It was not, remember, for ordinary or secular education that they betook themselves to Rome. The academies of Ireland far surpassed it in splendour. It was solely and exclusively to learn the particulars of their faith; and having once obtained this insight, they continued in spiritual unison with the tenets of that Church, as to all fundamental points of doctrine; never surrendering, however, the independence of their judgment, nor bowing before the “_ipse dixit_” of any tribunal,--where _reason_ was to be the guide,--until forced by the conspiracy of Pope Adrian IV. and his countryman Henry II. How contemptible, therefore, is the effort, in the teeth of this exposure, to identify the Irish Chaildees with the Egyptian Cophtes! There was no one point in which they may be compared, except their mutual _poverty_; which, however, Montmorency overlooks, or rather contradicts, making them both wealthy, and have _banks_ even for their riches. As, however, I look upon Dr. Hurd[58] as somewhat a better authority, you shall have what he says upon the subject-- “Among the Ethiopians, there are still to be found some monks, called Coptics, who first flourished in Egypt, but, by no difficult sort of gradation, made their way into Ethiopia. They profess the utmost _contempt_ for all _worldly things_, and look upon themselves as a sort of terrestrial angels. They are obliged to _part with all their possessions before they can enter upon a monastic life_.” Their discrepancy in doctrine is even still more notorious, agreeing with the Chaildees only in a _single_ instance also; namely, in _both_ denying the supremacy of the Pope. Here are the Doctor’s words: “They deny the papal supremacy, and, indeed, _most parts_ of the popish doctrine, particularly transubstantiation, purgatory, _auricular confession_, _celibacy_ of the _clergy_, and _extreme unction_;” all which, save the first, the Irish Chaildees maintained in _common with the see of Rome_. And now, on the point of education, I will content myself with Montmorency’s own testimony, which is to this effect, viz.: “Only on the score of erudition it must be acknowledged that the _Irish theologian_, as history asserts, did not only _excel_ the modern Greek and Egyptian, but his profound acquaintance with the _sciences_, _arts_, and _laws of his country_, gave him an _unrivalled superiority_ in the _literary_ and civilised world.” What, Colonel! are those the “barbarians”? Is _this_ what you mean by not being _conveniently situated_ within the _enlightened_ and _enlivening_ influence of Greek and Roman refinement? Alas! you knew but little of the real statement of the case; whilst the illustrious Fenelon, himself a descendant of this boasted Rome, thus more accurately avows, “that, notwithstanding all the _pretended politeness_ of the Greeks and Romans, yet, as to moral virtue and religious obligations, they were no better than the savages of America.”