John Ronge; The Holy Coat of Treves; New German-Catholic Church

Had I given vent in words to my first angry feelings,—had I not allowed some weight to the existing relations between the higher and inferior clergy,—had I not, in short, considered the situation of my orphan sisters—Dr. Ritter would indeed have received a very different reply from that, which, after the exercise of much self-control, I sent him. After calm reflection and consultation with a man of experience, I came to the resolution, that as I had written in the name of my fellow-citizens and colleagues, I ought not to make any concession prejudicial to their rights, and must rely for protection on the laws.

According to the laws of Prussia, the name of an author can only be required, and that by the courts of law, when his writings contain matter of a libellous or seditious nature. If this law be not applicable to one of the inferior clergy, it follows that he dares not give utterance to any assertion or opinion which may be distasteful to his superiors (were it the most undeniable truth,) without being deprived of his situation. But who would willingly at once give up his place? Were governments to proceed after the fashion of Dr. Ritter, or the Church, no commissioned-officer would dare to notice an abuse, without running the risk of being examined and cashiered by his superiors.

Dr. Ritter had no right to take me to task, since by so doing, he interfered with the privileges and the duties of the whole body of inferior clergy, in calling me to account, by his inquisitorial questions, for a simple expression of opinion. I dared not accede to his demands without injuring religion and my colleagues. Or has the so-called inferior priest, perhaps, no right to tell the truth? or to tell it without placing his situation in jeopardy! Is the so-called inferior priest not under the protection of the laws of his native country? and are the superior clergy perhaps the only, and the infallible pillars of the truth? With a due regard to my good cause, and my defenceless condition, compared with that of an unfettered opponent, I gave the short reply—"that my conscience forbade me to satisfy such queries." The Papists and priestlike blockheads always turn the darkest side, and so they did in my case. Dr. Ritter and his Popish allies would gladly have attributed to me falsehood and cowardice, and pointed triumphantly to these words, as well as to other disconnected passages, in order thereby to lower me in the eyes of my fellow-citizens, but in vain. That I desired to save my place, as was asserted, by cowardice and falsehood, I have practically refuted, by demitting my office, braving poverty and want, although it would have been very easy for me, by falsehood or retractation, to have escaped from the suspension.*

OBJECTIONS.

On the other hand, I have heard the objection made, that though I only wrote the truth, it was still unbecoming in me to write it as I did (?) Those good folks who so degrade the truth, and whose knees tremble before every tribunal, are informed, that it was not only my privilege, but my sacred duty so to write. The paper in question was written with the feeling of a German, who was ashamed and irritated, by seeing the despotic sway of Rome ever extending, wider and more boldly, and constantly employing for its extension (an extension which brings all vices in its train,) Germans—men whose paramount duty it is, as teachers of the people, to lead them to freedom and independence—since without these no virtue is conceivable. I wrote that article as a teacher of the people, and as a teacher of religion, who holds it as his most sacred duty to oppose all injustice, and to call it by its proper name, should it even be perpetrated under the shelter of the altar, and the hypocrisy of the more than millennial supremacy of Rome. There was besides somewhat peculiarly novel in Dr. Ritter's distinctive characterizing of the peculiar word of honour. He puts questions to me which I am called upon to answer on my priestly word of honour. Does Dr. Ritter always rate the quality of honour by the office of the individual? If so, are those who have no office also without honour! My honour is one and indivisible—that which God has implanted within me—the honour of being a man. This honour I esteem more highly than that priestly conceit with which, instead of love, Rome seeks by consecration to inoculate her slaves, and which generally sinks them far below the level of their fellow-men, though they may dream that they are high above them. My honour and my manly dignity are of greater value in my eyes than all your livings, prelacies, and mitres; and I am ready to defend my honour against every one, even against Dr. Ritter. Dr. Ritter will perceive from this that I was not lying bound, as he supposed, by that hierarchic spell which extinguishes reason, and de grades man's will to the condition of a limping slave. No, I had seen the Church beneath the screen of her hypocrisy—I had seen her in all her deformity, and I felt myself called on, at once by my manly dignity, and my love to my neighbour, to assist in tearing off her curse-laden mask.

FARTHER EXPEDIENTS OF DR. RITTER.

As his Jesuitical plan of terrifying had not the effect which he probably desired, he tried other means to entrap me; and behold! a denunciation appeared to him likely to achieve his purpose. About a year before, it had been observed by a burgess nearly related to the priesthood, that I wore a shorter coat, and longer whiskers, than accorded with his orthodoxy, and he denounced me in consequence. Dr. Ritter had not delayed, from his giddy height of holiness, to set me right, in the genuine style of ecclesiastical dictation. I had replied to his communication in something like the following terms:—It would grieve me, by my external appearance, to give offence to any pious Christians, and I should gladly (though my present dress is exactly what I wore while in the Seminary) avoid it. I would indeed even relinquish my vocation were I considered unfit for it. I added at the close, that I might be able to exonerate myself in some particulars, but that I would not occupy, with such insignificant matters, his valuable time, which was doubtless demanded for the consideration of things of more importance.*

Proceeding upon this, Dr. Ritter applied to Kaspar Hoffmann, clerical superintendent at Grottkau, and called upon him to report concerning me.**

I had never interfered with this Kaspar Hoffmann. In money matters, usually an apple of discord between vicars and curates, I had allowed him to do as he pleased. He paid me only 32 dollars annually (16 were added by the town,) and derived handsome profits from offices, which I, perhaps, discharged for him,*** Still he would gladly have seen me removed, because we held opposite opinions, and I enjoyed the good-will of the community, which he seemed to grudge me. He truly reported the crimina, which he had perceived in me, and added, that he spoke the sentiments of all the citizens, although, as it afterwards appeared, he had two only on his side.

These said crimes, as contained in the Decree of Deposition, are as follow:—1st, That I wore too short a coat, and unsuitably long hair. I could only treat this silliness with derision, gave therefore no reply to it, and direct my readers to the answer of my honoured defender, and to the testimony of the citizens and magistrates of Grottkau. I must, however, observe, that this accusation was only made as a pretence, the real ground of complaint being my conduct in the school and the church, as the following occurrence will disclose.* In the schools of which I was the director, I ordered the teaching of German history, caused the pupils to write exercises for the improvement of their style, commenced the formation of a juvenile library, and conducted the religious instruction not altogether according to the authorized Catechism, because I perceived that it tended rather to prejudice the minds of the pupils against religion than to implant it in their hearts. I visited, besides, the Sabbath-schools, and strove to rid them of superstition and hypocrisy. Kaspar Hoffmann, like many other suchlike faithful ministers, had instituted a regular system of espionage, and watched my doings. In his priestly zeal he slipped privately into one of my schools, put several bullying questions to the children, and when they, in terror, could not answer him a word, he beat the religion of love into them with a birch-rod. When I, enraged at his ill-treatment of the pupils, called him to account, he replied, that well-grounded doubts were entertained of my orthodoxy, that I did not proceed according to the accredited Catechism, taught German history, &c.! This betrayed the quarter whence his inspiration had descended. My answer had, however, this effect, that Mr. Hoffmann discontinued his visits to my schools.

In the second place, Kaspar Hoffmann had reported that I conducted the ordinances of worship in an indecorous and undignified manner. This, in the sense in which he meant it, is a shameless lie; for, although I held, and still hold, many Church forms to be contrary to the exalted conception revealed to us of the Godhead in the Christian religion, (can it, for instance, be supposed, that God is honoured or the community edified, by unintelligible mumbling of Latin and hypocritical up-turning of the eyes?) I have still too great respect for all religious conviction, in whatever form it may be manifested, to insult it, or endeavour to bring about a change, in such a manner as I am represented to have done. I submitted to the forms prescribed, without, indeed, hypocritical up-turning of the eyes, whining, or the like, by which it is easy to acquire extravagant metage,* and a character for sanctity (I saw this shameless game played almost daily.)

It was, besides, a moral impossibility that I should have given offence by my remarkable behaviour, being so constantly galled and worn down by my bondage, and by my grief at being compelled to assist in disseminating superstition and hypocrisy, that I stood generally quite exhausted by the altar. Yes, the mental agony which I have endured on that spot, and which was manifested in my exterior, must have produced an exactly opposite impression than that for which he blamed me—and it did produce it. If Kaspar Hoffmann's piety took offence at this, then must it be equivalent to none, since he considered hypocrisy alone to be true decency and dignity. (What remains to be said on this subject will be found in my Defence before the Council.)

Lastly, It had been reported that no one would take me for a Catholic Clergyman who did not know me to be one. This, I must confess, sounded to me very like the language of praise, as I have endeavoured never to make any distinction between myself and my fellow-citizens, seeing that I desired to be neither more nor less than a man and a citizen. Does the narrow blue stripe constitute the pastor and teacher? We know that lying and feigned words are uttered in spite of the clerical stripe, and that the glittering vestments of the priest cannot shut out dissimulation, but, on the contrary, that they promote it.

LETTERS OF PERSUASION.

DESIRES OF MY OFFICIAL COLLEAGUES.

In addition to this charge to Kaspar Hoffmann, Dr. Ritter had commissioned a zealous divine of the younger school,* to persuade me to retract. On the 1st and 15th of January 1843, I received letters from him, and from a narrow-minded priest in the College at Neisse, in which, under cover of the most high-flown expressions of Christian brotherly-love, I am required to become a contemptible liar. As these letters are written in ecclesiastical style, and reveal the character of Dr. Ritter—his artifices, and those of the men who permit themselves to be made his tools, I consider myself called upon to publish them: besides, the writer is no friend of mine, as the Decree of Suspension falsely intimates, but merely an acquaintance.

I had at first almost believed that the assurances of friendship contained in the letters of Schneeweiss were true, in spite of their suspicious highflying; and although I had already, in like manner, been deceived by others of my colleagues, I was almost tempted to believe in their honesty. But after the epistle of the narrow-minded priest had betrayed to me that Dr. Ritter was in the game, I was forced to despise the letter-writer as a hypocrite. Schneeweiss feigned friendship, but he could have no respect, and therefore no friendship, for me, when he recommended me to commit an act of baseness, namely, the denial of well-known facts—the shameful recall of that which I had lately asserted—and a cowardly and degrading submission to the despotism of Dr. Ritter. I suppose, also, that Schneeweiss had imagined that I was quite imbued with hierarchic views. He might in that case represent the blind and cowardly submission as an act of virtue on my part; but he could not expect that I should retract the blame I attributed to the quarrels and informings* of the candidates for the episcopate, and even my censure of the long delay on the part of the Pope—for they were injurious to the Church. Had he considered my station as a Catholic priest, as a teacher of the people, and of religion in the sense of Christ's teaching, and desired to be accounted such himself, he could not have advised me to a disgraceful retractation and denial of a truth which I had dared to avow. No; he would have encouraged me to bear unflinching testimony to the truth, and in the face of greater danger than the loss of office.

For that is true, which I have written; the quarrels and intrigues of the candidates for the bishop's mitre, I repeat it, have been proved, and they were (I myself have heard it,) the theme of scandal and censure at once to priests and laymen. It was disgrace enough to the clergy, that no one of the elder ministers dared openly avow his censure—that they loved their livings more than truth and their fair name. But Schneeweiss does not seem to have thought of these things. It may be gathered from the mixture of assertions and contradictions in his letters, that he was not quite clear of the propriety of what he required of me, at the same time that he does not seem very well to know what he would be at. However, so it also happens with many others of my colleagues. They become inconsistent in their opinions; for, being called to fight in the front rank for truth and freedom, they, on the contrary, act in opposition to them, as the conscious or unconscious slaves and servants of the hierarchy. I fancied, when I knew Schneeweiss in earlier days, that he had a more enlightened zeal, but Gibbon's words, alas! are true—"The spirit of bigotry, at once so credulous and insinuating, when it has once taken root in a noble mind, overturns by degrees the living principles of virtue and of truth."

LETTERS OF SCHNEEWEISS AND GLÕCKNER.

"My Dearly Beloved Brother,—You will be surprised to receive a letter from me, but do not let your surprise induce you to forget that it is sincere affection which prompts me to address you.

"I have just learned in Neisse that a heavy storm is gathering over you. You are said to be the author of an article in the Saxon Vaterlands-blatter, in which language is employed very unlike what one would expect from any Catholic, not to speak of a Catholic priest. It is also said, as I am assured by an otherwise trustworthy and respectable man, that you have been questioned in regard to it by the right reverend Administrator of the Bishopric, and that you have returned a very evasive, answer. If it be really so, Oh, let me entreat that you will not neglect to say at once Pater, peccavi! (Father, I have sinned!) Write immediately to the right reverend Vicar, and assure him, with a self-denial which would be highly honourable (?) to you, that you wrote in well-meant (?) precipitation. If you do not follow my brotherly counsel, you may expect, from the determined character of the right reverend Vicar, soon to be suspended (deposed), as I have also learned from respectable authority. And to what would this suspension lead! Oh, believe me, my dear brother, it would then be no longer in the power of your former friends to help you. So long as we are Catholics, Rome must always be to us the centre point of the visible Church; and so long as we wish to be Catholic Christians, and particularly priests—servants of the Catholic Church, we dare not speak and write of Rome in such a slighting manner,—I might say, with the hatred and contempt exhibited in the article, which I have also read. I assure you, that not even Protestants would take you under their protection, if you are really the author of that article. I will not speak of Catholics. In so far as I am concerned, I marvelled at the author's deficiency in historical and theological knowledge, who had subscribed himself 'A Chaplain.'

"Be not offended at my openness. A well-meaning brother must not hesitate to speak the truth even at the risk of the momentary loss of a brothers affection. I entreat you once again to do immediately what I advise. I know you to be an otherwise well-disposed person (what honour!); it would grieve me to see you brought into a position which cannot, now-a-days, be honourable (do I not understand?). It is great-minded to make amends for faults and for offence which one may have given! and little-minded to have the courage only to impugn time-honoured truths, without acknowledging the fact as soon as questioned by those who, in virtue of their station, have a right to demand the acknowledgment;* and so, dear friend, behave wisely and well, and turn away all evil from yourself. Make my respects to your Vicar.

"Now, dear friend, seek counsel of your God, and I know you will take decided steps in consequence. May peace be with us throughout the new year. With this invocation I conclude these hasty lines, which sincere brotherly love has dictated. Your true Brother,

"Schneeweiss."

The letter of the narrow-minded priest referred to above is as follows:—

"Neisse, January 12th 1843.

"Honoured Brother,—You will not surely take it ill that I speak my mind to you in regard to a matter which must be causing you embarrassment at present—I mean the article in the Vaterlands-blatter. The paper had lain here unnoticed for several weeks, when it accidentally fell into my hands at the house of Baumgarten the merchant; and on account of its bitter, passionate tone, not only in regard to the Pope himself, but the extent of his authority—on account of certain hints in regard to the narrowing of the power of the bishops and the want of the proper conduct of the cure of souls, which the people have a right to expect, as the grace of the Church, from the apostolic vicars and curates—in short, on account of all these circumstances, I hastened to submit it to Schneeweiss for inspection. But besides the Number which contained this article, there was another, and indeed the preceding one, which at the end gave a list of the contents of the letter box, and also mentioned a contribution from Grottkau. This it was which led to the suspicion that you were the author. Full scope was now given for violent discussion at the parsonage, and they wished at once to inform you of the suspicion under which you lay. An opportunity was found in candidate N., who, at the suggestion of Schneeweiss, was enjoined to call upon you on his homeward journey to Breslau, and disclose all to you,—but nothing farther. No application to Ritter was made from hence, and, according to the declaration of Schneeweiss, N., who is at present in the Seminary, must have blabbed there. Since your embarrassment is now known, that is to say, Ritter's threat in case you should not confess—Schneeweiss has written to you at once, Ritter having expressed a wish that your friends and brethren in this quarter should come to an understanding with you, and try to move you to a retractation of the article. Schneeweiss, much puzzled at not hearing from you, has again applied to Ritter, through Peschke in Breslau, to endeavour to stave off the execution of the threat, and successfully, as we yesterday learned. Peschke advises him strongly to persuade you to confess, in which case nothing more would be demanded of you than that you should insert a modified article in the same paper, without signature, and adds, 'If you had not entreated for him, Ronge would already have been proceeded against—he would have been suspended.' I have already told a long tale, but not yet come plainly to the point which so much annoys me. It is this,—through me it was that the article first became known to the clergy, and I should bitterly reproach myself were you to be brought into trouble on account of it. You may judge from this what comfort it would afford me were you to relieve me from my unpleasant situation by a settlement of the affair. Do it for my sake, (?) regard my peace of mind, should it cost ever so great a sacrifice! It involves no sacrifice of conscience—such a sacrifice no one has a right, ex abrupto, to demand. The Catholic Creed is not involved—otherwise, I apprehend, from your straightforward character, you would no longer be holding office in the Church. I beseech you, therefore, to relieve me from my painful situation, where I am tortured now, and may be incurably tortured at a future day, should you be overpowered. S. would gladly talk over with you this unpleasant affair, if it were agreeable to you to come here; and, if that be inconvenient, he will employ his acquaintance with Ritter to facilitate an adjustment. Ask N. also, who knows me,—and I think you will entertain no suspicion of my sincerity. Perhaps he may even accompany you, which would delight me. He also is among the shipwrecked ones. With all brotherly love, your friend,

"GLOCKNER."

On the 15th of January I received a second letter from Schneeweiss, which differs essentially from the former one. If the tone of the first is lordly and dictatorial, that of the second is gentle, more prudent, is addressed to me as an individual, and calls in my nationality to his assistance:—

"My Dear Brother,—Once more I write you a short letter, although I feel nearly persuaded that you will not thank me for it. My former hasty lines have remained quite unnoticed. Were I actuated by any other motive than affection, I might feel myself somewhat slighted, but love bears all, hopes all, and does all, that can promote the welfare of a brother (?!). Once more I beg of you to bring this unhappy affair in Breslau to a conclusion. I assure you that your character, supposing you to be the author of the article in question, shall not be compromised (how forbearing is our mother Church!), as I know from an authentic source. Believe me, you have injured yourself by your evasive answer,—it will not bring you out of your scrape.

"Act resolutely! If you be the author of the article, answer, like a man, 'Yes I am,' and submit to reproof (indeed!). If you be not the author, answer also in that case like a German man (even this chord the Church does not disdain to strike!)—'No, I am not.' If your time permits, pray visit me for a few hours. Things are more easily explained when face to face. You have no time to lose, as I learn from a sincere and honest friend in Breslau.

"Only believe that I love you sincerely while giving you this advice. Should you consider me mistaken or shortsighted, I cannot help it. You may, in time, be convinced that these lines are dictated by the purest and most anxious affection. God be with you, and with your sincere friend.

"SCHNEEWEISS.

"Neisse, January 12th, 1843."

THE SEVENTY CURATES

About the same time seventy Silesian curates inserted a most pathetic article in "The Sion," and, in an address to Dr. Ritter, implored him to call me to account, and, if I made any difficulty, to depose me. As I afterwards learned, this address was not peculiarly well received at the Chapter, but Dr. Ritter issued a letter of thanks.*

I have not replied to these seventy brethren, because I heard that the greater number had signed it from fear of Ritter; but I consider that I have atoned for the neglect, seeing that whilst they, according to promise, were probably praying for me, I worked industriously for them.

THE DEPOSITION.

After Dr. Ritter had also asked my friends in vain, whether I had hinted to them anything about their article, the Decree of Suspension was sent to me. Dr. Ritter had, at the same time, issued an order to a portion of the Silesian curates, to refuse me the administration of all religious ordinances. They, on their part, had issued the like order to their bell-ringers and sacristans, so that, owing to the zeal of many of those individuals, I could visit no church, without running the risk of causing a disturbance, or being turned out.

DECREE OF SUSPENSION.

The right reverend Board of Administration made known to us, on the 11th of this month, that, as public opinion had pointed you out as the author of the well-known article, "Rome and the Chapter of Breslau," you had been asked, on the 20th December last, whether you really were so. You replied to this question, on the 24th of the same month, that you could not reconcile it to your conscience to answer the question put to you by the right reverend Board. Time was allowed to you after this, and a vicar, a private friend * of your own, was commissioned to encourage you to make a distinct declaration and acknowledgment, in which case you would still have been treated with indulgence.** Up to this time, however, you have sent no reply to the right reverend Board, wherefore we have been charged by the same to bring you to an investigation, *** eventually, however, to suspend you, and to summon you, ad exercitia, to the Seminary in this place. It has been further shewn to us, by Mr. Rector Hoffmann of Grottkau,**** that so early as the 29th of October 1841 you had been seriously rebuked by the right reverend Board, on account of your peculiar dress and unsuitably long hair; and although Hoffmann, and several others of your colleagues, kindly warned you of the impropriety of your dress, all has produced no effect, so that they who did not personally know you, would never take you for a clergyman. In addition to this, it has been said that you performed the priestly functions without decorum or dignity, (in plain German, without hypocrisy and grimaces,) whereby you have occasioned manifold offence, (unfortunately, the community has accused the right reverend Board of falsehood,) and impeded the efficacy of your ministry.(v) Since, under these circumstances you cannot be appointed to the cure of souls, as you yourself, on calm reflection, (how liberal!) on your sentiments and your efficacy, (why were not these two important items earlier introduced?) must perceive.

Since we forbid you the exercise of priestly functions, you are hereby-charged to leave your present situation immediately on receipt of this—to resort to the Seminary in this place, there to undergo exercitia spiritualia, to submit yourself entirely to the orders of the master of the Seminary, i. e., the Pro-Rector, Dr. Sawer, to whom you are required to announce your arrival in this place, and await our further commands.*

DECLARATION ON THE PART OF THE TOWN OF GROTTKAU.

On the very day on which my deposition was made known, (without any prompting on my part,) I received a Declaration, to be forwarded to the right reverend Council, from the undersigned individuals (all Catholics.)**

This Declaration, and my own Defence, I forwarded without delay to the Reverend Council, with the observation, that I should also send a testimonial from the magistracy of Grottkau, so soon as I should receive it. After the Declaration had been despatched, several other citizens desired to sign it, and complained that it had not been sent to them. It will not be a difficult matter for my fellow-believers and townsmen to make comparisons of the Decree of Suspension and the Declaration of the town of Grottkau, and to draw their own conclusions as to which party were in the right. Without further remark, therefore, I shall merely put the following questions:—

I. Why was I suspended, and condemned to degrading imprisonment? and

II. How was I treated?

I was suspended, and condemned to degrading imprisonment—

I. Because, in fulfilment of my vocation as pastor and teacher, I had reminded the episcopal candidates of their duty. Had I, perhaps, no right to do so? Yes, it was my privilege and duty,—because I was, and still am, a teacher of religion, and dare not as such betray the truth, even to obtain thereby a rich living for my treachery. Or, are the prebends of Breslau infallible? They are as little so as I or any other man. If Dr. Ritter, and the other members of the Chapter, desire to represent the Christian religion—that religion of which truth and love are essential conditions—they must take courage to hear the truth itself. If I spoke the truth, why was I smitten on the face? Was I, perhaps, as chaplain, considered too insignificant an individual to deserve such notice? I dare not suppose this of those whose duty it is to teach and exemplify the doctrine—"We are all the children of one father, we are all equal in the sight of God,"—and with whom, in respect of ordination, I was on an equality. If, however, they have not understood these words of the gospel, I shall shew that I at least have comprehended them—for I shall not intermit my endeavours to arouse the inferior clergy, oppressed and trampled on as they are, from their moral wretchedness, ignominy, and bondage—because I know what they suffer and how their hearts bleed, having bled and suffered with them.

I was besides deposed, because I had offended by my dress and the cutting of ray hair, and because I had set dignity and decorum at defiance in my performance of the priestly functions.

These accusations have been sufficiently exposed as untrue by the Declaration of the town of Grottkau. Were they, however, in fact, not altogether unfounded, (which they have been shown to be,) let them for a moment be compared with the vicious practices of a no small portion of the right reverend servants of the Pope, who, notwithstanding the unanimous condemnation of public opinion, are left in quiet possession of their offices!—— However painful it may be for me, and presuming though it may seem to others, I cannot refrain from opposing my moral character to the high station of those men, who are accustomed to refer everything to mere sensuality, and to drag down all things into the mire; and I demand, why was I not accused of drinking, gambling, or of some particular crime!! Why am I not accused by the right reverend Council of some negligence in the discharge of my duty? Did they ever hear even one equivocal report in regard to my moral character!

II. How was I proceeded against!

I was suspended, and condemned to dishonouring imprisonment, without a hearing—without an opportunity of defence, or proof adduced of my culpability.

It is unlawful that any German or Prussian citizen should be imprisoned for a crime, by any other than the civil executive power. It is only the Catholic priest that is liable to be coerced without appeal to his civil rights, or the ceremony of a trial. The Apostle Paul laid claim to the privileges of a Roman citizen; while the Roman Church herself denies to her followers the exercise of the most ordinary civil rights. I did not, therefore, submit to the sentence!

REASONS FOR NOT SUBMITTING TO THE ORDERS OF THE RIGHT REVEREND BOARD.

To this finding of the Vicarial Council, dictated by ecclesiastical caprice, without regard to the law of the land, or even to the statutes of the Church, it was impossible for me to submit—and I did not submit to it; because I should have thereby degraded, first, my moral dignity; secondly, the honour of the nation; and, thirdly, the rights of the whole body of inferior clergy, by a cowardly submission to the unjust and disgraceful punishment.

In the first place, my moral dignity was slighted. If I am bound as a man to resist all violent infringement of my freedom and individual privileges, and rather to hide a free and virtuous heart beneath the poorest clothing, than to strut about as a slave in rich attire,—I am still more solemnly engaged to such a course, as teacher of the people. As such also, in order to bear vigorous and successful testimony to the truth, I must maintain an unblemished reputation among my fellow-citizens. The right reverend Board, however, have at once assailed my freedom and my honour.

As the citizen of a civilized state, and belonging to a civilized nation, where the law and not caprice is paramount, I should have compromised the national honour, had I, the subject of such privileges, submitted in a cowardly and passive manner to the despotical dictation of a foreign power.

Lastly, seeing that it is at once the duty and the privilege of every teacher of the people (as also of each vicar,) to speak the truth without respect of persons, I should have incurred the guilt of sacrificing the privilege and duty of the whole body of inferior clergy, by tame submission to the power of those who thus dispute the one, and hinder us in the performance of the other.

As regards the latter, the inferior clergy have certainly renounced their duty, when, in opposition to their superiors, they have submitted to be robbed of this—and many other of their rights as men—and to see themselves reduced to the condition of blind slaves; but the cowardice of many in the past and present time, cannot relieve me or any other man, from the duty of guarding intact the possession of our civil rights. I am only the more solemnly bound most vigorously to contend for all our rights,—as men and citizens, and to free myself from slavery,—the more clearly I perceive, that by the slavery of the popular teachers, the moral and physical suffering of the people is ensured. Does a man cease to be a citizen when he becomes a priest?

MY DEFENCE.

On receipt of the Decree of Suspension, I took the legitimate course (if such a term applies,) and sent in a Defence to the right reverend Board, along with the Declaration of the town of Grottkau, and testimonials from the authorities. But I was so excited by the calumnies which I found in the Decree of Suspension, that I was but ill fitted to write a calm defence. I felt myself therefore laid under great obligations, which I embrace this opportunity of again and publicly acknowledging, to a Catholic lawyer, who offered, in the noblest and most friendly manner, to take the necessary steps. I did not, indeed, conceal from this my honoured defender, my determination at once to demit my office, should they proceed to execute the threatened and dishonouring sentence,—but left him otherwise at liberty,—in order to shew to my fellow-citizens, that even the most modest proposals and requests on my part, and the sufficiently distinct expression of feeling on the part of the town of Grottkau, as well as of the rector and the principal inhabitants, were alike unavailing to effect the rescinding of the unjust sentence.

Right Reverend Canons,

I have been deeply moved by hearing the sentence of your right reverend Council, held on the 30th of last month, which orders my suspension from office; in the first place, because I am convinced that worthless men have shamefully traduced my character; and, farther, because I have been publicly branded, and deprived of honour and office, on the strength of a current report, and on the credit of a private informer, without communication of the charge, or awaiting my vindication. The cause of my answering, as I did, the question whether I were the author of the article entitled, "Rome and the Chapter of Breslau," was this: that I felt exceedingly annoyed at being asked,—and vexed, that I, who live here in the most perfect retirement,—serving all men as I have opportunity,—should be called on to defend myself from empty rumours, and be subjected to the necessity of allowing persons, with whom I am not on a friendly footing, to use the most impertinent language towards me, under the guise of brotherly affection, as my colleague Schneeweiss has done. If the right reverend Board believe that I am the author of the article, and consider it offensive, I expect that, agreeably to the laws of Prussia, the authorship shall be-brought home to me by proof; until then, I do not consider myself called upon to render account regarding it to any one. I might otherwise, with equal propriety, be held to be the author of any anonymous production, and should have time for nothing else than constantly assuring and bringing proof, that I lead a retired life, and trouble myself neither about worldly nor clerical affairs.

The denunciation by Hoffmann, I here declare to be a contemptible falsehood. My hair is not an inch longer than that of Hoffmann. That it curls naturally, while his is smooth, is no fault of mine. Besides, I may observe, that on account of headache, I never allow my hair to be cut quite short. My dress is of a dark colour, like that of other respectable citizens; and the reason that my coat is some inches shorter than that of Hoffmann, is, that it is of newer fashion. I am young, healthy, vigorous, and, it is said; spirited; hypocritical bigotry is foreign to my nature, and hateful to me. I assume no other manner in the performance of my priestly functions than that of ordinary life. It may be that Mr. Hoffmann makes lower bows, beats his breast with deeper groans; it may be that this imposes upon uneducated people, but, to my thinking, it bears no proof of piety, nor does it elevate the feelings of educated men. I would even say that my unvarying behaviour must tend to convince the congregation that I am sincere,—that that which I preach is my own conviction,—that my words proceed not merely from my lips, but from my inmost heart.

Dignity and decorum are relative ideas, and the answer to the question—who possesses them? depends upon the view entertained by the individual who is appealed to. It is well if Hoffmann and my other secret accusers can comfort themselves with the consciousness of possessing dignity and decorum. I hope the contrary may never be proved of them.

If I am devoid of these two fancied qualities, they have been denied to me by nature, and I am therefore not to blame; I do not repress decorum and dignity; I do not purposely neglect them, and I expect a proof to the contrary—for it is only when the intentions are evil that our actions can be blamed. That I had given great cause of offence to the congregation was unknown to me until now.

For the clergyman of this place, where a portion of the congregation is highly educated, another portion tolerably, while a third is altogether uneducated, it is peculiarly difficult to satisfy all parties. I thought, therefore, that the most prudent course for me to pursue, would be to vary my sermons, and address myself by turns to either class. If my point has not been gained, and all parties have not been equally satisfied, it has arisen from a fallacy in the plan, not from premeditated carelessness on my part, which alone would be culpable.

Without egotism, I may say that the annexed testimonial* from the Catholic gentry, the most respectable citizens, and regular church-goers of this town, appears to me to prove that my labours have not been fruitless, and that at least I have given no public cause of offence.