It might appear disrespectful towards a Catholic bishop, were I to enter on this examination without mentioning the name of Doctor Poynter, who has already encountered the new Columbanus on this subject, and to whose short but demonstrative essay the last letter of Columbanus professes to reply. I entirely assent to the positions of Doctor Poynter, and, in a good measure, have followed his plan, as indeed was inevitable. Besides this acknowledgment, which I respectfully make public, I mean to enter into a minute review not only of the defence set up by Columbanus against Doctor Poynter, but also of such new matter as Columbanus has adduced, in vindication of this peculiar doctrine.

In truth I regret that Bishop Poynter should have restricted his labours to the narrow scope of this one topic. There exists not in the christian system a principle more solidly fixed, or more potently effica cious, or more favoured by all the social tendencies of this immortal system, than the legislative and judicial right of bishops. This chieftaincy is not the result of wealth, nor the offspring of ambition, but the necessary consequence of Unity, as well as the divine institution of the New Law. No antiquarian researches can affect this authority; nor can any revolution overthrow it, without overwhelming, at the same time, the secondary magistracy of the Priesthood. The experiment was made in France, and how it terminated we all remember.

Το

To return to Columbanus. This gentleman avows himself to be a priest of the second order," and it would appear, that he has resolved to prove his divine right of judging on faith, by a very human matter of fact. "Until I see," writes Columbanus, "that doctrine condemned by a genuine decree of the Catholic church, I shall hold the contrary to be heretical !?”"*

This is falling to sword-work rather briskly. What ! not even call a synod of the second order of priests, before he pronounced on the point of faith! Surely, if the second order has a divine right, or any indefeasible right of judging on faith, their single votes are severally as good as the single votes of bishops; so that, to gather a council is one of the easiest things imaginable, under the new spiritual commonwealth. But this severity, on the part of Columbanus, is one of the symptoms attendant on a shifting of the sovereign power. In self-defence we are therefore compelled to withstand the invaders of Episcopacy, until we shall, at least, have ascertained what magna charta they will grant, to secure us from extemporary maledictions.

I cannot however, be so unjust an adversary, as to refuse my humble tribute of admiration to the Fabian stratagem of Columbanus, in declaring as he does, that he will hold the contrary doctrine, as he terms it, heretical, until he can see a genuine decrce of the church, condemning his own assertion. The stratagem is admirable: for it entitles Columbanus not

only

* Columban. 4th Letter p. 46.

only to stand at bay against all the Catholic bishops in the universe on this question, but on every other question of faith, to the end of time. Let us suppose a thousand bishops to have condemned the doctrine of Columbanus: Still, nothing has been done towards a genuine decree of the Catholic church, on a question of this nature. For, the heresy against which Columbanus proclaims war, is the exclusive prerogative of bishops to decide on points of faith; and it would be strange enough, if persons, not only excepted to, as sole judges, but accused on the very ground that they usurped the right of sole judges; it would be strange, I say, that those very men should solely pronounce a genuine decree for Columbanus, who denies their sole power to decree on any matter of faith.

But even suppose that the "second order of priests" has accepted, as genuine, the decree of these thousand bishops; would not this be decisive? With the world at large it might: but in the argument of Columbanus, this assent would be heretical. Why so? Because in his assertion, the "second order of priests" having a divine right to sit and judge in council, on the very point so decreed by the bishops, and every divine right including a divinely binding obligation, consequently the acceptance of " the second order of priests," importing a violation of their duty to "sit and judge," would be a manifestly null and irreligious act. Besides which, how many reasons could be adduced to shew, that their acquiescence had been venal, sycophantic, pusillanimous; or had been de

termined

termined by any other one of those very many low qualities, with which Columbanus compliments our Irish-bred priests, who notwithstanding have, according to his authority, a divine right of judging on faith; aye, on the faith of their bishops, in councils?

Still assuredly a genuine decree on the point may be obtained, if " the priests of the second order" and "exclusive," bishops, will consent to meet in synod, and there to discuss the matter. Unhappily, we have here nothing but perplexity and desperation. For, in the first place, it is much to be apprehended, that the "exclusive” bishops would not compromise their possession of 1700 years, (whatever the right may be, because of the right we will treat at length) for the chance of obtaining a favourable sentence from the Columbanian judges. Secondly, because, if the " second order" affirmed the right to themselves, and the "exclusive" bishops disaffirmed that genuine decree of the "second order," there would arise a case, not foreseen by Columbanus, wherein the ignorant Catholic, in his persuasion, that the kingdom of Christ cannot be overthrown, would rally under its first authorities. If, in the shock of the old authorities against the new, such an exasperation should be produced, as that those "exclusive" bishops, whose right to judge is a little better established than that of any others; if these bishops should unluckily condemn the genuine decree of their new colleagues; if they should proscribe it; if they went so far as to create a new "second order of priests," in number

equal

equal to, or surpassing his new associates by the grace of Columbanus: I am at a loss to know by what methods of defence the "second order" so superseded by the "exclusive" bishops, could, in this extremity, either maintain their "divine right," or perpetuate their claims.

Let it not be retorted, that the degradation of the "second order," which I suppose, would be a nullity, because the " care of souls" could not be lawfully transferred to the new generation of priests. I admit, that such an argument might be recurred to by the followers of Columbanus. But then the reply would be at hand, and would be this. "The care of souls is given to priests, either by bishops, or through the essential mediation of bishops. The bishops alone, even in the system of Columbanus are the judges of priests. The bishops alone can depose priests. Now the bishops have deposed their late competitors; and, by necessary inference, they have taken away from them "the care of souls."

The objection I have last refuted, being the only one which a man could allege without mockery in opposition to the authority of the bishops, if these latter were compelled to separate the "living from the dead;" I think it right to enlarge somewhat on this consideration, and to prove superfluously from a general principle what I am about to prove circumstantially, that the pernicious dream of an inherent right in priests" of the second order" to sit in councils and to judge on faith and discipline, gives the lie, to its very teeth, to christianity.

• Let