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.*
* See the Vicarial document of February 184 3. The letters
of Mr. Schneeweiss, and the conference with the Prebend F.
at the Episcopal audience.
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.**