forgets the 
 addition, that they were to bring also some of the laiti): 
 he forgets also, that this rule was made hij bishops, 
 and shews, that they could exclude ^ as well as 
 summon. 
 
 7. *' In the great council of Lateran under Innocent 
 " III,:}: there were 492 bishops and above 800 of the 
 " second order, according to Plsitina." Platina writes, 
 that in that council there were 70 archbishops, 400 
 bishops, 12 abbots, and 800 superiors of monas- 
 teries, § along with the patriarchs of Jerusalem and 
 Constantinople, and ambassadors of five kings. Now 
 this council, as Columbanus well knows, took p-ace 
 in the thirteenth ccnturi/. He knows, moreover, that 
 tlie presence of those conventual superiors (rashly 
 termed by him of the second order J, was in conse- 
 quence of a special summons to them. He knows, 
 lastly, that this summons is to be found in the 
 
 Regcstum 
 
 * Historical Address, No. 2. p. 66. + Ibid. 70. + Ibid- 
 
 § Interfuere Hieroso!5'm. Coiisai t nop. Patriarchac, Metropolitani 
 
 LXX. Episcopl cjuadiingtiili, duodecim abbatcs, priores conventu» 
 
 ales octingent'. 
 
6^7 
 
 Regestum XVI. L. 4. Ep. XXX. of the said In- 
 nocent III.* Knowing all these matters, he might 
 
 with perrect accuracy have passed over the great 
 council of Laicran. 
 
 8. '♦ Have we not to this day innumerable instances 
 ** of yMt//a'a/ subscriptions and sentences, enacted by 
 *' the secoiul order ?"f No. 
 
 9. '* Do we not find them in the two general councils 
 ** of Nicea, in the two general of Constantinople, in 
 ** that of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and in the first of 
 «* Aries r't No. 
 
 10. ** Was not Marcion rejected and condemned 
 ** by the Preshytetium ofRomey A. D. 143. Euseb. L. 
 *' 5. ch. 13 ?" No. Eusebius has not one word of the 
 matter, nor Ireneus^ nor Justin Martyr. But Epi- 
 phanius does mention, wgsff€vT«« and st^t^vti^u^ who, 
 with your permission, were bishops^ doctors^ and scho^ 
 lars of the apostolical disciples. § The condemnation} 
 and presbyterium are your own additions. 
 
 11. " Novatus" he means Novatian, *' was con- 
 ♦* demned by a synod of the second order of the Roman 
 ** clergy, as stated by Eusebius, 1. 6. ch. 43." 1| By fal- 
 sifying^ his author, Columbanus has lost the advantage 
 
 4 u o£ 
 
 * B(.squel's edition, p. 555. Circular 1 1 the nrchLishop, Ihhops, ab- 
 bots, and conventual fuwrs, f>{ N. proviace. Vineatn Domini Sabaoth. 
 Historical Address, No. 2. p. 6:^. f ibid. + ibid. 
 
 |,Epiphan. Marcionistae, p. 302.303. Pctau. || Hist, Address, II. 
 ib.d. 
 
698 
 
 of his text. Eusebius truly does say, that a gi-eat sy- 
 nod was held at Rome " of bishops, sixty in number, 
 " and, in priests and deacons, still more numerous : 
 ** that, throuf^hout the provinces also, the pastors seve- 
 *' rally discussed the cause, and that one and the same 
 " decree was resolved by all." Had he been satisfied 
 with the intervention of priests and deacons, as mak- 
 ing up part of the synod, I wotild have let the matter 
 rest for the present : but when he terms this meeting 
 a synod of the second order ^ when he leaves out tht 
 deacons as well as the bishops, 1 blame his want of in- 
 tegrity. When he terms the njeeting a synod of the 
 Tioman clergy, I am surprised, that he should not 
 have known, from the vex-y chapter of Kusebius 
 quoted, that the presbj'ters of Rome were only yby-Zy- 
 iix ; and that five of these, along with Novatian, himr 
 self a presbyter, had gone into schism ; and therefore 
 1^X0^ greater wvivc^or o{ pi iests^ above sixty , could not 
 be of the Roman clergy alone. Lastly ; I beg to 
 remind him, that neither judicial signature, nor 
 judicial enactment, is ascribed to the second order 
 by Eusebius: on the contrary, he relates, that Corne- 
 lius, in his epistle to Fabian of Antioch, delivered the 
 names and the sees of the bishops, who at Rome had 
 condemned Novatian, as well as of the foreign bishops 
 vA\o accepted their decision. 
 
 12. *' Paulus Samosatenus was condemned by the 
 *' jmests of Antioch. Euseb. 1. 7. c. 30." Enough h^s 
 been said already on this council. For the present, I 
 
699 
 
 • 
 
 will but remai'k, that only one priest, Malchion of A.u- 
 tioch, is mentioned to have disputed against Paul ; and 
 that tlie other preshr/ters are denounced in the syiiodi- 
 cal letter, as corrupted by that heretic. 
 
 IS. " The Priests sat and subscribed in the several 
 ** councils held in Rome by Popes Hilarus and Gre- 
 " gory the Great, as related in St. Greg, epist. 1. 4. c. 
 *' 88. in the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th councils of 
 " Symmachus, and under Felix." The quotation 
 from Gregory I do not understand. There is not a 
 .doubt, that, in the Roman synods, the priests sat j 
 ^nd that, in all matters regarding the constitution 
 of that particular church, they subscribed. That 
 they svibcx'iheA judicially, Cohmbarms will have proved, 
 when he adduces the name of a single presbyter, 
 speaking as a judge, in any Roman council. He 
 quotes the signatures to the 1 st council under Symma- 
 chus, of which the presbyters' signatures are feigned ; 
 he quotes the ^th and sixi/i councils under Symma- 
 chus. He has forgotten that those councils, in body 
 and in tail, are fabrications. He quotes the third 
 under Symmachus, which no presbyters subscribed or 
 could have subscribed, it being the decree of the 
 Jaishops, to whom Theodoric had referred the cause, 
 and who take notice of their commission in the de- 
 cree. 
 
 14. " Does not Pope Siricius inform the church of 
 *' Milan, that Jovinian "^nd his followers were de- 
 ** tected by a, judicial sentence o^ ihii priests of Rome ; 
 
 ** Sacerdfip' 
 
700 
 
 " Sacerdotali judicio detccta ?" No. This point has, 
 been already disposed of. Columbaims^ you should 
 have remembered, that Sacerdotale judicium is an JGp/s- 
 copal judgment f in Latin. 
 
 15. ** Was not 'Nodus cast out as a broacher of 
 ** new doctrines by the counsel of the senior presbyters 
 *' of Ephesus, as related by Epipbanius ? They 
 *' cited him, saj's Epiphanius, to give an accmint of 
 ** hisfaithf and they condemned both him and his fol- 
 *' lowers, A. D. 2i.5. Epiphan. Haeres, 57. p. 479." 
 I answer ; " Noetus was summoned by the sainted prcs- 
 *' hyters of the church," says Epiphanius. " He first 
 *' denied, and on the second summons maintained, with 
 " his ten disciples, the novel and deleterious blas- 
 *' phemy, that the invisible Father had suffered death. 
 *' For his obstinacy they expelled him from the 
 ** church. He and his brother died soon after," pro- 
 bably of the plague. *' No christian would compose 
 " them in the funeral shroud." As to the main fact, 
 Columbanus is not astray. In truth, Noetus was ex- 
 pelled the congregation, according to Epiphanius, 
 for contumacy and blasphemy, by the Presbyierium. 
 As to the consequence, Columbanus has tripped a little, 
 or even more. He was bound to shew, that there was 
 then a bishop in Ephesus ; he was bound to shew, that 
 the Ephesian -sr^ia^vn^uv was not a synodical meeting 
 of suffragan bishops. After disposing of those two 
 questions, which he is incompetent even to approach, 
 
 he 
 
701 
 
 he ought to have proved, that it is the mark o^ a, judi- 
 cial right to expel horrible and confessed blas}>he- 
 mers against the hio-wn faith of the catholic churcli. 
 The judicial right, here pretended by Columhanus^ is 
 the right of every catholiclayman. Docs Columhanvs 
 suppose a right coequal to episcopal, implied in any 
 deed of avoiding and abjuring the man, who profes- 
 sing himself Catholic, would deny the seven sacra- 
 ments or the blessed Trinitx' ? If no bisliop had been 
 at Ephesus ; if no presbyter had been there, thecon- 
 gi-egation had been warranted in ex])elling Noetus ; 
 because his doctrines were not onlv new. as our fors- 
 ing author palms it on Epiphanius j but they were in 
 open contradiction to Christianity. Thcj' were ex- 
 pressly such doctrines as those, to which the apostle 
 Paul applies the malediction of anathema, althougli 
 brought into the world by an angel. Tiie senior pres- 
 byters^ and the judicial condemnatioyi of Noetus and 
 his followers, are, as usual, the creatures of our au- 
 thor. 
 
 II. On the subject oi coadjutors xmth hope of succession, 
 cur author is still as fresh as at his first onset. *' The 
 foreign vieaiSy" says he, (pages 52, 53.) " allege the 
 " instances of saint Augustine and saint Francis of 
 *' Sales." Colnmhayms again informs us, that saint 
 Augustine repented ; as to the laller, lie says nothing : 
 that Austin of England appointed his own successor, 
 because the infant chuzxh was exposed to (iar^<^r, 
 which is not the case with the catholic church iit 
 
 IryJand- 
 
702 
 
 Ireland. The new arguments of our author are; 
 1. That in a certain history of Charlemagne it is re- 
 lated, that the bishop of'Aquileia, being pressed by the 
 emperor to appoint his own successor on his death- 
 bed, answered, he Ksooidd not add that to his sins. 
 Cohimbanusy foreseeing, that the text would not serve, 
 abstains from quoting the Latin. 2. That Boniface, 
 the apostle of Germany, asked leave of pope Zachary 
 to nominate his own successor. The pope replied, 
 that he could not consent, because it would be a 
 *' violation of the canons." Our author, as usual,- 
 was loath to encumber the story with a beginning or 
 ending. Boniface had been ordered by Gregory III. 
 to appoint a certain priest his heir and successor in the 
 ecclesiastical ministry. At this time, Boniface was a 
 missionary bishop. The object of his choice fell under 
 disgrace at court; his brother having killed an uncle 
 of Carloman. On this account Boniface applied to 
 Zachary for an enlargement of his power of designa- 
 tion. The pope, in truth, declares, that he cannot 
 allow this substitution of bishops, because it is contra- 
 ry to all church rules and traditionary principles. 
 He therefore instructs Bonifice to defer the nomi- 
 nation, until he is near his end ; then to appoint his 
 successor in the presence of tvitnesses. He declares, that 
 this privilege he will grant to no other. Labb. V. p. 
 1496. IV. 1499. IV. Zachary changed his mind, five 
 years after ; and empowered Boniface, now archbishop 
 
 of 
 
703 
 
 of Cologne, to ordain his coadjutor a hishop with t/ie 
 right of succession. (Labb. VI. 1757. E. 1522. C.) 
 Wisely and honestly were these circumstances 
 omitted. 
 
 III. On episcopal elections our author gives the 
 following supplementary intelligence. (H. Address, j). 
 54. note, 55, 56.) *' Petau, one of the most learned 
 " men the christian world ever produced, says; Non~ 
 '* nisi electione, &c." i. e. It is most certain, that bishops 
 ** deceased were replaced uniformly by election. 
 '* Negamtrs, continues he, &c." i. e. We deny, that 
 *' Soter, Eleutherius, or any bishops of Rome or of 
 '* other churches were appointed otherwise than by 
 *' election.'' It is very true, Columhanus, that Petau was 
 a most learned man. But why mangle his words 
 and peiS'ert his meaning ? Salmasins had argued, 
 from a nev/ly discovered letter of Pius of Rome to 
 Desiderius of Vienne, purporting to be written early 
 in the second century, that bishop was then the scniov 
 priest, and that each surviving presbyter gained this 
 title, which was of mere precedency, vrithout a further 
 choice or consecration of any sort. Petau denies this 
 assertion, and maintains, that bisiiops were distinctly 
 chosen for the episcopal office, in all the churches, and 
 from tiie most early times. Were Petau to return 
 to the world, he would make our audior smart for 
 this deahng. Again ; " Petau," says Colmnbamis^ 
 •' proves from a collation of the i'alhers of crnvy age -. 
 f^' as well as from the canons oi general and provincial 
 
 *' counciJ, 
 
704 
 
 '^* councils univenally received, that bishops must he 
 ** elected with imjb!deddooi's, in the presence ofaU-wha 
 ** choose to aitendil' This most learned man, it seems, 
 was ignorant, tliat bishops ■were finally elected, and 
 consecrated in tlie same meeting and inter sacm, at 
 which neither infidels, nor heretics, nor catechumens 
 could be })resent. This most learned man also quotes 
 gerieral councils for a practice on which all general 
 councils are silent. Now, the fact is, that Petau has 
 not a word nor a syllable of this nonsense. " Petan 
 *' adds, that the decrees for the maintenance of this 
 *' discijdifie are innumerable. Innumera sunt hiijm 
 "^ modi decreta dc eligendis episcopis, sttffragante et 
 **^ sitbscribente clero, conscutiente Populo." i. e. Innu- 
 *' merable are the decrees of this kind for the elec- 
 *' tion of bishops, the clergy voting and sicbscribing, 
 *•* and the people cmisenting." I leave to the honest 
 reader to settle accounts with Culumbcmus, on this 
 linparalleled fabrication. The words of Petau arc ; 
 *^ Sed innumera sunt hujusmodi decreta de eligendis a 
 *'• popnlo episco^jis cccidentalium Ecclesiarum. But 
 " innumerable are the decrees of the 'westcr7i churches 
 *' concerning the election of bishops by the people." 
 The sum total of Patau's argument is directed against 
 die fancied right of scjw'o/vV?/. I'he generally received 
 r;iri:;n'.cal c]i.sci})iinc, according to Pchui, was, that 
 *' L^.hops slunild be chosen^ cither by bishops alone, or 
 ^'p^vhars bv bislmrs and clr^gy \op,e\.hei\ The ad- 
 
 *' nnssioM 
 
705 
 
 " mission of lay votes was chiefly a law and custom of 
 ** the West. Nam, ut ah ej^iscopisj aut wia ciiam a clew 
 ** eligcrentur episcopi, recepta per omnes ecclesia* 
 " canonum decreta sanxerunt. Ut. autem in iis rc- 
 " niintiandid lakoi-um insiijjer suffragialocmn habcrent, 
 "in occidente potissimum lex et consuetudotenuit." 
 
 Ibid. " Saint Cyprian mvAniixuxs professedly y that this 
 *' discipline" of clergy voting and subscribing^ of peo- 
 ple co?ise?itingy '* is of apostolicci institution j his 6Sth 
 *' letter is p-ofessedly on the subject." This 68th 
 letter must be hiduig inter codices JusteUianos ; be- 
 cause, in the printed 68th of Cyprian, neither ^e^i^crfp- 
 tiquy nor even clergy is mentioned. The martyr speaks 
 <?f the practice, almost generally received, and having 
 authority in the observance of the apostles, that a 
 bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, 
 who, being acquainted with the morals and life of each 
 and of all, h2i\e the principal part in cJinsifig the good, 
 as in rejecting the unworthj^ 
 
 " Are the Irish bishops more learned than Peta- 
 ** vius." No truly ; but Columbanus is. ** Let cano- 
 *' nical election be restored. Let -the second order be 
 *' reinstated in iXieix synodical rights, and then we mil 
 *' talk about synods." Until this event, it seems, Colum- 
 banus is resolved to keep his "wisdom under a bushel. 
 But will he persist in talking then also ? *' Else synods 
 ** may he gU7ipoi.vder plots." A good hint to the police. 
 When they have burst in the doors, yozt can take 
 
 4 X your 
 
706 
 
 your place behind, according to the fourth of Toledo. 
 This is the same Columbanus, who had bianded with 
 disaffection the man, that feared our rite of cciifes- 
 sion might be suspected. 
 
 Our author, p. 56^ 57, attempts to play the Peta- 
 vius with the councils of Nicea, Laodicea and An- 
 tioch. He is, in truth, very learned, and begins ; *' I 
 *' know it has been asserted, and what is it that maj/ 
 " not be asserted, &c. ?" It mai/ be asserted, 1 hope, 
 that you, Columhanus, have taken all this learning from 
 the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th paragraphs of Fetau's 
 Hierarchy. Lib. I.e. 13. You add in your note a 
 remark, insinuating, that Jupiter was the royal an- 
 cestor of bishop Synesius. There is, besides, some im- 
 provement peculiarly your own. Pctau attempts to 
 prove, that popular election subsisted ailer the celebra- 
 tion of those councils. You attempt to prove, that 
 the clerical suffrage still prevailed in the east j and 
 vou prove this by saying it. Pctau, in conclusion, 
 grants, that, in the east, if bishops were frequently 
 demanded by the people, they were also appointed by 
 the bishops alone. This you change into, *' Hundreds 
 *' of examples not only of clerical, but even of po- 
 *^ pular elections in the eastern churches, subsequent 
 *' to tliose canons, as of Si/nesius, &c." Be pleased 
 to know, Colnmbanus, 1. that to insert, as you do, the 
 words, not only of clerical election, is not doing justice 
 to Petav, or lo Menard, or to your cause ; 2. that 
 Egypt was not an Eastern church j 3.. that the coun- 
 cils 
 
707 
 
 cils of Antioch and Laodicea wei'e not received in 
 Egypt: nor do the authorities, alleged by Petau, 
 demonstrate even what he undertook to shew, and 
 what he at last gave up, in these words j §, XIII. 
 Verum, ut ut in orientali ecclesia renuntiati sint epis- 
 copi, hoc est, sive populi j^l^rumque suffvagiis expetiti, 
 sive ab solis episcojiis creati^ primum constat, non eo- 
 deni modo transactam rem fuisse. 
 
 ** The CastabalcC* p. 43. note, " objects to my trang- 
 ** lation of plebs^ represensatives of the people : but; 
 *' he only betrays his own ignorance : let him read, he 
 ** will find it so rendered in coeval writers. See the 
 ** Novella 123 of Justinian." He means surely the 
 Novella among the Codices. For, plebsy is not once 
 mentioned in the printed novel. Those coeval writers 
 are, no doubt, in the Codices also, who, in the fifth 
 centm-y, translated, plebs, in English, representatives 
 of the people. Let the Castabaia read the remainder 
 of the note in question : then let him know, that 
 Columba?ms has already performed greater wonders 
 than even this on the plebs. Some instances I have 
 already given of his resistless alchyray. But for the 
 instruction of the Castabaia^ I will furnish one more 
 of inimitable rendering. De Burgo, a catholic areh- 
 bishop, is stated in a Latin text, as given by Colutu- 
 banus, to have been imprisoned ; then reduced to quit 
 the cowyfrif. The La.tin words arc, Ergastulo inclu- 
 sam. stjlum xeriere coefrerunt. This little text, hy 
 
 niej-# 
 
 J- 
 
':o8 
 
 ■mere prismatic retVaclion, has acquired these glorious 
 hues. " They shiit him up in a 'v:o7-i7iot/se, and com- 
 *' pelled liim to dig rdtk a spade for his dailijhrcad'* 
 Let the Casiahala know, that our author liolds a 
 o-ift of tongues corresponding with his divine legation. 
 Ctdite, Romani Soiptorcs ! 
 
 IV. Witli regard to the spiritual authority of the 
 Pope, I pilrposely abstained in these letters from 
 every topic not indispensable. To Columhanus I yield 
 the occupation of making genuine ideas and ivfallihle 
 rules for estimating the papal oilice; and I do so the 
 more willingly, as it rnoy be suspected, that he is 
 himself a sort of pope. I ■will take notice here only of 
 one fib, which has made its last appearance in pages 
 43, ^-l, 45, of the second historical : *' that the sum 
 " total of the primacy consists in enforcing tlie execu- 
 *' tion of the canons throughout the universal church, 
 *' as is proved by Natalis Alexander, Sccul. I. Dissert. 
 *' 4. p. 115, and that tlie pope has no power of alter- 
 ** ing or abrogating those universal laws." Columhanus 
 gives the Latin of this following phrase ; *' Hence 
 *' it is rightly inferred, that the bishop of Rome can- 
 *' not, pro libitOf at his tvill a?id pleasure, abrogate the 
 *' canons enacted by divine inspiration and consecrated 
 " by the reverence of the entire world. Nat. Alex. 
 ** ibid. p. 118." Our author, with a decent prudence, 
 di'opped the words, ai his 'will afid pleasure. But he 
 has done more: he skips from page 115 to p. 118 of 
 
 Natalis, 
 
709 
 
 Niitalis. Why so ? Because, exactly between these 
 two pages, there is an explanation, Schol. iv. p. 117. 
 wherein that writer declares, that ** although the papal 
 " office consist principally/ in upholding church rules; 
 ** although a pope cannot at his fancy abrogate y yet 
 ** lie ean interpret general canons, and, in particular 
 ** ijistaficeSf can dispense with them throughout the 
 *' world, for the advantage of the church." I leave 
 Natalis here. 
 
 V. From page 113 to p. 129 of this Address, Co- 
 lumbanus exerts himself to prove, that the discipline 
 of the council of Trent has never been received, and 
 can never be received in Ireland. In his index, this 
 title is peppered for the taste of a certain species of 
 readers, by adding, that the discipline, &c. cannot be 
 received, *' viiihout perjury, by any Irishman, who has 
 *' taJceii the oath of allegiance.''^ Now, Columbanus, 
 since your practice, as you once informed us, is to 
 avoid pedantic, technical, scholastic terms, and tc» 
 handle matters perspicuously, of which gift I have re- 
 corded most luminous instances, it might have been 
 expected, that you would explain the term, discipline , 
 as understood Ly the catholic church in Ireland. Your 
 alignment is this. The Irish catholics abjure all au- 
 thority of popes or councils over temporal rights 
 within this kingdom. But the council of Trent» 
 amongst its regulations of discipline, appears to have 
 intermeddled with, and enacted temporal matters ; 
 
 tlicrefore 
 
710 
 
 therefore the discipline of that council cannot be re- 
 ceived here 'without perjury. Such is your demonstra- 
 tion. If it has not the merit of originaHty in quoting 
 (for, in fact, your ecclesiastical proofs are borrowed, 
 honestly borrowed), it must be allowed the praise of 
 original logic. Heretofore it had been supposed, that 
 to negative an authority means to deny the authority 
 formally, generally, not partially ; that to negative, 
 in the present instance, the authority of the discipline 
 of Trent, would mean to deny that council all autho- 
 rity in its disciplinary canons. But you, CoUimbaniiSj 
 from instances of temporal enactment in that council, 
 and from the datum oi our abjuring foreign temporal 
 authority, by whomsoever exercised, conclude, that, in 
 710 matter of discipline, was that general council ade- 
 quate to regulate the catholic church in Ireland. 1 ou 
 are plainly a geometrician : you possess that faculty 
 of consistent intellect, which marks the proficient in 
 those studies. Even so, let me ask, is there aiiy of 
 the points contested by youy and maintained b}' the 
 catholic church in Ireland, of temporal concern ? Your 
 fits of loyalism are truly pathetic, as your fits of rea- 
 soning are lofty. Will you be kind enough to clear 
 up, for us ignorant creatures, why the council of 
 Trent, because in certain of its regulations, it assumed 
 the catholic churches to be for the most part esta- 
 blished ; to hold temjjoral rights even judicial j to be 
 guaranteed in those rights by immemorial possesion ; 
 
 to 
 
711 
 
 to be a member of the several catholic stales j ami, in 
 this supposition, framed certain decrees in revival, or 
 in the spirit of a mixt legislation : that on this account, 
 those canons of Trent, vv'hich it is purely and solely ot 
 ecclesiastical competence to promulge, and which re- 
 gard ecclesiastical polity alone, should stand attainted ? 
 Do you understand as yet, or do you call for examples I 
 
 Did you ever hear, that, in America, there is a 
 presbyterian church, acknowledging the primacy of 
 the kirk in Scotland ? Do you know, that it subscribes 
 the Scotch articles ; that the American States are in- 
 dependent ? You know all this j at least, that the 
 Scotch discipline is authmntative beyond the Atlantic. 
 Do you infer from these premises, that those American 
 presbyterians are traitors to their own country ? Do 
 you suppose the British Sovereign entitled, in their 
 opinion, to hold all pre-eminence temporal in America, 
 or that they believe in the right of parliament to tax 
 the federal States ? In America, at least, you would 
 not answer, Yes ; because patronage, in that country, 
 is not much considered. 
 
 Was the council of Trent a true general council, 
 as all catholics acknowledge ? Was it even a council 
 of the West, as the eastern church acknowledged, 
 when it adopted its canonical decrees and doctrinal 
 expositions against the reformists ? If even a true 
 council of the West, it was competent to regulate the 
 interior polity of that church. This regulation of in- 
 ferior polity is, with us Irish Catholics, the discipline 
 
 of 
 
712 
 
 of the council, 'the legisiation, nj)on ynixt niatiers, in 
 not for us the disciplme of Trent, where our oath 
 intercepts the sanction. We hold, that it never was 
 in the mind of the council to bind men, or rights, that 
 were not represented ; or to invade that, which was 
 independent of synodical controul. The council, as 
 I have already said, and as every Roman catholic 
 knows, went on the supposed ground of existing 
 temporal immunities. It had not the prophetic micro- 
 scope for distingnifijhing our magnus nasciturus^ who was 
 to come forth as a catholic doctor, preaching, that 
 its discipline cannot be received without perjury by 
 those, who, in admitting that discipline, abjure its 
 temporal legislation. 
 
 When the council of Trent requires, that no bishop 
 sliall designate his coadjutor with hope of succession 
 without the consent of the holy see, it determines and 
 recognizes, that, under lliis condition, the desigr.ation 
 generally shall be righteous and canonical. When 
 it anathematizes those pretended catholics, who deny 
 that persons, assumed by the pope's authority to the 
 episcopal office, are true anrl lawful bishops, it de- 
 cJ.'Ies a point of faith. Now, CohmhanuSy these are 
 the points which have excited your rage, which you 
 perpetnally aim at, and on which, notwithstanding, in 
 five pamphlets, and in a whirlwind of innninerable blas- 
 phemies, yon studiously avoid to mention the council of 
 Tient. Be of good heart. Those decisions will siu'vive 
 you, and will judge you. Is it in the council of Trent 
 
 alone 
 
715 
 
 sdons our author finds iemjwral rights meddled with ? 
 Does he forget, that in his Toledo councils and in his 
 councils of Seville, along with disciplinary canons, are to 
 be found regulations directing corporal punishment, as 
 well as the election of sovereigns j or that, in counqils of 
 France, even regal causes were decided ? Does he 
 receive tiiose temporal rules, when he argues from the 
 disa'plhie of Spanish councils, and from Capitularies ? 
 
 The discipline of the council of Trent, says our 
 aiithor, was proscribed by catholic France. How 
 can a mart who not only affects zeal, but disgustingly 
 appeals on every occasion to the Deityi utter such 
 manifest untruths ? The discipline of the council of 
 Trent "Ji-as received, with the exception of the matters 
 quoted by Columhanns, and ^vas eiiacted in the several 
 dioceses of France. In all the assemblies of the clergy, 
 down to the revolution, this council was recognized 
 as most sacred. In matters of national usage, the 
 French church took it for granted, that the council in- 
 tended not, by general words, to derogate from their 
 immemorial possession : thatj in matters regarding the 
 prerogative and temporal rights, the council intended 
 not to invade or to compel. But the French church re- 
 vered the discipline of the coimcil of Trent and adopt- 
 ed it, inider tliose limitations. Columhanns quotes 
 Dupin. What authority had Dupin in France? 
 
 He tells us, that " the discipline of Trent deprives all 
 
 *' princes f who tolerate duelling, of their temporalities : 
 
 '• that it assumes a temporal dominion over catholic 
 
 4 Y ' ** with 
 
714 
 
 *' princas with regard to ecclesiastical immu7iities : de- 
 *' clares bishops independent of the civil power, and sub- 
 " ject to the pope in criminal cases of the greatest mag- 
 ** nitude ; enables bishops to punish \n\\\^fines the prin- 
 *' ters of anonymous books ; to enforce obedience by 
 *' depriving ecclesiastics of their revenues ; to dispose 
 ** of the entire revenues of hospitals though founded 
 *' by Laymen and exempted ; to compel the laity to 
 *' give such maintenance, as they think fit, to the cler- 
 *'gy: to compel church repairs: to sequester bene- 
 ** fices : to suspend notaries for ever and without ap- 
 " peal : to change last wills. It exempts married 
 " men from lay jurisdiction, provided tJiey become ton- 
 " sured clerks. It empowers to sequester the estates 
 *' and to imprison the bodies of laymen." Supposing 
 all this to be as accurately true, as it is maliciously cari- 
 catured, does Columbanus suppose, that such enact- 
 ments are of discipline merely ecclesiastical? Does he 
 suppose, that the right of an English bishop to sit in 
 parliament is a matter of discipline^ not a matter of 
 privilege ? Does he fear, that catholic princes will be 
 created ; that imperial notaries will be brought into 
 this kingdom ; that hospitals will be founded, and 
 clerks will be tonsured, in order to set up those rules 
 of Trent ? That, whenever a duel is fought with pis- 
 tols or with sticks, the feudal system is to be re-esta- 
 blished, for the purpose of giving a forfeiture to the 
 lord paramount ? No, Columbamis does not suppose, 
 
 he 
 
715 
 
 he does not fear siich revolutions ; but he hales the ca- 
 tholic church and the council of Trent ; and he there- 
 fore has determined to do all the mischief he can to 
 the former, by abusing the latter. 
 
 One most extraordinary proof he gives, that the coun- 
 cil of Trent was not received in Ireland. *' The natio7ial 
 ** co«7Zf// of Kilkenny, in 1 6 i 8, impeached Rinuccini 
 *' for usurping the power of conterring bishoprics, in 
 ** disherison of the avwti, and against thejtindamental 
 ** latios of the realm j and, notwithstanding the pledge 
 ** given by Rinuccini, on the faith ofthepopCf that na 
 *' Irish bishopric nor benefice should be conferred, 
 " unless under the king's right of nomination y exer- 
 ** cised by the supreme coicncil of the catholics of Ire- 
 ♦* land, that, in 1647, Rinuccini ordered those 
 ** bishops appointed by himself to take their seats in 
 ** the council, and prevailed j notwithstanding the 
 *' opposition of catholic ^a'a/3/er5, who argued, that no 
 *' bishop, until he had sued out his temporalities at 
 *« the king's hands, could sit in parliament." The 
 lawi/erSi I fear, are but making sport of Colmnhamts. 
 Those lawj/ej'S well knew, that the council of Kilkenny 
 had no pretension^to take up the right of nomination, 
 exercised eighty years before by catholic kings. They 
 knew, that the pope never could have authorised Ei- 
 7iuccini to pledge his faith on so monstrous an assump- 
 tion ; that no such /«n£/a?!;e«/aZ ?flw existed. But, sup- 
 pQsing the Iwyoi/ers in eamest, what had this matter to 
 
 do 
 
716 
 
 do with the council of Trent ? Did the council of 
 Trent abrogate the concordatum of Francis I. and 
 Leo X ? Now, Columha7ii(s will do well to explain a 
 petty matter, disclosed by himself. Were the.lawyers in 
 earnest, when they mentioned temporalities of titular 
 bishoprics ? If they were, it follows, that the council 
 of Kilkenny had given liinuccini to understand, tlist 
 the titular bishops were to be reinstated in temporali- 
 ties. It follows, that, in the private treaty with Or- 
 mond, faith was broken with Riituccini ; perhaps^from 
 resentment j but faith was broken undoubtedly, by 
 those occupants oi royal prerogative. Let ColumbcniuSy 
 m his more ample work, touch upon this point. It is 
 a great desideratum in his masterly and honest chro- 
 nicle " of the calamities occasioned by foreign in- 
 Jluence" 
 
 VI. The last point, that I consider entitled to notice, 
 is the borrowed argument against episcopal synods, 
 and the fraudulent quotations of councils in Car- 
 thage and Seville. According to our author, epis- 
 copal synods, in the exclusive shape, are adverse to 
 justice j because, in cases between bishop and cler- 
 gyman, the bishops, if implicated in a common guilt, 
 will make a party against the clergj'man. W'^e have 
 seen, that the argument has its illustrious origin in 
 the complaint of the Donatists to Constantine. A bi- 
 shop, with Colmnhanus, is another name for a tyrant 
 |ind wicked judge. Unfortunately, such judges are of 
 
 Christ\ 
 
717 
 
 C/nist's appointment ; and this doctrine, if applied t« 
 the government of the land, will sound perilously. I, 
 for my part, suspect for a great saint, or for a great 
 criminal, the man v^'ho cries out, that he is refused 
 justice in every quarter, and that, without a revolu- 
 tion, he cannot be, what he declares himself worthy of 
 becoming ; who rages for a salutary reform^ he himself 
 not holding any rank in existing systems ; who talks of 
 tlie Egi^ of protestant statesmen in a question of catho- 
 lic religion ; and who, as Culumhanus has done, in 
 order to prove, that the secular power has jurisdiction 
 over sacred causes, quotes the jurisdiction exercised 
 by Pontius Pilate^ in condemning the son of God. If 
 Columbamis had read a little farther in the text, he 
 Blight have become wise to soberness. *' T/iou couldst 
 f* have^^ said Christ, " no authority upon me, if it had 
 " not been granted to thee from above" True. For 
 God had surrendered him into the hands of sinners. 
 But the Saviour adds, ** JVJierefore he, who hath 
 betrayed me unto thee, hath still a greater sin." The 
 Columbanus Iscariot was more guilty than the sober 
 ajitifanatical Pontius. 
 
 In order to shew, that a bishop cannot suspend 
 a priest, unless in synod, wherciti the second order 
 shall be assessors and fello-iH oserseei's, he has quoted 
 • in three different shapes, and recently has affected t3 
 o-ive at length the words of a canon enacted at Se- 
 ville. The quotation is too long for the present time. 
 
 I shall 
 
71S 
 
 1 shall give the facts, and touch on the frauds commit- 
 ted by our author. Agapius of Cordova, turned bi- 
 shop from having been a military officer, degi'aded 
 and condemned to iinprisoumcnt and slavery a pi'icst, 
 without any crime committed, and therefore unjustly. 
 Columbanus takes it for fact, that this priest was not 
 tried in any shape wliatever ; but this supposition is 
 absurd. Fragitanus put in his appeal to the six bi- 
 shops assembled at Seville, after the death of Aga- 
 pius: he was declared guiltless, reinstated in his order, 
 and, to obviate the progress of an evil such as that 
 proved, the council of bishops re-enact a statute passed 
 at Carthage, that no jyriest or deacon should be tried 
 by a single bishop. Hitherto the errors of Columba- 
 nus are probably sins of ignorance. He did not know, 
 that exiliunij in that Spanish Latin, meant secret im- 
 prisonment ; and, when he prefers a barbarous reading 
 to the fair one, he knew not that dentio adversus novam^ 
 was tantamount to de novo adversus novam ; or that, 
 dejiciendum audeat, is not Latin at all. The council 
 then says, that w?a;z7/,without full examination, sentence 
 persons, not by canonical authority, but by tyrannical 
 domination ; exalting to church rank some through 
 favour, degrading others out of hatred and envy ; and 
 without proving any crime, sentence on light fancies : 
 that a single bishop may ordain to deaconship and 
 priesthood, (which conditions are Jionores in the 
 church) but a single bishop cannot degrade ; because, 
 
 if 
 
719 
 
 if a slave once manumitted cannot be th'owi lack inta 
 slavery, until crime be openly, in court of the high- 
 est justice, proved upon him, how much more ought 
 tliose not to he reduced to tkraldom, who had been 
 consecrated to the service of the altar : that such 
 cannot be sentenced by one, nor upon the sentence of 
 one be despoiled of the privileges of their order j but, 
 being brought before the judgment seat of an (Episco- 
 pal) synod, ought to receive there what tlie canons 
 define. To omit minor inaccuracies, Cohimbcmus trans- 
 *' lates, how much more ought those to have a fair 
 *' legal trial y who are vestetl with ecclesiastical /w«o«r 
 *' and consecrated at the altar ?" From this canon he 
 infers, not tliat which it enacts, namely, that no final 
 sentence affecting rank and, at that time, af!t>cting 
 liberty, should be pronounced by a single bishop, 
 either with or without those overseers of Colimbantts j 
 but that no pz'esbyter can be safely tried, unless in a 
 synod, wherein the secoiid order shall have a judicial 
 suffrage. 
 
 Our author quotes for his purpose some true and 
 threadbare documents, some false documents ; but, 
 whether true or false, he always bafHes the questiorh. 
 Without the prolixity of quotations, the discipline of 
 Africa was settled under Gratiis of Carthage ; that, for 
 the trials of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, a certain 
 number of bishops should sit in judgment, of whom 
 the ordinary to be one on the trials of presbyter and 
 
 deacon. 
 
720 
 
 deacon. Tlie suspension, however, or. excommunica- 
 tion by the bishop was to be obeyed until the judges 
 met. From the African disputes between catholics and 
 Donatists, still more from the litigious and cunninsf 
 temper of the natives, joined with a tendency to insur- 
 rection on the one hand, and to tyranny on the 
 other J lastly, in order to allure the African clerofv 
 of the second rank from appeals to Rome, the epis- 
 copal council there enlarged to an extraordinary de- 
 gree the benefit of trials, and made proveahle guilt 
 coequal with guilt, and guilt residing in suspicion, 
 though general, coequal with innocence. In the case 
 of Apiarius, they granted to a man, whom they them- 
 selves afterwards represent as a person not fit to live, 
 but who was appealing beyond the seas, the terms of 
 preserving his rank, provided he would relinquish 
 the district : lastly, they went so far, as to allow the No 
 of priests or deacons to countervail, as joined with a 
 possessory title, the Yes of a bishop. They next allowed 
 judges of choice, but unappealable, between accuser 
 and accused ; lastly, triple appeals. Saint Augustine, 
 who was a party to those improvements, preached 
 against them to his people, and set them at nought 
 in practice, in a case of rank suspicion. The African 
 canons, having got into Rome under Symmachus, got 
 into vogue also from the increased weight gained by 
 contested elections, from Arian interference, from 
 great wealtli, great temporal power, and from the 
 Qonsideration, tluU hi all ofleuccs by clergymen, saving 
 
 those 
 
tlmse laesae majestatis, the episcopal sentence w'as final., 
 as to guilt and as to the mocleof punibhnunt. The Evan^ 
 geUcal maxim, " reprove liim between thyself and him 
 " alone," was apparently merged in the forms of prcto- 
 lian law. Saint Ponl had threatened the Corinthians, 
 that at his return he would not spare: that every cause 
 should depend on the proof hy txvo or three liHtnesses : 
 he had advised his disciple to receive no accusation 
 c-rainst a presbyter, without two or three witnesses, 
 pur Lord, before the high priest, had said, " if I have 
 " spoken evil, give evidence as to the evil." But the 
 apostle had spoken of visible punishment, and concern- 
 ing a church in wiiich he could not judge but by testi- 
 mony : the saviour had spoken after open indignity ex- 
 perienced without a crime or charge, from the blow of 
 a servant. From this time the paternal rebuke of the bi- 
 shop began to be tampered with by legal formalities,and 
 almost every degree of correction was made a matter of 
 appeal or of legal proof. The system was soon found 
 defective. Even Saint Augustine had been compelled 
 to send clergymen to Nola, that they might purge 
 themselves, by oath, at the tomb of Felix, reported 
 miraculous in smiting peijurers. The church of 
 France, however, did 7iol admit those African prece- 
 dents. They distinguished between lesser and great- 
 er crimes (the causae graviors quae juramento finien- 
 dte sunt Aurelian. iv.) and they allowed not, even in 
 the case of appeal to a synod, the word of a bishop, 
 4- z although 
 
722 - 
 
 although without legal proof, to be ^ebuttcd by the 
 denial of his clergjinan, because the office of bishop 
 was the more trust worthy. On this subject, I have 
 ah'cady written as much as the improved state of 
 morals in this country, and the legal freedom enjoyed 
 by all, required that I should advert to. I will dis- 
 miss the so called fourth council of Carthage, which 
 our author falsifies, with finally reminding him, that 
 fabrication is an indecent thing : that audire catisas is 
 " not even to hear causes," but to try until passing sen- 
 tence. That, he adds, *' of clergy" from his own store : 
 that clericorum is not of all the clergy, but of clergy- 
 men one or two ; and that ** irrita erit sententia nisi 
 *' clericourm praesentia confirmeter," means, in Eng- 
 lish, that *' the sentence will be null unless mtnessed 
 bu clergy being present ; not, "unless co7ifirmed hy 
 " his clergy." I wish to finish this postscript. If Co- 
 liimbamis thinks it short, because I have passed over 
 his more foolish arguments, he will know how to meet 
 me. Yet I deprecate meeting with such a writer, I 
 would most willingly pass him by, as the Greeks 
 passed along the sanctuary of the furies, without speak- 
 ing, without looking, without breathing. If I en- 
 counter him anew, it shall be not solely in personal 
 defence. 
 
 THE END. 
 
1^012 01003 S J^^ 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 :^ 
 
 'if'fs 
 
 '■ V^