IN discussing in the columns of the New York Independent the Dr. McGlynn affair which is at present attracting so much attention among both Papists and Protestants, "A Roman Catholic layman" speaks thus of the power of Catholic bishops, and of the lot of a priest who dares to appeal from the decision of his superior:— "But let it be granted that a priest with a good cause goes to Rome, that he succeeds in his case against his bishop, and that he is restored to all his priestly powers, what has he gained? He is simply in a far worse position than he was before his suspension. Rome has spoken, certainly; but Rome is a long way from New York. Few Catholic laymen, and certainly no Protestant, can possibly understand the working of Catholic ecclesiastical government. The power of a Catholic bishop is practically unlimited. His power to act in the most arbitrary manner, to crush, to inflict the keenest pain, to break down the spirit and health of those under his control, may each, and all, be exercised without even the least public suspicion of injustice. "Again let it be repeated, that we do not attribute any special intentional injustice to the Catholic hierarchy; it is simply that circumstances and human nature have their sway. The whole professional life of the ecclesiastic is spent in ruling others, and in ruling with spiritual authority of the most absolute kind. "At the present day, and especially in America, when Protestants of all denominations seem to consider the acquaintance of a Catholic bishop to be an honor, and when to be noticed by a priest is thought to be a compliment to the layman, many will think they have personal proof of the injustice of what is above stated. If those good Protestants who are treated with such deference and such courtesy by Catholic ecclesiastics, only knew how too many of these same ecclesiastics treat each other and the poor, they would soon be undeceived. Wealthy and influential Catholics may practically live what lives they please, and they will be courted and caressed by men who show but little kindness and have but little consideration for those less favored with this world's goods. . . . But it would require a high degree of sanctity for any bishop to treat a priest who had gained a case against him with ordinary justice. "The unhappy priest would soon find his mistake. Better far for him to have borne the injustice in silence, and submitted quietly to his wrongs. He is now a marked man. Every priest in his diocese is well aware he is under episcopal displeasure, notwithstanding his success. Whatever his own private feelings may be, no priest will dare to show him sympathy or brotherly friendship. The Catholic laity are against him also, and it is hard to say whether his case is made better or worse by Protestant sympathy or Protestant censure."