votes (March, 1842).1 After numerous writings and prolonged discussion, it was resolved, in January, 1844, that the nuns of the convents of Fahr, Hermetschwil, Gnadenthal, and Baden, suppressed in 1841, should be permitted to again take possession of their houses. The mitred Abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Muri, who had been on trial for certain political offenses, was acquitted, declared exempt from all penalty, and the State adjudged to pay the costs. The Radicals, however, had no intention of giving up the contest. In the Diet of 1844 the representatives from the Canton of Aargau made an unsuccessful attempt to have the Jesuits banished from the whole of Switzerland; and when, on the 24th of October of the same year, the inhabitants of Lucerne voted to recall the members of the Society, and place the theological schools of the Canton under their direction, the Radicals of the whole country rose in indignation.

In December, 1844, and again in March, 1845, two armies of volunteers, led against the Catholics of Lucerne, under pretext of overthrowing the domination of the Jesuits, were successively repulsed. Lucerne, now fully alive to the daugers that threatened her, entered into an alliance with the neighboring Catholic Cantons for their mutual protection. The Radicals now determined to avenge their defeat. As a preliminary step, they hired a vile wretch by the name of Jacob Müller to assassinate Joseph Leu, a prosperous and honorable merchant, gifted with splendid oratorical powers, who had excited the hostility of his enemies because he was the leader in his day of every Catholic movement in Switzerland.

1 The Third Article reads as follows: "The Apostolic and Roman Catholic religion is the religion of the whole population of Lucerne, and as such is the religion of the State. The government, therefore, shall in no way, either directly or indirectly, restrain, limit, or hinder the intercourse of priests, citizens, and communities with the authorities and functionaries of the Roman Catholic Church in whatever relates to religious ecclesiastical affairs. However, all eelesiastical ordinances and regulations must be submitted to the government before publication. The relations of Church and State should be adjusted by an amicable understanding between the two powers. The State guarantees the inviolability of foundations and other ecclesiastical property."

2 The Catholic, 1844, nro. 2; South Germ. Eccl. Journal, 1843, nros. 48 and 52 Sigwart Müller. Councilman Joseph Leu, of Ebersoll, Altdorf, 1863.

The assassin afterward confessed his crime, and was beheaded January 31, 1846. In the Cantons of Vaud, Berne, and Zürich the governments had voted against the expulsion of the Jesuits, but they were forced to yield to the dominant influence of the other Cantons which favored the measure. The opponents of the Jesuits and those desiring their expulsion and the suppression of their schools were daily gaining strength, and for this reason those Cantons which had either protected the Society or placed their schools under its direction, viz., Lucerne, Uri, Schwytz, Unterwalden, Zug, Fribourg, and Valais, gave their support to the separate alliance (Sonderbund) formed in 1843, and appointed a council of war to act in the emergency of a conflict. On the 20th of July, 1846, the Diet, by a small majority, declared the Sonderbund inconsistent with the well-being of the Confederation, and therefore dissolved. To enforce this decree, the Diet brought a numerous army into the field, and a fratricidal and unholy war was commenced against the Catholics of the Sonderbund,' who were completely vanquished, but whether their defeat is to be attributed to too much confidence in the justness of their cause, or to the mistakes of their leaders, or to treachery, it is difficult to say. Fribourg was taken, after a short and ineffectual resistance, on the 9th of November, and the 23d of the same month the army of the Sonderbund was routed at Gislikon, near the frontier of Lucerne, and the seven Catholic Cantons passed under the despotic and intolerant government of the dominant party. Heavy war contributions were levied, forty convents were suppressed, religious freedom vanished, and the Bishop of Lausanne and Geneva was sent into exile. Such were some of the results of this war, in every way so disastrous to Catholic Switzerland. As we shall see further on, these deeds of violence called forth a reaction, which infused new life and fresh energy into the Catholics of that country.

1 Crétineau-Joly, Histoire du Sonderbund, Paris, 1850, 2 vols.

The Catholic of 1847 and 1848; also Hist. and Polit. Papers, Vols. XX. and XXI.

§ 406. The Catholic Church in Austria.

Boost, Modern Hist. of Austria (1789-1839), Augsburg, 1839, p. 101 sq. Beidtel, Researches on the Situation of the Church in the Austrian States, Vienna, 1849. Scharpff, Pt. II., p. 74-93. Gams, Hist. of the Christian Church in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I., p. 509–561. Freiburg Eccl. Cyclop., Vol. XI., p. 1060 sq.; Fr. tr., Vol. 2, p. 147 sq.

Alarmed at the symptoms of revolution which now began to show themselves, and which were the legitimate outcome of the fatal policy of his brother, Joseph II., Leopold II., who became Emperor March 12, 1790, set his face against the liberalistic and philosophical tendencies which were being forced upon Austria in spite of herself, and, by the repeal of certain unpopular laws of his predecessor's, succeeded in allaying the secret agitation, which kept the Emperor in a state of uncertainty and excitement. Such of the laws of Joseph II. as interfered with the free administration of ecclesiastical affairs he either abrogated altogether or practically set aside. He closed the General Seminaries, permitted bishops to educate their clergy in their own schools, authorized the use of the Latin language in the administration of the Sacraments and other liturgical offices, and recognized the rights of the Roman Pontiff in whatever relates to the Sacrament of marriage. He also satisfied the claims of the Protestants by incorporating in the twenty-six articles of the laws of 1791 the edicts of 1608, 1647, and 1648, granting to the Lutherans and Calvinists of Hungary freedom of worship. Finally, he forced the Turks to conclude a treaty of peace, re-establishing the statu quo as it existed on the 9th of February, 1788, previously to the breaking out of the war. Though Leopold did much to ameliorate the condition of the Church by practically disregarding existing laws, he did not fully emancipate her from the tyranny of a civil bureaucracy. The system of Joseph II. was indeed ignored, but it had, nevertheless, as a whole, a legal sanction and a recognized existence. Such was the state of affairs when Francis II. (March, 1792-1835) ascended

1 Baron von Eckstein, The (Austrian) Clergy in their Relation to Public Instruction (The Catholic of 1828, Vol. XXVII., p. 11–21, 268–293).

the throne. This prince deeply sympathized with the Head of the Church in his misfortunes, and, taking as his patterns, not his immediate predecessors, but those more illustrious men of whom his ancestral house furnished so many, he became at once the patron of the Church and the protector of the Ioly See. The Emperor was in Rome in 1819, and Pius VII., happy to have an opportunity to give some token of his esteem for the royal House of the Hapsburgs, raised the Archduke Rudolph to the archiepiscopal see of Olmütz, and created him a cardinal. In 1842 Gregory XVI. conferred similar dignities, for a like reason, upon the Prince Schwarzenberg, PrinceArchbishop of Salzburg.

If the Church in Austria, nevertheless, continued for the half-a-century during which Prince Metternich was First Minister, subject to the Josephist system, and under the control of the civil authority, the fault is to be ascribed to the indifference of the bishops, rather than to the will of the government. Many of these bishops, men, too, of learning and irreproachable lives, had, by appointment of government, taken an active part in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs while the Church was still under the control of the State, and now, from force of habit, showed a certain tenderness and attachment to a system they themselves had helped to perpetuate, sincerely believing that the Church could not be equally well governed in any other way. But bitter experience soon showed that, no matter how beneficial such methods might seem in themselves, they were, in reality, whether intended to be so or not, encroachments of the civil authority upon the rights of the Church. For example, in 1802, "the Court of Chancery," acting upon representations made to it, and without consulting the bishops, passed two decrecs, providing for the increase of the number of the secular clergy and the restoration of discipline in the convents. Again, in 1804, new

1 See ? 390, at the beginning.

2 In attempting to correct the existing evils by the very means by which they had been produced, the Aulic Chancery showed that it did not understand their real character. By the first autograph of April 2, 1802, it was prescribed that gymnasia, schools of philosophy, and diocesan seminaries should be established, VOL. III-48

ordinances were published relative to public schools, removing them from the control of the bishops, and placing them under that of consistories, because these, being the creations of the State, would pursue its policy as regards methods of teach ing, the selection of text-books, the conducting of examina tions, and the mode of inspection. Again, in 1810, Pehem's work on canon law was thrown out of the schools, and that of Rechberger introduced, because the latter upheld a system of ecclesiastical polity in favor with government, and on the whole treated the Church as little better than a civil institution, and therefore dependent upon the State. But, since 1808, the bishops have enjoyed a larger measure of influence in whatever relates to primary schools and theological establishments, and in judging of the orthodoxy and moral fitness of aspirants to the priesthood. These measures, together with the restoration of seminaries and faculties of Catholic theology, led the way to the publication of many works of merit, which exercised a wide and beneficent influence. Such were the writings of Powondra, Reichenberger, Zenner, and others on pastoral theology, and of Klein, von Rauscher, and Ruttenstock on Church history. In appointing to bishoprics, the Emperor Francis was careful to select only men of distinction and ability, whose lives were an example to their flocks, and who devoted themselves zealously and ener getically to the primary schools, to public instruction of every grade, and especially to the training of young men for the priesthood. Of these it will be sufficient to enumerate Sigismund, Count of Hohenwarth,, Archbishop of Vienna from 1803; Wenceslaus Leopold Chlumczansky, Bishop of Leitme

and, if required, that a course of theology be added. Now, putting aside the circumstance that these measures were prescribed by a body incompetent to deal with such affairs, they could not possibly have served any useful purpose, because the Josephist programme and the uncatholic text-books were still retained, and the schools continued to be under the control of the State. The second rescript, of the same date, requiring religious to wear their habits and observe their rules, "except in the instances in which these had been modified by imperial decrees," and forbidding all intercourse with foreign superiors' was not, it would seem, of a character to restore discipline in the monasteries Brück, Church Hist., pp. 758 sq. (TR.)

See list of Austrian bishops, apud Gams, Vol. I.,

pp.

509-533.