J. C. B. Davis to Hamilton Fish, March 13, 1875

No. 240. Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish.

Sir: The relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the state, which now agitates Prussia, and, in fact, all Germany, is no new question. It early attracted the attention of that acute political observer, my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Wheaton, from whose dispatches I venture to make one or two extracts, in order to elucidate more clearly what I have to say about the present condition of affairs. Writing from Berlin on the 6th of December, 1837, [No. 55,] he said:

The disputes which have recently taken place between the Prussian government and the Archbishop of Cologne have at last been terminated by the forcible removal of the prelate from his post to the fortress of Mind en in Westphalia.* * * The principal points in dispute between this prelate and the government relate to the following subjects:

• Education.—A theological faculty annexed to the University of Bonn is provided for the education of the Catholic clergy. In Prussia the entire matter of education, in all its branches, is monopolized by government, and supported by ample endowments, extending its benefits to all classes of the people. Among the theological professors of Bonn was the celebrated philosopher Hermes, who died in 1832, and who asserted for the Catholics the right of free examination, for the purpose of confirming them in the faith; a doctrine novel and alarming to the Church of Rome, and which was accordingly condemned by the Pope as heretical. From this source arose various, disputes, a minute detail of which would be tedious, respecting the right of the Catholic prelates to refuse confirmation to candidates for holy orders who had been educated in the schools of Bonn, and many other intricate questions growing out of this anomalous union between a Catholic church and a heretical state.
• Mixed marriages.—By the civil law of Prussia, the children born of a marriage between Protestants and Catholics are to be educated in the faith of the father, or in such as he may prefer. The archbishop requires them all to be educated in the Catholic faith whenever either of the parents is Catholic.
• The publication of the papal bulls. — In every Protestant country of Europe which maintains relations with the see of Rome for the benefit of its Catholic subjects, every bull of the pope must be submitted to the inspection of the government of the country before its publication, in order to guard against the possible abuses of such an intercourse. The Archbishop of Cologne makes a distinction in this respect between bulls which relate merely to dogmas and matters of faith and those which relate to matters of civil legislation, and the connection of the church with the state. He asserts his right to receive, publish, and execute the former without submitting them to the inspection of the local government. It is easy to see that under this pretext the Catholic clergy might interfere with and defeat the execution of the laws of the country respecting education, marriage, divorce, and, in short, all the relations of life which are ordinarily regulated by the civil magistrate. In the course of these discussions the Prussian government has proceeded with great moderation and circumspection.

And in a dispatch (92) dated the 2d of January, 1839, in speaking of “the conduct of the Prussian government in its intercourse with the papal see and its proceedings toward the Catholic prelates,” Mr. Wheaton said:

This question still continues to be a constant source of uneasiness and debility to Prussia.* * * The Austrian government is more successful in managing the clergy in its dominions. Being a Catholic power, its measures are not viewed with such jealousy by that body, while its influence at Rome enables it to control them through the head of the church. Measures which on the part of a Protestant sovereign are regarded as proofs of the spirit of proselytism and persecution, may be, and in fact are, accepted with docility when proceeding from the house of Austria.* * * This fact tends to confirm the suspicion indulged by many persons here, that the religious dissensions in Prussia have been, if not fomented, at least regarded with no unfavorable eye by Prince Metternich, who seeks to weaken the increasing influence in Germany obtained by Prussia through the commercial union, by opposing moral to material interests, and engaging Prussia, which, ever since the thirty years’ war, has continued to be the representative of the Protestant party in Germany, in an embarrassing conflict with a religious faction, from which Austria has not only nothing to fear, but upon whom she might count as her natural ally in a struggle for political influence and power.

The contest described in these graphic and well-considered periods was still undetermined when King Frederick William III died, on the 7th day of June, 1840. His eldest son succeeded him as Frederick William IV. This monarch, through the intermediary of the late Chevalier Bun sen, succeeded in adjusting, or rather suspending, the differences between Berlin and Rome. Among other things, he gave up the right of the royal “placet,” by virtue of which all the correspondence between the Vatican and the Prussian bishops of the Roman Church passed through the foreign office, and under the control of the minister of foreign affairs. He also continued the arrangement made by his father (Frederick William III) for the sanctioning of the dispositions of the papal bull known as “de salute animarum,” and for the dotation of the Roman Catholic clergy.

In 1850, a new fundamental or constitutional law was enacted, that the ecclesiastical organizations named in the law, among which was the Roman Catholic Church, should have the right of managing their own affairs. This law continued in force until 1873, and under it the Roman Catholic Church in the Rhine provinces prospered greatly. It increased its religious organizations, and gathered to itself great wealth. A Roman Catholic friend estimates the increase at the incredible sum of two millions of thaler a year.

Meanwhile, the antagonism between Berlin and Rome remained in no respect diminished by the worldly prosperity of the church on the Rhine, or by the political and military successes of the government at Berlin. The opinion of Prince Bismarck has been made public that the Emperor of France was forced into the great war of 1870–’71 by ecclesiastical influences from Rome. The antagonism found its natural expression in the legislation of Prussia.

On the 5th day of April, 1873, the fundamental law of 1850 was amended, so as to give to the state a supervisory control over the ecclesiastical organizations. The right of the Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and other religious organizations to manage their own affairs was to remain, “but subject to the laws of the state and to a legally-organized state inspection,” (aber den Staatsgesetzen und der gesetzlich-geordneten Aufsicht des Staates unterworfen.)

The next law, passed upon the 11th of May, 1873, related to the education of priests and religious teachers. It required all priests to be educated in Germany, and it gave to the state authorities a power of examination and rejection of unfit persons. It also established at Berlin an ecclesiastical court for the purpose of hearing and finally determining cases arising under these ecclesiastical laws, or from violations thereof. This court was to consist of eleven members, six of whom were required to be regular judges; and they were authorized to order, in cases of adjudged violations of these laws, the several measures of punishment provided by the laws.

In the same session a law was passed limiting and defining the measure of ecclesiastical punishments within the religious orders, and also a law providing a mode for leaving a church.

In the session of 1874 there was still further legislation. By the law of the 4th of May provision was made in case of a vacant bishopric for authorizing a person to perform the functions of the office, and to administer the temporalities. The new bishop, when appointed, was required to give the upper president of the province notice of his appointment, and to prove to the satisfaction of the proper officer that he possessed the personal qualifications for the office required by law; and, further, to take an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. In case of his rejection by the civil authorities, he had the right of appeal to the ecclesiastical court at Berlin, whose decision was to be fiual. If, however, he should undertake to exercise his office without authority, he was to be punished in the manner prescribed by the law.

The same statute made provision for filling vacancies. Upon a vacancy by judicial determination, the upper-president was to summon the cathedral chapter, in order that the vacancy might be filled by election; and in case no election should be had, then the minister for church-affairs was authorized to appoint a commissioner to manage the real and personal property.

It was further provided that the same laws should apply to bishoprics filled by bishops not recognized by the state, and also to vacancies in bishoprics which exist for more than a year.

Provisions were also made for filling vacancies in other orders of the priesthood. The persons appointed under the provisions of the law were authorized to cause this to be done by election by the congregation, and provisions were made for holding such elections, and for investing the persons elected with the offices.

On the 20th of the same May another law was passed concerning the management of the vacated Catholic bishoprics.

These several laws gave great offense at Rome. On the 5th day of February last the Pope issued his encyclical letter, addressed to “his venerable brothers the archbishops and bishops in Prussia,” in which, among other things, he said:

“In order to fulfill the duties of this apostolic seat, we declare publicly by the present encyclical, to all whom it concerns, as well as to the entire Catholic world, that these laws are null, because they are contrary to the divine constitution of the church; for it is not to the powers of the earth that the Lord has committed the bishops of His church in what concerns His sacred service, but to Peter, to whom He has committed His lambs and His sheep.”

The gauntlet thus thrown down was taken up at once at Berlin. Two bills are now pending in the Landtag, and will undoubtedly become laws. The first, which was introduced before the encyclical, in anticipation of it, is a project of a law for the management of the property of the Catholic Church. (Über die Vermögensverwaltung in den katholischen Kirchengemeinden.) It provides for an election of church wardens in each parish by the congregation, the number to be fixed by the bishop,in conjunction with the government. This body can be called together at any time, either by the bishop or by the Landrath, or, in cities, by the mayor, or by one-half of the board, or by the congregation, acting in the manner indicated in the act.

The second act was introduced on the 3d of March, and, like the former, bears the name of Dr. Falk. It is entitled “An act concerning the suppression of the payment of the state aid to the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy,” (betreffend die Einstellung der Leistungen aus Staatsmitteln für die römisch-katholische Bisthümer und Geistlichen.) It absolutely suspends such payments, but the suspension is to be removed so soon as the archbishop, or bishop, &c., pledges himself in writing to obey the laws of the state. The revocation of such a pledge, once given, is to involve dismissal from office by judicial sentence, and incapacity for the exercise of office hereafter.

These various measures and proceedings have excited a deep interest. The subject has been discussed at length, not only in the journals of Berlin, but in London and Paris. The Roman Church in Germany is divided. One branch sends a deputation to the Pope with alt address, in which they—

Declare before you, most holy father, that no human force shall separate us from our lawful Pope, for we remember that it is an eternal truth that one of the conditions of salvation is to be subject to the Pontiff of Rome.* * * Prostrate before your feet, most holy father, we are your obedient children of Germany.

On the other hand, many Roman Catholic members of the Reichstag and Landtag have joined in a protest, in which it is said that—

We dispute in the most decided manner that the ecclesiastical laws of the German Empire and of the Prussian state entirely overthrow the divine government of the church, and reduce to nothing the inviolable jurisdiction of the bishops; and we protest solemnly, first, against all principles set forth in the papal document, which are dangerous to the authority, the constitution, and the existence of the state, and most especially, secondly, against the claim of the Pope to declare invalid state laws which have been enacted by constitutional means. We are, moreover, of the opinion that the teaching of the Catholic Church expressly command every Catholic to recognize as fully valid and binding all state laws enacted in constitutional manner, and to give his obedience to them.

As if to make the parallel between this controversy and the one detailed by Mr. Wheaton more complete, the very number of the London Times which contains a translation of the proposed law for the suspension of the state subsidies has another telegram, in which it is stated that the Austrian bishops are permitted by the Pope to comply with the terms of an Austrian law which compels them to mention to the authorities the names of the priests appointed to livings. And it is further said that the concession to Austria is regarded as another proof that the resistance to the laws of Prussia is prompted by political motives.

I inclose copies of the several laws and projects of laws referred to, together with other documents and papers, and extracts from the press.

And have, &c.,

Translation of the proposed law for suspending subsidies of the Roman Catholic Church in Prussia.

• In the archdioceses of Cologne, Gnesen, and Posen, and the dioceses of Kulm, Ermeland, Breslau, Hildesheim, Osnabrnck, Paderborn, Munster, Trèves, and Fulda, the delegated districts of those dioceses, and also in the Prussian portion of the archdioceses of Prague, Olmutz, Freiburg, and the diocese of Mayence, the contributions paid out of the public treasury for the bishoprics, the institutions attached thereto, and the priest will be suspended from the date of the promulgation of this law. The payments destined for priests employed in public institutions are exempted from this measure. Special funds are considered state funds.
• The sequestration will be removed in each see as soon as the bishop, archbishop, prince bishop, or episcopal administrator now in office pledges himself, in writing, to the government to obey the laws of the state.
• In the archdioceses of Gnesen and Posen, and the diocese of Paderborn, the sequestration is removed as soon as the appointment of an episcopal administrator or the installation of a new bishop has been made in due form of law.
• In case of a vacancy in a see now filled, or of the withdrawal of the present episcopal administrator of the diocese of Fulda from his office before the sequestration has been removed, under the operation of clause 1, the sequestration continues in the diocese in question until the appointment of an episcopal administrator or the installation of a new bishop in due form of law.
• If in any diocese the payments out of the public treasury are resumed, and if individuals entitled to share therein refuse obedience to the laws qf the state, notwithstanding the pledge given by the bishop or episcopal administrator, the government is entitled again to sequestrate the sums allowed to such recipients.
• In addition to the cases mentioned in clauses 2 to 4, the sequestration is removed as regards individual recipients who give a pledge to the government to obey the laws of the state in the manner prescribed in clause 2. The government is also empowered to remove the sequestration as regards individual recipients if they manifest by their conduct an intention of obeying the laws of the state. If such persons afterward refuse obedience to the laws of the state, the sequestration is again imposed.
• The renewal of payment dates in every case from the first day of the quarter in which the sequestration is removed.
• With regard to the application of the sequestrated funds as far as they are not applicable, according to the general resources of the state, as a saving of expenditure or are not otherwise applicable, their mode of disposal is reserved. The minister of worship is empowered, in the event of a commissarial management of the episcopal property, under the law of the 20th of May, 1874, to arrange the continuance of the payments for the endowment of the bishop as far as is necessary for the purposes of such management and the expenses thereof.
• The enforcement by the executive of dues and payments to the bisoprics and the institutions attached thereto and the clergy is suspended in any diocese as long as the sequestration is in operation. In the event of the state payments being resumed to any recipient under clause 6, the enforcement of dues and payments is also resumed, and so also with regard to dues and payments to those priests who have nothing to draw from the public treasury, if they bind themselves expressly or tacitly to obey the law of the state, as long as they conform to that engagement.
• Any person revoking the written pledge under clauses 2 and 6, or who, contrary to his engagement, attacks the law of the state or the measures taken under it within legal competency in documents connected with his office, is to be dismissed from his office by judicial sentence.
• Dismissal from office involves legal incapacity for exercise of office, the loss of official income, and the voidance of the office. The suspension of state stipends and of the enforcement of dues is also resumed. The minister of worship is empowered to decree the sequestration upon the prosecution being instituted, and, in the event of acquittal, the money thus withheld is to be paid over.
• The royal court for ecclesiastical affairs is to hear and decide such cases. The prosecutors are to conform to the provisions of part 3 of the law of the 12th of May, 1873, on ecclesiastical discipline and the rules of the royal court for ecclesiastical affairs.
• Whosoever exercises his functions after dismissal from office under clause 11 of this law is punishable with a fine not exceeding 300 marks, and, in the event of repetition, not exceeding 3,000 marks.
• The minister of worship is charged with the execution of this law.

Draught of a law for the management of property in Catholic parishes.

We, William, by the grace of God King of Prussia, &c, hereby decree, with the sanction of both houses of the Diet, as follows:

§ 1. In every Catholic parish matters relating to church-property shall be under the charge of a vestry, and of a number of representatives of the congregation, as hereinafter provided.

§ 2. The provision of § 1 shall also be applicable to missionary parishes, and likewise to other congregations, (branch churches, chapels, &c.,) to the support of which the income yielded by church-property is applied, or the members of which are obliged to make special contributions in order to meet the wants of such parishes.

§ 3. The following property shall be considered as church-property in the sense of this law:

• Property devoted to religious purposes, including funds for the building of churches and rectories; property the income of which is devoted to the support of clergymen and inferior church functionaries, and anniversary funds.
• Church-property devoted to charitable and educational purposes.
• Institutions within the parish devoted to any ecclesiastical purpose, provided no special provision has been made by the founder for the management thereof.

§ 4. Property is not considered as church-property (in the sense of this law) which, although devoted to church purposes, is a part of the property of the civil community, particularly church-yards belonging to the civil community.

I.—Church hoards.

§ 5. The vestry shall be composed, (1) of the clergyman; in parishes in which there are several clergymen, of the first or principal clergyman; in branch churches or chapels, which have their own clergyman, of that clergyman; (2) of several vestrymen, who shall be chosen by the congregation, provided their appointment or authorization to become members of the vestry be not assigned to other persons by this law.

§ 6. The number of vestrymen to be chosen for each parish shall be fixed the first time by the episcopal authority, in conjunction with the govermental president, (land-drost.)

The number may be changed by a resolution of the representatives of the congregation.

The number shall be not greater than twelve nor less than four.

The number may be reduced to two, if the number of souls or the peculiar circumstances of a parish shall so require.

§ 7. The office of vestryman is an honorary office.

For unusual labor a suitable compensation may be given, at the suggestion of the church board, by the representatives of the congregation.

§ 8. The Vestry shall have charge of the church-property.

It shall represent the property under its management, and also the congregation in all matters relating to such management.

The rights of those in possession, for the time being, of property devoted to the payment of the salaries of clergymen and inferior church functionaries, are not hereby affected.

§ 9. The members of the vestry shall be required to take the same care of the property under their charge as is exercised by a prudent head of a family.

§ 10. The cash and the accounts shall be under the charge of one of the vestrymen, who shall be elected by the vestry.

An accountant not belonging to the vestry may be appointed for this purpose by a resolution of the vestry. Such accountant shall be considered as a church functionary in the sense of the law of May 12, 1873. (Collection of Laws, page 198.)

§ 11. The vestry shall prepare an estimate of the income and the expenses of each year.

§ 12. It shall be the duty of the vestry to examine the accounts at the close of each fiscal year.

§ 13. The presiding officer of the vestry shall be the rector of the parish or the clergyman designated in § 5, No. 1, and in case of their inability to act, their substitute in the clerical office shall preside.

If the place shall become vacant, the vestryman who is chosen every three years by the vestry, when new vestrymen come in, shall be the presiding officer.

He shall also preside in case the clergyman shall refuse to enter the vestry, or to assume the duties of presiding officer, or to continue to perform such duties, or if the substitute of the clergyman shall be prevented from acting, or if there shall be no such substitute.

§ 14. The vestry shall convene, in obedience to the summons of its presiding officer, as often as may be required for the transaction of business. Regular session-days may be fixed by resolution.

§ 15. The vestry shall be summoned to convene, when this is desired by the episcopal authority, by the local magistrate, (Amtshauptmann, Amtmann;) in city-districts by the mayor; by one-half of the members of the vestry, or by a resolution of the representatives of the congregation. In the last two cases provided a reason lying within the competence of the vestry be stated.

§ 16. If the presiding officer shall fail to comply with the requirement to convene the vestry, or if there shall be no presiding officer, the summons may be issued either by the episcopal authority or by the officers mentioned in § 15, No. 2.

In both cases the authority issuing the summons shall appoint a presiding officer.

§ 17. All the members of the vestry shall be summoned to the sessions. When the resolution requires the assent of the representatives of the congregation, the summons must be delivered in writing, with a statement of the object, on the day before the session, at the latest.

§ 18. It shall be the duty of the members to observe secrecy in all matters designated as confidential.

§ 19. Resolutions shall be adopted by a majority of the votes of those present. In case of a tie, the matter shall be decided by the vote of the presiding officer; in elections, by lot.

In order that a resolution may become valid, it shall be required that more than one-half of the members of the vestry, although at least three members, participate in the voting.

Members who are personally interested in the matter concerning which the resolution is to be adopted must abstain from voting.

If no summons shall have been issued in due form, a resolution can be adopted if all the members of the vestry shall be present and if no objection shall be made.

§ 20. Resolutions shall be entered in a book of record, with the date and a list of the names of those present. The records shall be signed by the presiding officer and at least one vestryman.

§ 21. Every written declaration of the will of the vestry affecting the property it controls and the parish must be signed by the presiding officer and two vestrymen, and must also bear the church-seal. This shall constitute a guarantee to third persons of the due adoption of the resolution, so that proof of compliance with the several requirements, particularly of the concurrence of the representatives of the congregation, shall not be required.

II.—Representation of the congregation.

§ 22. The number of representatives for each congregation shall be fixed in the manner prescribed by § 6, paragraphs 1 and 2.

The number shall not exceed forty, and must be at least three times as great as that of the vestrymen.

In the case contemplated in § 6, paragraph 4, the number of the representatives of the congregation may be reduced to double that of the vestrymen.

§ 23. The resolutions of the vestry shall require the concurrence of the representatives of the congregation in the following cases:

• Upon the purchase, alienation, or mortgaging of real estate, the renting or leasing thereof for a term exceeding ten years, and the renting or leasing of lands set apart for the use or enjoyment of church functionaries beyond the period of service of the actual occupant.
• In the case of extraordinary use of the property, involving the integrity of the substance itself, as well as upon the calling in of capital, provided no re-investment take place.
• Upon contracting loans which are not intended for mere temporary relief, and which cannot be repaid from the current revenues of the same period of estimate.
• Upon the institution of suits which do not relate to the recovery of current interest or dues, or to the calling in of outstanding capital, and upon making compromises or agreements.
• Upon the erection of new buildings, or the making of considerable repairs on buildings, when the necessity of such work has not already been finally decided upon by the proper authorities. Considerable repairs shall be held to be such as are estimated to require an outlay of more than 200 marks. In case of need, the representatives of the congregation may, once for all, extend the power of the vestry to cause more costly repairs to be made, yet not exceeding 1,000 marks.
• On procuring the money and labor necessary for church purposes, provided such cannot be obtained, according to existing laws, from church-property, from the patron, or from any other person upon whom the obligation to furnish it specially rests.
• Upon fixing the amounts to be contributed by the members of the congregation, and upon fixing the scale of assessments; the latter is to be fixed on the basis of the state tax or the communal tax.
• Upon the alteration of existing dues, or the establishment of new ones.
• Upon allowing, out of the church funds, moneys for the establishment of new places for the service of the congregation, as well as for the permanent improvement of the revenues of existing places, and upon changing variable revenues of church functionaries into fixed dues, or of revenues in kind into money; the last in cases where the manner of the change is not prescribed by the laws of the state.
• Upon establishing the budget and period of estimate.
• Upon auditing and passing the yearly accounts.

The budget, when established, and the annual accounts, when passed, must be held open to the examination of the members of the congregation for two weeks.

§ 24. The vestry is authorized to obtain the concurrence of the representatives of the congregation for resolutions other than those relating to the management of property, which are mentioned in section 23. In that case the resolutions of the vestry cannot be carried out until such concurrence has been obtained.

§ 25. The representatives of the congregation shall choose their own president and vice-president.

They shall convene when summoned by the president, as often as the proper transaction of business may require.

As regards the convening of the representatives of the congregation, the provisions of sections 15 and 16 shall be applicable.

§ 26. All the representatives of the congregation shall be summoned, in writing, to the sessions, (the reason of the summons being stated,) on the day preceding the session, at the latest.

The provisions of sections 18, 19, and 20 are applicable to this matter.

Copies of the resolutions, made from the record-book, and signed by the president and two representatives of the congregation, shall be delivered to the vestry.

III.—Choice of vestrymen and of representatives of congregations.

§ 27. The following persons shall be entitled to vote: All male independent members of the congregation, of full age, who have resided for a year within the limits of the parish; or, where there are several parishes in a place, who have resided for a year in that place, and have paid their church dues.

Persons shall be considered as independent who have a household of their own, hold a public office, or carry on a business of their own, or who, as members of a family, transact business for the same.

Persons shall not be considered as independent who are under guardianship, or who, on account of poverty, have received public relief during the year preceding the election, or who have been exempted from the payment, of their church dues.

§ 28. The following persons shall not be permitted to vote:

• Such as are not in possession of their civil rights;
• Such as are awaiting trial for any crime or misdemeanor which may deprive them of their civil rights;
• Such as are in bankruptcy;
• Such as are in arrears for the payment of more than a year’s church dues.

§ 29. Members of the congregation who have completed their thirtieth year shall be eligible to office, provided they are not excluded from the right to vote by section 28.

§ 30. Priests and other church functionaries are not entitled to vote, nor are they eligible to office.

§ 31. No person shall, at the same time, be a vestryman and a representative of the congregation.

§ 32. The manner of conducting the election shall be adjusted in accordance with the election regulations which accompany this.

§ 33. After their election vestrymen shall be installed in their office, and a faithful performance of their duties is to be enjoined upon them.

§ 34. The parties elected may decline or resign the office of vestryman or representative of a congregation in the following cases only:

• When they have completed their sixtieth year; or,
• Have held the office for six years; or,
• When there are other weighty grounds for exemption, such as delicate health, frequent absence, or occupations which are incompatible with a proper performance of the duties of the office.

The vestry shall decide as to the importance and correctness in fact, and, upon appeal within two weeks after the decision has been rendered, the diocesan authority in conjunction with the government president, (landdrost.)

Any person who, without such ground, shall refuse to accept the office or to continue to discharge its duties, shall lose the right to vote in church matters which is granted by the present law. Said right may, at his request, again be conferred upon him by the vestry.

§ 35. The term of office of vestrymen and representatives of the congregation shall be six years.

One-half shall go out every three years. Those going out may be re-elected, and shall, in any event, remain in office until their successors qualify. The going out shall be decided by length of service—the first time by lot.

§ 36. If the office of a vestryman or representative of the congregation shall become vacant at any other time, the representatives of the congregation shall elect a substitute for the remainder of the term.

IV.—Absence of representation of the congregation.

§ 37. In communities in which peculiar circumstances, such as an inconsiderable amount of property, scattered dwellings, &c., cause the election of representatives of the congregation to appear unsuitable or impracticable, the diocesan authority, in conjunction with the upper president of the province, may direct that none be elected, provided that in a meeting of the voters of the congregation, to be called for the purpose, a majority shall not refuse to sanction such direction.

§ 38. In the case supposed in section 37 the duties devolving upon the representatives of the congregation, according to section 7, shall be performed by the vestry.

The number of vestrymen shall not be less than four.

Substitutes shall be chosen by the entire body of voters.

V.—Removal from office and dissolution.

§ 39. The removal from office of a vestryman or representative of a congregation shall take place—

• Upon the loss, on his part, of any of the qualifications of a voter.
• In the case of gross neglect of duty on his part.

In the latter case the privilege of voting may be withdrawn permanently or temporarily. The removal may be made by the diocesan authority or by the government president, after a hearing has been granted both to the accused and to the vestry. An appeal may be taken to the court for ecclesiastical affairs within four weeks. If an appeal be taken, the execution of the decision against which it is taken shall be suspended. The court, however, may order it to be provisionally executed.

§ 40. If the vestry or the representatives of the congregation shall obstinately neglect or refuse to perform their duties, or shall repeatedly make matters not within their, jurisdiction the subject of discussions and resolutions, they may be dissolved by the diocesan authority, as also by the upper president acting in concert.

After a dissolution a new election shall be ordered at once. The members of the dissolved body shall not be rechosen at the new election.

VI.—Appointment of patrons and others.

§ 41. The patron who, on the ground of being such, or another, who, on the ground of some particular title, has membership in the vestry, or the right to name, appoint, or present vestrymen, is henceforth entitled, either to enter the vestry himself, or to appoint a vestryman. Such person entering the vestry, and the vestryman appointed by him, must be eligible as prescribed in sections 29–31.

§ 42. In addition to the right of participation in the vestry, the patron shall have, when he bears the burdens of the patronate for church needs, the supervision of the management of the church funds.

Copies of the resolutions of the vestry and of the representatives of the congregation shall be furnished to the patron. If he shall, within thirty days, make no declaration concerning them, he shall be considered to have concurred in them. If the patron shall refuse to concur, the vestry shall have the right of appeal to the government of the district; in the province of Hanover, to the royal Catholic consistory, which may set aside his objections and supply his concurrence.

Such concurrence, however, cannot be so supplied when the question is one relating to any expenditure to which the church funds have not previously been appropriated.

If the formal establishment of the assent of the patron is required in the case of documents, and if such assent is to be considered as having been given, owing to failure to act on the part of the patron during the allotted time, the required signature shall be supplied by the authorities mentioned in paragraph 2.

VII.—Provisions as to execution.

§ 43. Directions as to the conduct of business may be furnished to the vestry or the representatives of the congregation, by mutual consent, both by the diocesan authority and the upper president.

§ 44. Whensoever the diocesan authorities, in cases in which it is incumbent upon them to issue an order or render a decision in conjunction with the state authorities, shall fail to discharge such duty, they shall be summoned to do so by the state authorities. If, after the receipt of such summons, they shall fail to comply therewith for the space of thirty days, the discharge of the duty in question shall devolve upon the state authorities.

In cases in which the diocesan or state authorities, each, however, in conjunction with the other, shall have to issue an order or render a decision, the authorities to whom application is made for their concurrence must reply within thirty days from the date of their receiving the summons. If they make no reply, they shall be considered as concurring.

When objection is made, decision shall be rendered in all cases of difference of opinion between the diocesan authority and the governmental president (landdrost) by the upper president; in cases of difference of opinion between the latter functionary and the diocesan authority, by the minister of ecclesiastical affairs.

§ 45. In the orders issued, it must he made apparent whether a mutual understanding has been reached, or whether the concurrence is to be considered as having been given through failure to act during the allotted time, or whether the decision has been reached in consequence of the raising of objections.

§ 46. If a vestryman or a representative of the congregation shall refuse to enter upon the discharge of the duties of his office, or, having done so, shall refuse to perform said duties, a new election shall be ordered.

If the newly-elected vestryman or representative of the congregation shall also refuse to assume the duties of his office, or, having done so, to perform said duties, the government president (landdrost) shall have the right to appoint a vestryman or representative of the congregation, if possible from the eligible members of the congregation.

The government president shall also have this right, provided the election of any vestryman or representative of the congregation do not take place.

§ 47. If no election of vestrymen shall be held, or if all the vestrymen elected shall refuse to assume the duties of their office, or to perform the same, the government president shall have the right to appoint a presiding officer.

In the case supposed in the above paragraph no representatives of the congregation shall be chosen, and the provisions of section 38 shall be enforced.

VIII.—Final provisions.

§ 48. Existing legal forms, and the right of supervision of and concurrence in particular administrative acts, which now belongs by law to the superior state and church authorities, shall not be affected by this law.

If the superior church authority shall make no use of the right which belongs to it to exercise supervision of or to concur in particular administrative acts, it shall be summoned to do so by the government president. If, after receiving such summons, it shall fail, during thirty days, to comply therewith, the discharge of these functions shall devolve upon the government president.

§ 49. The vestry shall have the right of appeal to the upper president (whose decisions shall be final) against ordinances of the superior church authorities, whereby concurrence in particular administrative acts shall be refused.

§ 50. Resolutions to exact payment of dues from the members of the congregation cannot be put into execution before they have been declared executory by the state authorities.

Such declaration shall be refused especially in case of doubt of the propriety of the requirement, of the suitableness of the amount required, or of the ability to pay of the parties from whom it is required.

§ 51. If the vestry or the representatives of the congregation shall refuse to insert in the estimate, to fix or to assent to obligations which are properly to be met out of the church property, or which devolves upon any of the parishioners or others, either the diocesan authority or the government president is authorized to cause the insertion to be made by mutual understanding, and to take other necessary measures in the same manner.

Under the same circumstances these authorities are empowered to order and adopt the needful measures to effect the judicial establishment of claims of the church, of the pastor, of the congregation, and of the property under the control of the vestry, and in particular of claims for damages arising out of the unlawful acts of church functionaries.

IX.—Final and transition provisions.

§ 52. The provisions of this law shall not be applicable to cathedral or military congregations, or to those of institutions.

§ 53. On and after _________ the functions devolving, according to this law, upon the vestry and the representatives of the congregation, shall be performed by no other persons or authorities than those mentioned in this law.

If, according to previously-existing laws, church officers have performed other duties than that of managing the property, such duties, if they have been performed by officers whose special duty it was to manage the property, shall devolve upon the vestry, but in all other cases upon the representatives of the congregation. If there are no such representatives, the duties of those officers also shall devolve upon the vestry.

§ 54. All existing provisions at variance with this act, whether contained in the common law obtaining in parts of the country, in provincial laws, in local laws, or local ordinances, are hereby abolished.

§ 55. The minister of ecclesiastical affairs is charged with the execution of the present law.

He is authorized to abstain from executing this law in particular congregations, in view of peculiar local or other circumstances, and of special arrangements for the management of property, provided this he desired by the congregation.

In testimony whereof we have hereunto affixed our signature, and caused our royal seal to be affixed.

Done, &c.

Certified: The minister for ecclesiastical, educational, and medical affairs,

Election regulations.

Article 1. It shall be the duty of the vestry to order elections to be held for the choice of vestrymen and representatives of congregations, to prepare lists of those entitled to vote, and to post such lists, in some place that is accessible to every one, for two weeks.

The time when and the place where the list is posted shall be made known to the congregation, and they shall be informed that, after the expiration of the time for which the list is to be posted, no objections thereto will be received. The notice may be given, by order of the vestry, in such other ways as may be required by local circumstances.

Any member of the congregation, who is a duly-qualified voter, shall have the right to present objections.

Art. 2. The vestry shall decide concerning the objections, and shall correct the list. When it is decided by the vestry that any person has not the right to vote, such person may, within two weeks after receiving a notice to that effect, appeal to the representatives of the congregation; if there are no such representatives, he may appeal to the diocesan authority. The latter shall decide the case in conjunction with the governmental president, (landdrost.) The election shall not be postponed in consequence of the appeal. At least two weeks must intervene between the expiration of the time allowed for the presentation of objections and the day of the election.

Art. 3. The election-notice must specify the time and place of the election, and state the number of persons who are to be elected. The notice shall he posted in a public place, where it can be generally seen by the congregation. Notice may be given, by order of the vestry, in such other ways as may be required by local circumstances.

Art. 4. A board of inspectors of election shall be formed, consisting of the presiding officer of the vestry and four associate members, who shall be chosen by said presiding officer from the eligible members of the congregation.

Art. 5. The election shall be held under the supervision of the presiding officer.

Art. 6. Each voter shall cast his ballot in person. The ballots shall be closed, and without signature, and shall be deposited in the ballot-box.

A vote may be taken viva voce and a record thereof kept, if the vestry shall so order.

Art. 7. If the number of persons necessary to form a vestry or board of representatives of the congregation shall not receive a majority on the first ballot, the voters shall next cast their ballots for those candidates who have received the largest number of votes. If the number of such persons shall be more than double the required number of vestrymen or representatives of the congregation, such a number of those who have received the fewest votes shall retire that the number of candidates shall be double that of the officers who are to be chosen.

In case of a tie, the matter shall always be decided by let.

Art. 8. After the balloting shall have been declared by the presiding officer to be at an end, no more votes shall be received.

Art. 9. The inspectors of election shall decide concerning the validity or invalidity of ballots.

Art. 10. A report of the principal proceedings of the election shall be kept, and shall be signed by the presiding officer and at least two of the inspectors of election.

Art. 11. The election of the vestrymen must take place before that of the representatives of the congregation.

Art. 12. The names of the officers elected shall be made known to the congregation by placard. The notice may, by order of the vestry, be given in such other ways as local circumstances may require.

Art. 13. Objections to the election are to be presented to the vestry (which shall decide concerning them) within two weeks from the last day on which the placard is exposed to view. If the vestry shall set aside the objection, the party presenting it may, within two weeks after its presentation, appeal to the diocesan authority, which, in conjunction with the governmental president, (landdrost,) shall decide the case.

Art. 14. The inspectors of election and their presiding officers shall, for the first election, be appointed by the diocesan authority in conjunction with the governmental president. The duties incumbent upon the vestry shall be performed by the inspectors of election.

This is intended to provide for the case of a dissolution of the vestry.

The Pope has permitted the Austrian bishops to comply with the law compelling them to mention to the authorities the names of priests appointed to livings. As the refusal of the Prussian bishops to obey the analogous law recently enacted in this country is the principal cause of the ecclesiastical war with Prussia, the concession made to Austria is regarded by the German press as another proof that the Pope is actuated, not by religious, but by political motives in resisting the statutes of Prussia and Germany.

Opinions of the press.

The recent encyclical of the Pope is in a high degree deserving of general attention for it certainly is an important document, in regard to which the government and every individual Catholic will have to take a stand. This is no chance manifestation of the Pope, called forth by some sudden event, the expressions of which it is unnecessary carefully to weigh and critically to examine. The Pope speaks in his encyclical, ex cathedra, as the chief director and pastor of the church) he gives an infallible definition, and declares the Prussian ecclesiastical laws null and void, inasmuch as they are totally at variance with the divine constitution of the church. Hence it follows, from his standpoint, that all Catholics, if they do not wish to subject themselves to the Pope’s anathema, are under obligations to accept this his definition, and to consider the laws in question as having no rightful existence.

There may be some doubt whether the declaration of nullity includes all the recent Prussian church-laws, or only a part of them. At the outset, both laws enacted years ago and recent ones are declared objectionable. A special attack, however, is made only upon the law relating to the deposition of bishops and the filling of subordinate places which have become vacant. The other May laws, the pulpit-law, the Jesuit law, the civil-marriage law, are included by implication, it is true, in the condemnation, but are not expressly and directly denounced. This calling of special attention to certain laws in a so well-considered and carefully prepared document can hardly be unintentional. The laws have, doubtless, purposely been expressly mentioned, to combat which the bishops are particularly expected to concentrate their forces, so that the different treatment of the different laws perhaps renders it possible to form some idea of what the plan of operation is to be.

It makes, in reality, but little difference, however, whether all or only some of the laws are declared null and void. The declaration that a single one of them is so is sufficient to change the state of things—especially the position of the bishops as regards the laws—entirely. It is true that the bishops have refused obedience to the laws in times past. Bat if the leaders of the ultramontane party, and particularly Mr. Reichensperger, in order to weaken the reproach of disobedience to the laws of the state, have hitherto boasted that the bishops submitted to the laws by taking the consequences of passive resistance, if then it was possible, at least to make the attempt to cause them to appear in the light of sufferers, the encyclical has removed the possibility of making any more such efforts, because it has expressly made resistance their duty, and has declared that, in case of submission, the severest ecclesiastical penalties are to be inflicted.

It is remarkable in a document prepared like this, with great care and deliberation, that in its endeavor to show the severity of the laws in as clear a light as possible, it entirely ignores the necessities of the state, or leaves them unnoticed, declaring that they provide severe penalties for those who refuse to obey, and place peaceful and unarmed citizens who are opposed to them for conscience sake in the sad position of men who are held prostrate by superior force, and are unable to defend themselves. It seems, says the encyclical, as if these laws had not been enacted for free citizens, but for slaves, in order to enforce obedience through fear.

Compulsion for the sake of securing obedience, then, is represented as terrorism. Were not penalties provided in the old states of the church, and are they not provided in every country in the world for infractions of the laws? Can a law be imagined, or does it deserve the name of a law, if the state does not reserve to itself the means of forcing those who disregard it to obey it, and of holding them accountable for every violation of it? Does not the Pope himself threaten those who do not recognize his infallible decree with the spiritual death of excommunication?

If we turn aside, however, from these curialistic exaggerations, the fatal pith of the encyclical still remains, viz, that all Catholics are bound, under penalty of the papal anathema, to recognize the laws as null and void. All Catholics holding state offices must thus of course answer the question whether they will obey Berlin or Rome. In the situation in which the Pope has placed them, there remains no possible means, no possible subterfuge whereby they can reconcile a proper performance of their duties toward their temporal ruler with obedience to the commands of the Pope. It is a duty which the state owes to itself to require the utmost clearness in a matter like this. Would it not be advisable, under these circumstances, to remodel the form of the oath of office taken by state officials in such a manner that all doubts shall be set aside, and that every mental restriction shall be rendered impossible?

What would be desirable in the case of the oath taken by state officials would also be advisable as regards the oath taken by deputies in reference to the constitution. It is an altogether inconsistent and unbearable state of things that men are now sitting among the representatives of the people concerning whom it is not known whether the oath of fealty to the King and the constitution which they have taken is an oath which they feel bound to fulfill unconditionally, or whether they consider themselves bound by it only so far as may be pleasing to the Pope, who has just declared a number of laws, the recognition of which is included in the oath to support the constitution, to be null and void, and has thereby forbidden Catholics to obey them. The center must be required to define its position toward the encyclical in the most unequivocal manner. If its members submit to the Pope, they can no longer continue to act as representatives of the nation.

If, however, the interference of the state is to be really effective, it is greatly to be desired that those Catholics who remain true to the state should jointly raise their voices against the Pope’s assumption in relation to them as well as to all other Catholics. If it is expected of them to consider duly enacted laws as null and void, it behooves them to record, in the name of their duty to the state, their earnest and energetic protest against such a presumption. This is a case in which they remove the remotest suspicion that they are willing quietly to accept the situation in which the papal encyclical seeks to place them.

We must call attention to another important point. The bishops have recently attempted to weaken the significance of the decree of infallibility; they have protested against the assertion that they are only instruments in the hands of the Pope, without personal responsibility; they have declared that the Catholic Church does not teach that the command of a superior frees one from personal responsibility. That is a declaration which is at variance with strict ultramontane doctrine, and which has doubtless not been contradicted in ultramontane quarters, for the reason only that it emanates from the bishops, who, at least nominally, are the leaders in the struggle against the state. The ultramontanes both priests and laymen, can now refer the bishops to a declaration made by the Pope himself, with which all individual responsibility is quite incompatible. Will the bishops maintain their declaration? We doubt whether they will have the courage to do so. There is, then, all the more reason for compelling them to speak their minds with regard to the solemn declaration made by them in January, 1875. There is need of a general clearing up as regards this papal encyclical, and the encyclical itself offers more handles for the accomplishment of this object than its authors would perhaps wish.

The Provincial-Correspondes devotes the greater part of its to-day’s issue to the late papal encyclical. The first two articles are chiefly historical, but they are followed by one in relation to the position of the government as regards the Papal See, which is so important, that we print it entire. It is as follows:

In the recent step taken by the Pope, the arrogance of the papal toward the civil authority is more manifest than ever before; the Pope dares to declare laws null and void which have been duly enacted by the Prussian Crown and the Diet.

The fact of this bold step having been thus undisguisedly taken leaves no doubt now that the relations of the Papal See toward temporal governments have been totally changed by this latest development.

But the Pope goes still further; he does all that lies in his power to excite the people against the government in Prussia. How is it possible otherwise to interpret the Pope’s complaints concerning the obedience which is extorted by force of arms, the enslavement of Catholics, and the treatment which is unfit for a noble nation, especially when it is added that, in such a case, obedience through fear of men is inexcusable.

This manifesto of the Pope is an appeal and a note of encouragement to revolutionary passion. The statement made by Meglio, the papal nuncio, which has been so zealously denied in Catholic quarters, viz, that the Catholic Church must, if necessary, appeal to revolution, is now corroborated by the course of the Pope himself.

Lamentable as this clashing of spiritual authority is in itself, the fact that the attitude of Rome toward temporal governments has been made so clear, so indisputable, that all the devices whereby the German bishops and the ultramontane leaders in Parliament have just been trying to whitewash the attitude of Rome have been swept away by the infallible Pope himself, must be of great service in determining what are the true relations existing between the state and the Romish Church.

What the thoughtful bishops predicted before the council was held, and while it was in session, is now being irrefragably verified; the position of the Pope, as Pius IX, on the ground of the Vatican resolutions, understands and seeks to assert it, is totally at variance with the rights of all temporal powers.

The light which the Pope has just thrown upon his relations with the Prussian government unmistakably points out to the government the course which it must now take against revolutionary arrogance; the Catholic Church must be taught, in such a manner as to remove all her doubts on the subject, who is the sovereign in Prussia.

The course of the present Pope is of still greater interest, however, when considered in relation to the question raised some time since by Prince Bismarck concerning the attitude to be taken by the governments as regards the next papal election. It is now clearer than it ever was before that the governments, before allowing such a place as the Vatican council claimed the See of Rome to be, to be filled by a new Pope, must inquire whether the person selected can furnish the guarantees against the abuse of spiritual authority which they have a right to demand.

We copy the following article on the Pope’s encyclical to the German bishops from the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung:

In the political struggle against Prussia and the German Empire, another hierarchical manifestation has been made public, which is far more important than the collective declaration of the German bishops, which we published some days since. The Pope thinks the proper time has arrived for him to take the field against the Prussian government with an encyclical to the archbishops and bishops of Prussia, the object of which is to instigate them in their resistance to the government and laws of the land, and to instigate them to continue it. While praising their disobedience, he threatens to excommunicate all who do obey the laws, and finally the objectionable church laws are declared null and void, whereby the faithful are, of course, absolved from the duty of obeying them. More than this could not have been done by a Pope in the Middle Ages. Then it was only possible to stir up a neighbor to make incursions for purposes of plunder and violence, and this would certainly be done now if it were possible, and it will be done as soon as an opportunity shall offer which promises better success than was met with in 1870 and 1871. In a word, the Pope is pushing things to extremes, and does not recoil from anything, however hazardous. We hope that not only the German episcopate, but the papacy itself will lose (at least in Germany,) in the struggle in which it is staking everything, and that we shall at least see the utter downfall of the Romish papacy, and the complete deliverance of the nations from its tyranny. Let us examine this encyclical.

The complaint is first raised that “the rest and peace which were enjoyed by the church of God in Prussia have been succeeded by a violent and unexpected tempest.” Yes, indeed; we know that rest and that peace of the church of God in Prussia and elsewhere, and have had abundant opportunities to see how the church of. God, i. e., the Pope and the Jesuits, enjoy them. The governments are now finding out what sort of an enemy they have reared and nourished, partly by active support, and partly by letting it alone, and find it a difficult matter to protect themselves against the venomous bite with which the Jesuitical snake, now that it has got warm, seeks to reward their long care and indulgence. In the year 1848 the Jesuits got a foot-hold in Prussia. They were not allowed by law, if we remember right, to hold any real estate, but were soon in possession of extensive buildings and landed property; for there were various ways of evading the law. They purchased and built cloisters, schools, and churches, with all their accessories, and, taking these strongholds as their base of operations, they labored among the people, exercised supervision over the bishops and clergy, and endeavored everywhere to re-introduce the pedantic learning of the schoolmen into all educational establishments. Meanwhile they and their Romish pupils, the Doctores Romani in Germany, denounced such professors and authors as were unwilling to bow at their shrine, caused their books to be placed in the Romish Index, and made every effort to discredit and cast suspicion upon those whom they were unable to control. How far their efforts among the people, the bishops, and the clergy were successful is shown by the events which are now taking place. Catholic scholars suffered themselves either to be brought over by the Jesuits to their way of thinking, or to be intimidated, as was sadly attested by the meeting which they held in 1863. Such was the rest and such the peace which the church of God enjoyed in Germany. But now the holy church became overbearing. Inasmuch as the people were so easily molded, and since all the bishops submitted, together with their clergy, and even Catholic scholars laid the prerogative conferred by learning at the feet of the Pope, it was decided, in the next place, to attack the governments themselves, especially that of Prussia, the stronghold of Protestantism. The plan was, of course, first to lay the enemy prostrate by force of arms, and to humble him, and the “infallible” Pope, clothed with absolute power, was next to assert his spiritual supremacy. They did not succeed in everything quite as well as they had hoped, but the absolute power of the Pope had to be asserted in some way. And so began the present struggle, of whose outbreak the Pope complains as of an unexpected event. This is singular and without sense, unless we may suppose the Pope to have thought that, since he and his Jesuitical host had met with no resistance from the governments for so long a time, they would never meet with any at all.

But now we come to the main point. “To the former laws,” says the Pope, “new ones have been added, which completely subvert the divine constitution of the church, and render the sacred prerogatives of the bishops utterly nugatory; for in these laws power is given to lay judges to deprive bishops and other ecclesiastical officers of their dignity and their office.” One would suppose the new laws to be aimed directly at the church, whereas their only purpose is to enforce obedience to the previously existing laws, and to punish those who violate them, even though they happen to be high dignitaries of the church. These laws, therefore, do not exist for those persons who obey the laws previously enacted, which require nothing but what is required and cheerfully yielded in other countries. The laws in question are simply laws which have been enacted for the maintenance and enforcement of the laws, and to which the state has had recourse only for the sake of defense against attacks and resistance. If the state can enforce no punitory laws against bishops who defy its authority, it must just let them take their own course as privileged adversaries, and then the bishops are the sovereign lords of the empire, and no longer its subjects. They are, moreover, lords who keep continually tampering with the subjects of the state, leading them into acts of disobedience, and, in their desire to overcome all opposition, inciting the people to set the secular government at naught. These facts are of course not referred to by the Pope. He states the case as if bishops could be deposed at will by the secular authorities in Prussia, in consequence of the passage of the laws in question, whereas they are only obliged to obey the laws previously enacted, which in nowise affect the existence of the church, and, by so doing, have it in their power to make the laws which are declared to be so dreadful utterly inoperative. A Pope ought to state the case honestly, just as it is, without resorting to such distortions of the facts.

The Pope’s tender concern for the “prerogatives “of the bishops is worthy of re-. mark. He, who has deprived the bishops of all their prerogatives and despotically united them in his own person, now suddenly appears so greatly alarmed for the prerogatives of the bishops. It is, in fact, cruel mockery of the poor bishops, from whom he has taken away their rights, and who now, because those rights have been taken from them and concentrated in the Pope, find themselves involved in a serious conflict with the state, and, strangely enough, must fight for what the Pope has taken from them and for what they no longer possess. Of course they must fight for these rights, so that the state may grant them to them, and then the Pope can take them away-just as the state is expected to grant political rights to its citizens, so that the hierarchy, especially the Pope, may tell the people just how to use them, and thus make them subservient to his own purposes.

Let us consider the question, however, from another point of view. The Pope says,, because the laws in question give lay judges the power to deprive bishops of their office and of their dignity, that the divine constitution of the church is completely subverted. Well, if what the Pope says is true, if the divine constitution of the church is completely subverted by the attacks of laymen, and by the appointment or deposition of bishops, then no divine church constitution and church authority, descended in uninterrupted succession from the days of the primitive church, has existed for a long time. The papal power itself, in that case, long since ceased to exist as a divinely constituted and hierarchically-delivered power. The source and the substance of the divine constitution of the church in Rome itself, as everywhere else, were long since annihilated. For, not to mention the fact that the Popes were chosen, and undoubtedly deposed, for centuries by laymen—even by the people themselves—German emperors have appointed and deposed Popes, without any objections being made by the church. In the eleventh century the bishops placed the power of appointing the Popes in the hands of the Emperor Henry III, and, in the tenth century, Theodora and Marozia, two women of profligate character, appointed and deposed the Popes at will. If, therefore, the divine constitution, and consequently the divine character, of the church is destroyed by the participation of laymen in the appointment and deposition of bishops, then the divine character of the papacy itself (if it ever possessed such a character) is destroyed and no longer exists; so that, if Pius IX tells the truth in this encyclical, he no longer possesses any divine rights. For, if the deposition of bishops by judges, regularly appointed in accordance with the laws of the land, totally subverts the divine constitution of the church, the interference of the genial courtesans must have subverted said divine constitution even in the Roman church; and it is not easy to see how it could be restored, since the historical continuity, the unbroken succession, on which we are told that its divine character depends, must have been radically destroyed at the church’s very source and center. If, moreover, such a restoration was not possible, all subsequent Popes have been destitute of any really divine power, and Pius IX is talking sheer nonsense when he claims such power. But if this destruction by the various attacks is not admitted, it cannot be true that the divine constitution of the church is completely subverted by a judicial deposition of her bishops, and again the Pope’s words are meaningless. The bishops, like all other citizens, must beheld amenable to the laws for crimes and illegal acts of all kinds, unless they, who are but servants of the Pope, are to be made sovereigns.

In order to fulfill the duties of his office, as he says, the Pope next openly declares “to all whom it may concern, and to the Catholic world at large, that those laws are null and void, because they are totally at variance with the divine constitution of the church.” Well, we are quite willing to leave it to the government of Prussia and of Germany to return suitable answer to this declaration. We feel assured that such an answer will be returned; but science replies to the Pope: Your papacy, with all its-absolute power, is invalid, is null and void, because it is based upon a historical untruth, and because it has been sustained by means of craft, deceit, and violence. We hope that the whole people of Germany will at last be found on the side of science and truth, comprehending that true religion never needs the support of falsehood, and that the Christian church is never obliged to have recourse to fraud in order to influence mankind.

This declaration of the invalidity of the objectionable laws does not satisfy the Pope; he goes still further, and boldly incites the people to rebellion against the legally-constituted government, declaring that the Catholics of Germany are treated like slaves by their government, and hinting that they need not put up with this. Those who do put up with it, i. e., who obey the laws which have been enacted in due form by the government and parliament, especially clergymen who do so, are threatened with excommunication outright, and the faithful are told that such persons must be placed under a ban and avoided. The Pope thus uses the language of a professional instigator to rebellion, and certainly no thanks are due to him if irreconcilable dissensions, bloody civil war, and nameless misery do not afflict the German people.

The pious rolling of the eyes that follows, ill accords with this language. Of course, in order to confirm and strengthen the bishops and their party in their lawless course, the much-abused and misinterpreted passage, “we ought to obey God rather than men,” must be brought in. The words, however, are chiefly applicable to the Pope and his entire hierarchy. The apostle Peter did not say this in reference to the secular, but the spiritual (legitimate) authorities. He made this answer to the high priest (princeps sacerdotum) and his companions, who at that time, (just as the Pope and his bishops are doing now,) making a great outcry about their prerogatives, wanted to rule men’s consciences, mould their religious belief, and hammer everything on their own last. These words, then, are applicable to the Pope and his bishops, for they are like the high priest and his council. (Acts 5, 27, seq.) The interpretation of the Scriptures, however, has ever been one of Rome’s prerogatives; the Scriptures must say and mean what the Pope wishes, i. e., what is calculated to promote and increase his power. Violence has been done to the Bible itself, and the papal policy has been to annihilate all who did not interpret its text in a manner pleasing to the Pope. “No small merit is yours,” finally says the Pope, “because you have been patient and have suffered for the sake of Jesus, and have not grown weary.” The praise is well deserved, for the bishops have done their best to serve the Pope, if not to serve Christ and true Christianity. Jesus expressly forbade his apostles to exercise power after the manner of earthly potentates, and drove Satan from him when the latter sought to tempt him by the offer of worldly power. This example might well be imitated by the Pope and his bishops. They would not then give rise to bitter conflicts concerning their authority, and would not use religion as a cloak to disseminate hatred among men, and to disturb the peace of kingdoms and of nations.

In our yesterday’s number we reproduced the concluding remarks made by the “Provincial-Correspondenz” in reference to the Pope’s bull of the 5th instant. It remains for us to reproduce the opening remarks of the same paper concerning that manifestation. It reaches its well-known conclusions in regard to the bull through the following considerations:

The last few weeks have brought forth two new and characteristic manifestations of the Romish spirit: one from the bishops, issued for the purpose of denying the great importance and significance of the Pope’s infallibility; and the other from the Pope himself, in the practical exercise of the infallibility which he claims, and of the imaginary absolute power which is based thereupon.

The utterances of the Pope, in their unreserved plainness and defiant bluntness, are a direct refutation of the assertions made by the bishops with a view to making the resolutions of the Vatican appear less dangerous.

The German bishops deemed it their duty to answer the recently-published dispatch of the chancellor of the empire in relation to the next papal election, especially that portion of it in which the assertion is made that, in consequence of the two late important resolutions of the Vatican council in relation to the infallibility and the jurisdiction of the Pope, the position of the latter toward the bishops and the governments is entirely changed.

The bishops declare that this view of the case is without foundation, and is decidedly at variance with the true sense of the resolutions of the council. They deny that any new doctrine with regard to the power of the Pope is contained in the resolutions; these resolutions, say they, do not afford the shadow of a foundation for the assertion that the Pope, through them, has become an absolute sovereign; all such assumptions are based upon a total misunderstanding of their import, and upon assertions which have been put in circulation by Protestants, and by former Catholics, now in open rebellion against the papal authority.

This declaration cannot have been very easy for the majority of the German bishops to make; they must have experienced a twinge of conscience when they signed the untrue statement. Most of the bishops must have recoiled from averring that the view, above referred to, of the resolutions of the council, was based solely upon the assertions of apostate Catholics and of Protestants; for no one contended against the Vatican decree and condemned it more earnestly than they did—only, it is true, until it had been issued in spite of their protest, and they, being reduced to the alternative of breaking with Rome or of submitting unconditionally to her demands, chose the latter, as they themselves admitted, with a heavy heart.

It is a noteworthy circumstance that, as time wears on, and the resolutions of the council become more and more matter of history, the more inconsistent with their former attitude upon the questions decided by the council does the conduct of the bishops become; they are evidently acting on the supposition that the recollection of the mass of the people is daily growing fainter as regards the position which they themselves took from their own Catholic convictions and from a sense of their duty as bishops.

Their present apparently confident attitude, however, cannot obliterate the vivid recollection of the expressions of doubt and opposition which were uttered by the German bishops both before and after the council, or of their earnest remonstrances and prayers to the Pope. It cannot be forgotten that the bishops solemnly protested, at the council, against the action of the majority, “in order to avoid, before men and before the tribunal of God, any share of the responsibility for the unhappy results which would doubtless shortly ensue;” that they earnestly represented to the Pope, some of them on their knees, that the doctrines which the Vatican council was about to establish must directly affect the relations of the Catholic Church to society. The Popes of the middle ages had, indeed, they admitted, taught the faithful to believe that God had given them the right to command and to judge in all secular affairs. This doctrine had been announced by Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull “Unam sanctam;” but they claimed that a different doctrine was taught at the present day by almost all the bishops of Christendom. It therefore became their duty to point out the dangers which must arise to the church from a decree not in accord with this doctrine. Everybody knew that it was impossible to reform society according to the rule laid down in the bull “Unam sanctam.”

Other renowned dignitaries of the church expressed themselves in relation to the declaration of infallibility with even greater emphasis than did the German bishops. ‘The well-known bishop of Orleans, Dupanloup, asked, in an article published by him, “How would the governments receive it, if the Pope should be declared infallible?” “He called to mind the fact that there had been ambitious and violent Popes, who had confounded spiritual and temporal affairs and asserted arrogant claims to dictate in the affairs of temporal sovereigns.

Spiritual and temporal affairs are connected in manifold ways. “Who,” said he, “will convince the governments that the Pope will never hastily step from the spiritual to the temporal?”

He also referred to the bull “Unam sanctam,” according to which the Pope has the Tight to place kings on their thrones and to arraign them for trial, and added:

“Sovereigns, even those who are Catholics, will ask whether the infallibility of the Pope will render such bulls impossible in future. Who shall prevent some future Pope from laying down as an article of belief the doctrine that has been taught by several of his predecesors, viz, that the vicar of Christ has direct control over the secular authority of princes, that it is among the number of his prerogatives to appoint and depose kings, and that the civil rights of kings and nations are dependent upon his good pleasure?

“When the new article of belief shall have been promulgated, no priest, no bishop, no Catholic will be able to refute the doctrine so objectionable to the governments that all civil and political rights depend, like doctrines of belief, upon the will of a single man.

“They will be all the more disposed to regard the promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility as a ratification of those objectionable teachings, inasmuch as those teachings have by no means been laid aside. Those principles are unceasingly proclaimed by journals which claim to be the truest representatives of the principles of the Roman church. This is done with a great parade of proof, and, at the same time, the doctrine to which both Catholic and non-Catholic principles attach so much importance, viz, that of the mutual independence of both powers, the spiritual and the temporal, is plainly declared to be impious.”

What Bishop Dupanloup said of the teachings of the “truest representatives of the principles of the Roman Church” was fully confirmed during the council by the immediate organs of the Roman pontificate. The Pope’s court theologian proper, Peronne, wrote in March, 1871:

The Pope is the supreme judge of all civil laws. The two powers—the spiritual and the temporal—run together in him, as it were, to a point, for he is the vicar of Christ, who is not only the everlasting priest, but the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

And in the face of such teachings and such pretensions, and after all their own previous declarations with regard to the necessary consequences of the Vatican decree, the bishops now boldly assert that the attitude of the Pope toward the governments is in nowise changed in consequence of the action taken by the council.

One of the German bishops, who signed the late joint declaration, the bishop of Rottenburg, expressed himself in a remarkable manner, shortly after the council, with regard to the sudden change in the attitude of the German bishops. He wrote in November, 1871:

“It is no easier for me in Rottenburg than it was in Rome to shut my eyes to the fact that the new dogma is without a true, genuine, biblical, and traditional foundation, and that it does incalculable injury to the church, so that the latter never received a more cruel and deadly blow than on the 18th of July last, (the day of the promulgation of the decree of infallibility.) But my eye is too weak to discern any way of escape, now that almost all of the German bishops have changed their convictions in £t moment, as it were, and have gone over, at least in part, to a very intolerant zeal for the maintenance of the doctrine of infallibility.”

That the bishops have changed their convictions in a moment is a matter for them to settle with their own consciences; that their zeal for Rome increased, immediately after their sudden conversion, so far as to make them very intolerant toward all whose opinions differed from theirs, is quite in harmony with what has always been observed among new converts. There is one thing, however, that they ought not to expect, viz, that the governments and the German people should now set aside, on their authority, all the scruples against the doctrine of infallibility which they themselves expressed with so much eloquence and earnestness.

They are now obliged to teach as they do, because they recently sacrificed their own convictions in a moment and submitted to the Pope. They must also yield if the Pope chooses again to treat their explanations of his infallibility with contempt, as has so recently been done.

When Bishop Dupanloup, to give some foundation to the apprehensions of the governments with regard to the doctrine of infallibility, pointed to the fact that “there have been ambitious and violent Popes, who have asserted arrogant claims to dictate in the affairs of temporal sovereigns,” he added, “we cannot be sure, in the course of ages, of always having a Pius IX on the papal throne.”

It must remain a matter of doubt whether the latter words were uttered in sincerity, or whether they were used by the prudent bishop of Orleans only out of respect to the reigning Pope. The bishop might, at all events, have seen that those spirits “who bring the church into the greatest dangers,” had considered the reign of this very Pope as the most suitable time to accomplish their plans of spiritual absolutism.

The recent encyclical of the Pope to the archbishops and bishops of Prussia (dated February 5th) is the most striking proof that Pius IX is fully determined to renew the tradition of the violent Popes of the Middle Ages.

The new encyclical has already called forth a reply from Catholic members of the House of Deputies, and has, as we learn, been the subject of deliberations and resolutions at the ministry of state. We give below the opinion of a devout Catholic, who is, however, at the same time true to the state, in regard to the reason why it was; issued, and to its significance.

The recent encyclical was addressed, in its monstrosity, only to the Prussian archbishops and bishops, by whom it was ordered, for the purpose of destroying the impression produced by the summons which was sent last December to the bishops, calling upon them to make propositions for the establishment of a modus Vivendi. We think we are not mistaken in designating the pugnacious Bishop Kettler—who is endeavoring to arouse the torpid combativeness of his brother bishops—as the one who called it forth. That the Pope has gone further than the bishops expected, is not improbable, in view of his childlike and utter ignorance of the situation of things in foreign countries. The formal declaration that certain Prussian state laws are null and void is so utterly revolutionary that we would fain regard it as a trick of the Italian Jesuits. Some of the bishops, and the usually not very bashful ultramontane press, are apparently undecided what course to take as regards the encyclical. They assume that it is not a dogmatic decision, not a declaration ex cathedra, which must be regarded as infallible, and as rendering it obligatory upon the faithful to believe in its truth. This is another case in which the trick remains available at every moment for the Jesuitical directors of the German bishops to characterize the encyclical, when necessary, as not binding. Many bulls, as is well known, are in existence, which threaten those who refuse to obey them with the severest penalties, but to which not the slightest attention is paid by anyone; such, for instance, as that which forbids the consulting of physicians, and which orders the physician’s visits to be stopped if the patient, on the third day, is unwilling to confess, etc., etc.

The present bull will, in like manner, receive no attention, or will, at most, be brought to the notice of the clergy.

If the bishops, contrary to our expectations, should publish the encyclical officially, they should be prosecuted at once for this act of treason, and the placet of the sovereign should again be made a requisite for the publication of all papal and episcopal communications.

As regards the Catholics of Prussia, however, the government should act on the assumption that not one of them dares openly to approve the papal declaration that these laws are null and void; it can afford quietly to wait and see whether any one gives in his adhesion to the papal declaration, which contains no direct demand for assent or obedience.

Any inquisitorial action on the part of the government against Catholics, on the suspicion of their being disloyal, would be unbecoming the dignity of a strong government. It would, moreover, be doing more honor to this papal manifesto than it deserves.

For the very reason that the majority of law-abiding Catholics are quite undisturbed by this document, they regarding it as a new effusion of Romish inconsiderateness, there will not be many who will have any inclination to use it as a subject for counter-demonstrations. The mass of the uneducated remain in utterly stupid indifference as regards this manifestation. Since 1852 no pains have been spared to foment fanaticism among the lower classes, and it will not soon be possible to shake off and remove the ultramontane fruit of these efforts.

We will briefly recapitulate our views as follows: The royal government should entirely ignore the encyclical, so long as it is not officialy published by the bishops, and should also, disregarding all childish declarations of the nullity of existing laws, avoid the appearance of suspecting that all Catholics are not true and loyal citizens of the state.

If, contrarily to our expectations, the encyclical should be officially published, the severest measures would not only be justified by so revolutionary an act, but even demanded.

A correspondent writes us from Berlin, under date of March 5th, as follows:

“The Journal des Debats published, in its issue of the 24thultimo, the bull addressed by the sovereign Pontiff to the archbishops and bishops of Prussia, under date of the 5th ultimo, and declaring the laws enacted in May last to be null and void. The reply to this pontifical bull was soon forthcoming. Yesterday Dr. Falk, minister of ecclesiastical affairs, proposed in the chamber of deputies a bill for suspending the payment of the subsidies which the Prussian state allows to the Catholic bishops and clergy by virtue of the cabinet order of August 23, 1821, whereby King Frederick William III sanctioned the provisions of the papal bull De salute animarum of the 16th of July of the same year.

“The German newspapers taken at Paris will give you, as early as this letter does, the text of the fifteen articles of this bill. Its object is to modify the order of things established in 1821, and to provide that the payment of subsidies shall be continued in future only to such bishops as shall sign a declaration of submission to the laws of the state, and, without further formality, to the clergy under their orders. As to such ecclesiastics as refuse to sign the declaration required, they may escape the consequences of their refusal by making a declaration themselves for their own account.

“The entire amount which this proposed law might cut off from the Roman Catholic clergy is not very considerable. Reckoning the sum annually paid to the bishops at 1,242,754marks, (1 mark = 1 franc 25 centimes,) that paid to the priests and the churches, at 1,351,908 marks, and the sum annually received by the Catholic clergy from the fund of three and a half millions, which is devoted to ameliorating the condition of clergymen and teachers of all denominations, and we have a total of about three and a half millions of marks. The Catholic clergy, notwithstanding this reduction, would still retain the real source of their revenues, i. e., the by no means inconsiderable estates which they hold by the same title as the French clergy under the old régime. The law, therefore, even if passed and enforced, will amount to little more than a threat. If this threat, however, has no effect upon the attitude of the bishops, it is very probable that it will be followed by other legislative measures of a constitutional character, the object of which will be, by modifying the organic situation of the Catholic clergy as regards the state, to deprive them of the important resources just referred to. The Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung is already beginning to discuss the possibility of the sequestration of church property, for the purpose of depriving the bishops of the means of continuing their resistance to the state. ‘Sequestration’ is the word used by the semi-official journal; but, when this word is printed, one may suppose, without any effort of the imagination, that the idea of ‘confiscation’ and ‘alienation’ was in the mind of the writer. In France, we have seen the state resort first to the confiscation of church property, and eventually sign the concordat. If the contest is not brought to an end, it may happen that a similar beginning will be made, but we may feel sure that the end will not be the signing of a concordat.

“You have doubtless already remarked—at all events it is worthy of remark—that the Prussian bishops have not yet caused the pontifical bull of February 5 to be read in the Catholic churches. Persons are not wanting in Prussia who attribute this reserve to prudence, that is, to fear. It is just as easy, and I think it would be more in accordance with truth, to say that the bishops have been restrained by a feeling of duty toward the state. For the sake of obeying the Pope, they affected, it is true, to ignore the provisions, which in themselves were acceptable enough, of the first May laws; they do not seek to avoid the consequences of th.eir disobedience to the state, and undergo the penalties provided by those first laws and by the laws which have supplemented them; but they stop as soon as it becomes necessary to excite the faithful to revolt, by the publication from the pulpit of the nullity of laws enacted by the state, whose subjects they acknowledge themselves to be. After the evidences of firmness and courage which they have given, it would be doing them a great wrong to say that they are influenced by fear. We should, however, perhaps be justified in concluding from their silence that they hesitate to approve the wisdom of the pontifical bull, whose author is unable to resist the encroachments upon the rights of the Holy See, of which the Prussian state is claimed to have been guilty, otherwise than by consecrating an encroachment of the Holy See upon the rights of the state.

“Whatever may be the truth as regards these questions, it would be idle, now that the state has gone so far as to depose the bishops, and the Pope to set the civil laws of Prussia at naught,—it would be idle to inquire on which side is the right, as we are accustomed to understand it. That was still possible when the first May laws were made by the civil legislator and defied by the Pope. Then, a simple question was propounded, viz, whether the state could claim to control the appointment of ecclesiastical functionaries; during the past two years, however, blows have been exchanged, which can never be forgotten. A state of war now prevails, and one characteristic of a state of war is the suspension of the value of good reasons in order to give full swing to the resources of skill and of force. The event alone, therefore, will be capable of deciding which of the two adversaries was the wiser, that is to say, which, in a word, was the stronger. All that can be said by an impartial observer, who does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope in matters of tactics, is that with the prudent and tenacious energy of the government of Prussia, given, especially, the predominance of the national sentiment over the religious instinct, which is the distinguishing characteristic of Prussian education among cultivated minds, the victory will be on the side of the state, unless unforeseen and improbable events produce a total revolution in the internal policy of Prussia.

“Among the measures to which it is said that the government has decided to have recourse, I omitted to mention the return to the régime of the royal placet, under which all correspondence between the Holy See and the bishops of Prussia was carried on through the ministry of foreign affairs, and was subject to his control. King Frederick William IV abolished the placet January 1, 1841, the day following his accession to the throne.”

In the politics of Germany there is comparatively little of that dramatic interest which enchains attention; but, if its neighbor and rival subside into tranquillity, the world may have leisure to discern that the issues involved in the great contest between the Emperor’s government and the Pope are of the highest importance for all the continental nations. There is no lull in the controversy, no moment of compunction or misgiving on either side in the long struggle. Both Pius IX and Prince Bismarck have had friendly advisers without number. They have been lectured by every class of critics from every point of view, political and patriotic, moral and religious, aesthetic and sentimental. Liberals and philosophers have expostulated with the representative of civil rights and lay independence, while persons professing a sincere attachment to the church, and even to the general ecclesiastical policy of the Vatican,, have counseled the Pope to circumspection in his demeanor toward the new-born national pride of Germany. The English people, long accustomed to the manifestations of ill-will which have excited the Germans, and long since taught to bear with a population whose animosity is essentially associated with its religion, have seen with surprise and misgiving the policy of the Prussian government. They think that it erred in treating a capricious and temporary breeze of ecclesiastical ill-will, which had been occasioned by the transfer of the leadership in Germany to a. Protestant state, and had been increased by the defeat of Catholic France, as an influence perpetually hostile to the state. Many a time it has been pointed out by friendly observers that, even before the ecclesiastical laws were passed in their full strictness, the Austrian and Bavarian governments had ceased to be inspired by ultramontane counsels, the hopes of the legitimists in France had vanished, and the government of Versailles had given friendly assurances to Italy. The tendencies of the last twelve months have been to dissipate still further that notion of an alliance between the Vatican and the temporal enemies of Germany which gave the original impulse to the new legislation. No one can say that the government which M. Gambetta and his friends have helped to create, and which they will more and more influence, is likely to be encouraged to a crusade by the blessings of the Vatican. In short, the spectators of this bitter contest between Emperor and Pope have endeavored to impress upon each that there is no necessary antagonism between the empire of 1870 and the papacy which, in its new phase, dates from the same year, and that the truest statesmanship would consist in inaction and in a show of indifference until the passions, caused by great political changes subside on both sides of the Alps.

Although such arguments are generally directed to the German government, as; more amenable to reason, still they might be thought likely to find some advocates-even at the Vatican. The distrust of the German government has been met by the Pope’s counselors with defiance and studied irritation. The father of several millions of the German faithful whose lot, for good or evil, is cast among a majority of Protestant brethren, and whose moral well-being, as well as their happiness, is involved in the maintenance of social concord, might have displayed something more of Christian meekness. Such a grace of conduct would, indeed, have been a most skillful policy. Prince Bismarck’s legislation has been so novel, and the acts performed under its sanction have verged so closely on violence, that the Pope might have brought nearly all the world to his side by a few generous words. If he had told bishops, priests,, and people to prove by their conduct how much their church had been calumniated, the new ecclesiastical laws would have been put in force amid the regret of all the German liberals, and a quick reaction would have followed. But the higher arts of policy with which the Roman church was so long associated in the popular imagination seem to be now as much beyond it as a true discernment of the impulses and tendencies of nations. Whatever error may inhere in the policy of the German government, the mouths of those Germans who would protest against it are stopped by the acts of the Vatican. To the arm of violence the chief of the Roman church opposes a tongue of bitterness, and every sentiment of regret for the struggle or pity for its victims is checked by ever-recurring displays of priestly arrogance.

The last of these has been the issuing of the encyclical, which bears date the 5th of February last. It is long since such a document has been addressed to the subjects of an independent power. The issue of it shows how completely the old European system, which kept the Pope the most cautious and punctilious of potentates, especially in his dealings with Protestant powers, has passed away. The encyclical, which is a mixture of querulousness and provocation interlarded with texts, seems as if intended to bring the war with the German government to a crisis. There can be no doubt of the meaning of its most important sentences—the operative parts, as they may be called, of a document addressed to the Prussian archbishops and bishops. After a long eulogy of the archbishop of Posen, the bishop of Paderborn, and other “martyrs,” the Pope comes to the point, and declares that the Prussian legislation has no claim to obedience. “Duly to fulfill the obligations of our office, we hereby publicly inform all those whom it may concern, as well as the whole Catholic world, that those laws, being completely at variance with the divine institutions of the church, are invalid from beginning to end.” It may he imagined what effect this denunciation would have on a people proud of their new nationality, elated by unparalleled victories, yet solicitous for the safety of the fabric they have raised, and disposed to suspect one neighbor and another of evil intentions. The anti-Roman jealousy has at once flamed up again. Do not the ultramontanes, it is asked, exhibit precisely the character which Bismarck imputed to them? It was always alleged that they meditated nothing less than resistance to the law and rebellion to the state, and now the word has been given. The only question is whether they have been encouraged by any temporal power to throw down the gauntlet to the German empire. The result of the encyclical is that the majority of German politicians are at this moment less disposed to listen to temperate counsels than at any time during the last three years.

The measures now proposed by the government, as foreshadowed in the German semi-official press, amount to the disestablishment and disendowment of the Roman Catholic church in Prussia, and even the treatment of it as a hostile society. That this consummation will be reached by the successive stages of legislation which are impending is probable, however marvelous. Test-oaths are to be introduced; the bishops are to be forbidden to publish pastorals or to correspond with the Pope without the sanction of government. A bill withdrawing government subsidies in the case of all Catholic priests not expressly rejecting the encyclical has been already introduced, and the sequestration of the property of the Catholic church is talked of. All that has been done as yet is as nothing to what is now proposed.

On nous écrit de Berlin, le 5 mars:

“Le Journal des Débats a publié, dans son numéro du 24 février dernier, la bulle adressée par le Souverain-Pontife à l’épiscopat prussien à la date du 5 du même mois, et qui déclare nulles les dernières lois de mai. La réponse à cette bulle pontificale nes’est pas fait attendre longtemps. Hier, le docteur Falk, ministre des cultes, déposait sur le bureau de la Chambre des Députés un projet de loi tendant à suspendre le paiement des dotations que l’état prussien sert aux évêchés et au clergé catholique romain en vertu de l’ordre de cabinet du 23 août 1821, par lequel le roi Frédéric-Guillaume III a sanctionné les dispositions de la bulle papale De salute animarum du 16 juillet de la même année.

“Les journanx allemands distribués à Paris en même temps que cette lettre vous donneronr le texte des quinze articles de ce projet de loi. En somine, il tend à modifier l’ordre de choses établi en 1821 dans ce sens que le paiement des dotations ne serait maintenu à l’avenir qu’aux évêques ay ant signé une déclaration de soumission aux lois de l’état, et, sans autre formalité, an clergé placé sous leurs ordres. Quant aux ecclésiastiques dont les supérieurs auraient refusé la déclaration exigée, ils échapperaient aux conséquences de ce refus en la faisant eux-mêmes et pour leur compte.

“Le total des sommes que ce projet de loi pourrait retranclier au clergé catholique romain n’est pas considérable. En comptant 1,242,754 marcs (1 marc = 1 fr. 25 c.) de dotations de l’état aux évêchés, 1,351,908 marcs de dotations aux prêtres et aux églises, plus environ 1 million de marcs qui reviennent chaque année au clergé catholique sur le fonds de 3 millions et demi consacré à l’amélioration de la condition des ecclésiastiques et instituteurs de toutes confessions, on arrive à une somme d’environ 3 millions et demi de marcs. Le clergé catholique, en dépit de cette réduction, conserverait la véritable source de ses revenus, à savoir les biens assez nombreux qu’il possède au même titre que le clergé français sous l’ancien régime. C’est pourquoi le projet, une fois voté et mis en vigueur, n’aura guère d’autre portée que celle d’une menace. Sicette menace pourtant reste sans effet sur l’attitude des évêques, il est très probable qu’elle sera suivie d’autres mesures législatives d’un caractère constitutionnel qui auront pour but, en modifiant la situation organique du clergé catholique vis-à-vis de l’état, de lui enlever les importantes et dernières ressources dont il vient d’être question. La Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitmig envisage déjà l’éventualité d’une séquestration des biens religieux pour enlever aux évêques les moyens de continuer leur lutte contre l’état. C’est bien le mot ‘séquestration’ que la feuille officieuse emploie; mais, quand ce mot vient sous la plume, on peut, sans effort d’imagination, supposer que l’idée de ‘confiscation’ et d’ ‘aliénation’ est déjà dans l’esprit. En France, on a vu l’état procéder d’abord à la confiscation des biens du clergé pour arriver ensuite, il est vrai, au concordat. Il se pourrait qu’en Prusse, si la lutte ne cesse pas, les choses commençassent de la meme façon, mais pour finir autrement que par un concordat.

“Vous avez remarqué déjà sans doute, en tout cas il est digne de remarque, que les évêques prussiens n’ont pas encore fait donner lecture à leurs fidèles de la bulle pontificale du 5 février. Il ne manque pas de gens en Prusse qui attribuent cette réserve à la prudence, c’est-à-dire a la peur. Il est aussi simple, et il serait, je crois, plus vrai de dire que les évêques ont été retenus par le sentiment du devoir qui les tient encore, rattachés à l’état. Pour obéir auPape, ils ont affecté, il est vrai, d’ignorer les prescriptions, en elles-mêmes acceptables, des premières lois de mai (1); ils ne repoussent pas les consequences de leur désobéissanee vis-à-vis de l’état et subissent les peines édictées par ces premiéres lois et les lois qui les ont complétées; mais ils s’arrêtent du moment qu’il faudrait exciter les fidèles à la révolte en f aisant proclamer du haut de la chaire la nullité des lois de l’état dont ils se reconnaissent les sujets. Après les preuves de fermeté et de courage qu’ils ont données, ce serait faire, en effet, injure à leur caractère que d’admettre qu’ils se laissent diriger par la crainte. Mais alors on est peut-être en droit de conclure de leur silence qu’ils hésitent à approuver la sagesse de la bulle pontificale dont l’auteur ne sait pas combattre les empiétements dont l’état prussien seserait rendu coupable sur les droits du Saint-Siége, autrement qu’en consacrant un empiétement du Saint-Siége sur les droits de l’état.

“Quoi qu’il en soft de ces questions, il serait oiseux, aujourd’hui que l’état en est venu à déposer les évêques, et le Pape à casser les lois civiles de Prusse—il serait oiseux de rechercher de quel côté est le droit tei qu’ona coutume de l’entendre. Cela était encore possible quand les premieres lois de mai ont été faites par le législateur civil et repoussées par la papauté. Alors une question simple était posée: celle de savoir si l’état pouvait prétendre à contrôler la nomination des fonctionnaires ecclésiastiques; mais depuis deux ans on s’est porté, de part et d’autre, des coups irremédiables. Aujourd’hui, c’est l’état de guerre, et le propre de l’état de guerre est de suspendra la valeur des bonnes raisons pour donner libre effet aux ressources de l’habileté et de la force. L’événement seul aura done la competence pour décider lequel des deux adversaires était le plus sage, c’est-à-dire lequel, en somme, est le plus fort. Tout ce que peut dire un observateur impartial, qui ne croit cependant pas à l’infaillibilité papale dans les choses de tactique, c’est qu’avec l’énergie prudente et tenace du gouvernement et de l’ad-ministration de Prusse, étant donnée surtout la prédominance du sentiment national sur l’instinct religieux qui est la marque de l’éducation prussienne dans les esprits cultivés, la victoire devra rester à l’état, à moins que des événements imprévus et improbables n’amenènt un revirement complet dans la politique intérieure de la Prusse.

“Au nonibre des mesures auxquelles le gouvernement serait décidé a recourir, j’ai omis de mentionner le retour au régime du placet royal, en vertu duquel toute correspondance entre le Saint-Siége et les évêques de Prusse se faisait par l’intermédiaire et sous le contrôle du ministere des affaires étrangères. Le roi Frédéric-Guillaume IV avait aboli le placet le ler Janvier 1841, au lendemain de son avénement au trône.”

In answer to our repeated inquiries how the faith could be endangered in a country by anything that is done elsewhere without objection on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities, the Germania has at last informed us that everything depends upon the participation of the church in the enactment of the laws. The church, it says, can readily concede to one government what she can by no means grant to another, when that dares to act independently. This position is based, it is true, upon Jesuitical logic; but there is some ground for it if, like the Germania, we consider the state and the hierarchy as equal factors, or even assert that the state is subordinate to the ecclesiastical power. The Germania, however, has frequently had the lie given it by the Vatican itself, notwithstanding its correct understanding of Vatican views; and quite recently, by a decision emanating from the apostolic threshold, it has been placed under the painful necessity of modifying its arguments against the Prussian church-laws.

Everybody remembers that the Austrian church-laws, especially that which makes it obligatory upon the bishops to inform the government when they make appointments to vacant church offices, were enacted without any participation on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities. The bishops entered a solemn protest at the time against those laws, and the Pope, in the same spirit that is shown by the Germania, characterized them in an encyclical bearing a resemblance to the “quod nunquam” bull, as “highly objectionable,” thereby stamping their observance as a sin. Even infallibility, however, is not synonymous with consistency. The majority of the Austrian bishops had previously preferred to obey the laws rather than the bulls, and when the last of the renitent ones, Bishop Rudigier, of Linz, appealed, in his anguish of conscience, to Rome, for new orders, he was told that the new order of things might be tolerated. How will the Germania now combat the assumption that the non dissentit tolerari posse may be claimed by Prussia under precisely the same circumstances?

It seems, however, as if the treatment of ecclesiastical questions in Austria were conducted according to principles different from those which our infallible ones declare to be immutable. Thus the ultramontane party in Prussia thinks proper to characterize the recent measures of the government as blows that hurt nobody. The ecclesiastical authorities in Austria, who certainly understand such matters quite as well as the ultramontanes of Prussia, are manifestly of a different opinion, for we read in the Volksfreund, the organ of Cardinal-Archbishop Rauscher, in Vienna, that the annulment of the bull “De salute animarum, would be a blow whose effect would be incalculable in Prussia,” and that “it would penetrate the practical life of every German Catholic to the very marrow.” This same Volksfreund is honest enough to admit that the aforesaid bull, which alone forms the legal basis on which the Catholic church in Prussia stands, became operative as a law of the state only by the royal order issued August 23, 1821, by Frederick William III.

This is an admission whose significance we do not undervalue at the present time, when hierarchical arrogance has already forced the state to annul all the legal titles on which alone the Catholic Church in this country bases its legal existence. A discussion between the Germania and the Volksfreund, with regard to the heresies of the latter, and between the Germania and the holy see with regard to the antidogmatical yielding of the latter to the law-making power of Austria, might throw a light which would be as instructive as beneficial upon the springs of the clerical opposition to the Prussian church-laws; no such discussion, therefore, will take place. We thought, however, that we could not pass over the new facts in silence, since they make it even more evident than it was before, that two different measures are used at the Vatican, and that one can be a very good and devout Catholic without being obliged to deny the validity and the justice of the measures to which our government, in case of necessity, has recourse.

The chancellor of the empire and the clerical party.

Another letter, dated Berlin, March 9, from the correspondent of the Kölnische Zeitung, whose statements concerning the intention of the chancellor of the empire to retire have caused such a stir, has now been made public. “If the chancellor of the empire,” says the letter, “seriously considered whether the state of his health would not compel him soon—i, e., not exactly on the first of next month, at noon—to suspend the performance of his official duties, it was not proper for reliable information to be withheld from your readers. In the two Berlin letters, dated the 15th and 19th ultimo respectively, which you published, what there was to be said was said, and the statements made in those letters still have their value. It has not been possible for any change in the state of affairs to take place since. The situation has, however, been in a great measure obscured, and an effort has been made to cast doubt upon the statement that Prince Bismarck is or has been thinking of resigning his offices. With the circulation of the disquieting, intelligence it was said that all sorts of intentions were connected, which were aimed at one side or the other, or it was declared that, in a moment of ill-humor, the chancellor had determined to retire. Finally, the favorable impressions which the prince’s guests had received at the parliamentary dinner on the 1st instant, had served to place the state of his health in an astonishingly favorable light. All this compels us to recur to the subject. We are able positively to state that nothing special has occurred that was calculated to put the prince in ill-humor, nor can it be said that any purpose was to be accomplished by a declaration or even threat of an intention to retire. The fact cannot be denied that the chancellor is unwell, and that the question must soon, at any rate in the course of the coming summer, be decided whether he feels able to perform the duties of his exalted post or not. A reliable diagnosis cannot be based upon the appearance or condition of the host on the occasion of an evening’s entertainment, especially in view of the notorious nervous sufferings of the chancellor. It is sufficient to say that the evening on which the dinner was given in honor of the house of deputies, had been preceded by a day’s work which had had a very beneficial effect, so much so as to cause the prince—whose spirits are greatly raised by every agreeable occupation—to appear like a healthy man. It would be quite as wrong to judge of the minister’s condition from the impressions received on one of his bad days, when he feels depressed by trifling annoyances and vexatious incidents. In his nervous state, he is more agreeably affected by pleasant things than he was ten years ago, and, on the other hand, is perhaps more irritated or depressed by untoward occurrences than it is worth while to be. The late papal encyclical did not fail to exert an exciting, invigorating, and refreshing influence upon the chancellor.”

The contemptuous remarks made in the foregoing letter in relation to the encyclical are evidently well justified. The papal see, the astuteness of whose diplomacy was formerly proverbial, has now adopted the policy of blindly rushing at its adversary. That pretty severe cuts may be received in this way, is shown by the events of the past few days. We deem it very credible that the papal encyclical exerted “an exciting, invigorating, and refreshing influence upon the chancellor.” If what is asserted by the clerical, and by a portion of the liberal press, is true, viz, that the withdrawal of the endowments of the Catholic Church has long been contemplated by the chancellor, but not put into execution, we must really admire the ingenuity and skill with which Pius IX himself has removed these obstacles, or rather frictions, just at the right moment. We think we cannot be mistaken in thinking the day’s work of the 1st of March, of whose “beneficial effect” the correspondent speaks, was the getting in readiness of the law for sequestration, which bears date of March 3. On the 28th of February the chancellor of the empire had an audience with the Emperor, and on the day preceding a council of ministers had been held. We will remind our readers that the encyclical, which, together with the measures by which it was followed, had so excellent an effect upon the chancellor’s health, bears date of February 5th, and that it was published urbi et orhi by the secret papal agent in the bishopric of Munster in an obscure provincial paper called the Westphalian Mercury. What an impression the postponement of what was called among us the “chancellor crisis” produced at the Vatican, is shown by an article in the Voce della Verità, which, in the midst of the apparent quiet of Italian domestic politics, sees serious events approaching, if it is true that Germany (“read Prince Bismarck,” says the clerical journal) demands the repeal of the guarantee law. The papal organ conjures Victor Emanuel’s cabinet, for the sake of the honor of Italy, not to yield to such a demand. That is a new tone for the papal press, which, however, gives evidence of some uneasiness. From what we know of the Italian cabinet, an energetic step on its part is neither to be hoped for nor to be feared. We cannot, however, help believing that the papal government is constantly sawing in two the last branch that supports it, for, that an asylum should be allowed permanently to exist in a civilized state, from which fire-brands are constantly thrown into friendly countries, is scarcely credible. At all events, it is a question of great political importance.