the Canon Laws respecting elections of Bishops first Letter, and others at the

my

may be seen in bottom of this page.*

"Schismatibus via ageretur. Decrevit Synodus, ut cujusvis "ordinis clerici, qui Papa incolumi suffragium alicui in "proxime futura Romani Pontificis electione polliciti fuissent "aut subscriptione vel sacramento se in alicujus gratiam ob"strinxissent, aut factis privatis conventiculis hac de causa "deliberassent, vel decrevissent, loci sui dignitate et commu"nione privarentur. Decrevit secundo, ut post obitum Papæ "ille sedis Apostolico consecraretur Episcopus, qui consenti"entibus totius ordinis ecclesiastici suffragiis electus esset, vel "si studia essent diversa, vinceret sententia plurimorum sic "tamen ut careret sacerdotio, qui captus promissione non "recto judicio de electione decrevisset. Frequentibus accla"mationibus ac gratulatoriis Synodices lectionem sententiæ "Patres prosecuti sunt qui huic subscripsere concilio numero 73." Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. fol. Paris, 1699, t. v.

66

P. 12.

* Ex editione Capitularium Baluzzii, t. i. Tit. de Episcopis eligendis. "Sacrorum Canonum non ignari, ut in Dei no"mine S. Ecclesia suo liberius potiretur honore, adsensum "ordini Ecclesiastico præbuimus (nos Carolus, &c.) ut scilicit "Episcopi per electionem cleri et populi, secundum statuta "Canonum, de propria diœcesi, remota personarum et mune

rum acceptione, ob vitæ meritum, et sapientiæ donum eli"gantur." ib. p. 564, et Capitular. 1. i. c. 78. The same Canon is repeated, p. 718, Tit. de Episcopis eligendis, No. Ixxviii. and Capitulare i. ann. 803, c. 2, Capitulare ann. 816, c. 2. Hinemar Ep. 12, c. 3, lib. i. Leg. Longobard tit. 51, c. 5, Gratian Dist. 64, c. 34, Sacrorum. It is repeated a third

3. I have already stated, that the episcopal character is to me an object, not only of respect, but of religious and hereditary veneration.* If the Vicars Apostolic are offended because a Priest of the second order reminds them of the Canons, let them reflect that this is not the first time, that Bishops, and even Popes,. have even been summoned before the tribunal of the Christian world; let them read the letters of St. Jerom, St. Columban, St. Bernard, and of several more.-Whence this fear of responsibility? Why this jealousy of dominion? Does any Priest invade the Ministry without a mission? and, if not, on whose side is the abuse ?— Why is obedience the burden of every song? why are the well-worshipping doctrines, bequeathing of dioceses, exclusive discussion, and the arrogant claim of absolute dominion, slyly thrown into the back ground, as if all were perfection on one side, and all rebellion and resistance on

66

time, ib. p. 1157, Tit. "ut contradicentibus non ordinátur Episcopus." xcv. Nolentibus clericis vel populis nemo "debet Episcopus ordinari, sit facultas clericis renitendi, si "se viderint prægravari, et quos ex transverso cognoverint, non timeant refutare," Ib. p. 1044, et Decret. Celestini Papæ i. c. 17. See Columbanus, No. 1, and 3.

46

* Dr. P. affects not to have seen this passage in my 3d Letter, pag. 38.

the other? Is it because Columbanus says, that Bishops are bound by canonical rules, as well as Priests; and that no Priest shall be dispossessed without a trial, or condemned without a cause? "Causa allegata in scriptis et probata."-If so, then Columbanus repeats the assertion, and bids defiance to inquiry.*

SECT. III. St. Jerom's doctrine of the only dif ference between Bishops and Priests, jure divino, illustrated by the genuine history of the Irish Culdees.—True state of the question relative to the right of the second order, to assist in Synods.-Genuine doctrine of the Catholic Church with respect to confirmation.

1. "BUT Columbanus makes Priests and Bi"shops equal in point of power, though not in "point of order; and he leaves it dubious, whe"ther there is any difference between them, "with respect to the power of administering "confirmation."

"Decrevimus, juxta priscorum patrum decretum, Syno"dali sententia, ut nullus nostrum sine concilij examine, "quemlibet Presbyterum vel diaconum dejicere audeat ; Episcopus enim Sacerdotibus et ministris solus honorem dare potest, auferre solus non potest." Concil. Hispal. ex summa Concilior, Caranzæ, p. 167, again pp. 334 and 355.

66

46

D

My answer is, that all Episcopal powers, save that of ordaining Priests and Deacons, may, by the mission of the Church, be exercised by Priests; and therefore that the ordaining power is, as St. Jerom expressly declares, the only exclusive power that belongs by divine right to the first order of the hierarchy; for Priests have ordained Sub-deacons, conferred minor orders, and administered confirmation. The jurisdiction of Bishops, as well as of Priests, is derived by mission from the Church. All parish Priests have jurisdiction er officio in their parishes, as well as Bishops in their dioceses.* Surely Dr. P. ought to have been much more cautious, before he claimed exclusive jurisdiction, Jure

"Sicut judex a Rege constitutus, ut iis jus dicat qui a "Provinciæ Præfecto sibi assignabantur, licet id audient a

Rege-Ito-Solve-liga-Quæcumque Solveris, &c. neminem "tamen ligare potest aut solvere donec sibi designentur quos "solvat aut liget, sic et in ordinatione accipit sacerdos potes"tatem ligandi et solvendi, nec tamen exercere eam potest nisi "de ecclesiæ mandato, quia qui potestatem dedit Christus, sub"ditos non assignavit ipse, sed ecclesiæ determinandos reliquit." Collet, de Ministro Pœnit. c. ix. § 11.

66

"Jurisdictio duplex est ordinaria et delegata, ordinaria ea "est quæ alicui competit ratione officii sui, et hanc habent ii omnes qui ex officio sunt pastores animarum. Episcopus in sua diæcesi, Parochi in Parochia sua." Ib.

Divino! In deciding that Bishops are superior to Priests, the council of Trent was much more cautious than he; for a very formidable party of German and French Bishops clamoured for the words, "superior by divine right, both as to power of order and of jurisdiction." But the council demurred, and over-ruled that clamour; the word jurisdiction was omitted ;* even in deciding with respect to superiority of order, so many meanings were annexed to that word, that it was judged wise to omit by divine right, lest any power should be claimed as divine, which, in meanings affixed by the ignorant, is only of human institution; and Collet observes, that superiority of order is rather understood than expressed in their decree.† In point of fact,

*Sess. 13, can. 7. "Si quis dixerit Episcopos non esse "Presbyteris superiores."-See the notes, pp. 41 and 45.

"Non dixit concilium jure Divino superiores, ut Galli et "Germani Episcopi postulabant. Verum licet verba desint expressa, sensus tamen integer remanet." Collet Tract. de Ordine, c. v. § 1, p. 386, 8vo. edit. Paris, 1781.

46

The Council was fully aware of the doctrine of the Fathers, "that the only exclusive difference between the first and se"cond order, jure Divino, consists in the power of ordaining "Priests and Deacons." "Quid facit, excepta ordinatione, "Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat?" Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr. They were aware of that decision which is above all