mands. They pointed out that the principal demand of the orthodox Bulgarians had been that their Churches and bishoprics should be intrusted to a clergy familiar with the Bulgarian language, and that they did not understand how the Patriarchate could designate as unevangelical so legitimate a desire. The Patriarch, in a letter to the Grand Vizier, declared that he could retain his office only if the government granted the convocation of the Ecumenical Council. The endeavor of Ali Pasha to induce the Patriarch to desist from his demand proved of no avail. The twelve Bishops constituting the Synod of Constantinople sent a synodic letter to the Porte, in which they implore the government to settle the Bulgarian Church question on the basis proposed by the Patriarch in 1869. The government now yielded. Ali Pasha invited the Patriarch to send to the government a programme of the questions to be discussed by the Ecumenical Synod. To this the Patriarch replied as follows:

We had the honor of receiving the rescript which your highness has condescended to forward to us, as a reply to our letter and the Maybata of the Synod of Metropolitans. We perceive that we shall be authorized to convene the Ecumenical Council, to which will appertain the final solution of the Bulgarian question by canonical decision. Your highness expresses the desire to know be forehand the objects and the limits of the deliberations of the Council, and invites us to submit a programme of the same. We have the honor of informing you that the Ecumenical Council, for whose convocation we requested the authorization of the imperial government, will have to investigate and to adjust the controversy which has arisen between the Patriarchate and the Bulgarians. Your highness is aware that said controversy resulted partly from the circumstance that the Bulgarians did not consider satisfactory the concessions which we granted them in regard to the administration of the Church, partly from the fact that the Bulgarians demand something which is in direct opposition to the spirit of our faith and to the commands of the holy canons, although they pretend that their proposals are not at all in contradiction to the holy laws. Thus the labors of the Council, which will not touch on any secular question, will be strictly limited to deliberations on the Bulgarian question; the demands of the Bulgarians, as well as the concessions made by the Patriarchate, will be minutely and impartially scrutinized, upon which the Council will come to a decision in accordance with the spirit of the canons, from which there can be no appeal. Done and given at our Patriarchal residence on November 16, 1870. GREGORY.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM,

The dissensions which have for several years existed in the United Armenian Church have at last gravitated into an open and bitter feud between a large portion of the Church and the Papal Court of Rome. The united Armenians, ever since their union with Rome, had enjoyed the right and privilege to elect their own Bishops, who again elected their Primate or Patriarch. The community likewise elected a Civil Patriarch, who was at the head of a chancery, and was assisted in his official duties by a council of notables. The Civil Patriarch also exercised the function of a Justice of the Peace, and his decisions, although in some instances appealed from to a higher tribunal, were generally concurred in, and considered final.

In 1847, after the death of the Patriarch Marusch, Bishop Hassoun, who had powerful friends at Rome, was appointed by the Pope Archbishop of Constantinople. The congregation, which had had no part in his appoint

ment, considered it an infringement of their sacred rights, and refused to recognize the new Patriarch. This gave rise to a protracted conflict, until Hassoun went to the most prominent members of the congregation, formally declared his appointment to be an exceptional case, and gave them the assurance that the Papal Court had no desire to interfere with or trespass upon the rights of the Armenian Church. A compromise was effected on the condition that the appointment of Bishop Hassoun should not serve as a precedent. In spite of this concession on the part of the Catholic Armenians there was no peace, as Hassoun continued to follow up his ambitious plans, and even succeeded in obtaining the appointment as Civil Patriarch by the Sublime Porte in spite of the protest of the laity. At the expiration of one year, however, and in order to allay the trouble and dissatisfaction among the Catholic Armenians, the Divan withdrew the nomination. The death of the Patriarch Nigogos and of the Patriarch of Cilicia a few years ago was regarded by Hassoun as furnishing an excellent opportunity to obtain both these positions. The Papal Court had secretly promised the support of his election, and when the Bishops of Cilicia assembled in Bezomar, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem appeared among them, took the chair, and declared it to be the desire of the Pope that the Bishops should give their votes to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Bishops being afraid to disobey, Hassoun was elected Patriarch of Cilicia. A few months later, at a convocation of the Oriental Bishops at Rome, the Pope proposed to them to waive their ancient right of electing their Patriarcs, and to confer the privilege upon the Holy See. The Prelates were at a loss what to reply, when Hassoun rose from his seat, declaring that St. Pe ter had spoken to them through the mouth of the Pope, and, inasmuch as his least desires ought to be considered commands, he considered it his duty to renounce the privilege, and hoped to see his Oriental brethren follow his example. The Bishops reluctantly signed a protocol to that effect, and Hassoun was rewarded for his opportune motion by an appointment to the Patriarchate of Sis.

Returned to Stamboul, the new Catholicos succeeded, by many intrigues and the assistance of French diplomacy, to obtain his confirmation by the Sublime Porte, not only as Patriarch of Cilicia, but also as civil Patriarch of the Catholic Armenians of Constantinople, without the consent of the laity, and with an entire disregard of their ancient privileges. A constant interference of the ecclesiastical authority in civil matters finally resulted in a decision of a large majority of the Armenians not to recognize the authority of their Patriarch, whom they considered too feeble to resist the encroachments of the Pope of Rome on the rights of Eastern Catholics. When the news of the action of the dissidents reached Rome, the Pope at once excommunicated some of the thirty clergymen who had joined them, and ordered a notice to that effect to be read out in all the churches of the community which still recognized the authority of Hassoun. Concurrently with this came news that the Pope had dispatched Mgr. Pluym, a Dutch Bishop, who was formerly at Constantinople as Vicar Apostolic, with full powers to assert the authority of the Patriarch and punish insubordina

tion. In answer to a protest sent to Rome by the Armenians on the 5th of February the following communications were made by telegraph to Mgr. Arakelian, representing Hassoun during his sojourn in Rome:

ROME, Feb. 18, 1870.

The silence with which the Holy Father has received the protests and the addresses of the dissentients was in itself a condemnation. Do they wish for one still more explicit? Well, then, he pronounces it, disapproving of what they have done, and enjoining the malcontents to return to order and to recognize the legiti mate representative of the Patriarch, otherwise he will employ his powers. Cardinal BARNABO, Chief of the Propaganda.

And the following to the conservative notables:

ROME, Feb. 18, 1870. Telegram of the 16th received. The Propaganda has telegraphed to-day to Arakelian and Testa. Communicate to all the absolute rejection of the petitions of the radicals. Mgr. Pluym, delegated by peremptory order to sustain the Patriarchal authority, will leave here on the 25th for Constantinople. The new dissident Church is absolutely rejected. Rome will act inexorably.

HASSOUN, Patriarch.

These menaces, however, only served to strengthen the purpose of the seceders to reject "inexorably" on their part all terms of compromise involving submission to Hassoun. In this they seemed likely to be supported by the Grand Vizier, who complied with their prayer to have one or more churches set apart for their use by ordering the large Pera Church of St. John to be handed over to them. A deputation, consisting of Dihran Bey, Ketch-ogin, and four priests, waited on his highness to thank him for his signal favor, and received further assurances that in this, as in all other cases, the Porte would uphold the principle of religious liberty. From Ali Pasha nothing less was, of course, expected. A complete rupture between Rome and the dissidents seemed, therefore, more and more certain,

The concessions made to the dissidents by the Grand Vizier were very significant. Besides two churches which he had turned over to them for their worship, he accorded them a Chancery and a special seal, thus constituting them a civil company.

The Pope's delegate, Mgr. Pluym, was trying all possible direct and indirect means to induce the anti-papal party to retract and acknowledge the spiritual rule of the prelate Hassoun. But his efforts were unsuccessful, the Catholic Armenians being further encouraged to persist in their de mands by the fact that the French and Italian embassadors at Constantinople were instructed by their governments to support the Catholic Armenians in their demand to be recognized as a separate congregation. On the 5th of May the President of the administrative council elected by the dissenters received the imperial confirmation of himself and colleagues as members of the council. This official recognition on the part of the Sublime Porte gained new and numerous adherents for the ArmenoCatholic movement, and even in Psammatia, a quarter which had remained entirely neutral so far, the entire community went over to the dissenters. Mgr. Pluym, whose efforts had only served to sharpen the conflict and to

widen the breach, now tried the means of sending missionaries, males and females, into the families of the strayed sheep, but with no success of any consequence.

On the 7th of May the dissenters sent a petition to the Grand Vizier, signed by over two thousand of their number, stating that, as all their churches, schools, monasteries, hospitals, and other buildings devoted to benevolent purposes, were erected by means of their own congregational funds, in the capital as well as in the provinces, and as no money had ever been contributed from Rome for these purposes, they prayed that the Sublime Porte might graciously condescend to deprive Rome of the jurisdiction over all such property; and inasmuch as the two churches turned over to the dissenters for their worship by the Grand Vizier were altogether inadequate for that purpose, they also prayed that the Grand Vizier might select a competent court of justice, to whose decision the question of the division of the church property could be submitted. They finally prayed that the Grand Vizier might authorize the election of a new Patriarch. Ali Pasha received the deputation of the petitioners with great politeness, and gave them promise of an early settlement of the questions at issue.

The party of Hassoun saw the great danger of such a settlement, which, if the decision should be in favor of the dissenters, would deprive Rome of the immense revenue it had always derived from the administration of the Armenian Church property and domains. The ex-King Francis I. of Naples being at Constantinople at the time, they sent a committee to wait upon him in order to induce him to use his great influence in Rome in favor of the Patriarch Hassoun, whom they represented as the only support of Catholicism in the East, adding that if he should be abandoned at the present critical moment Rome would undoubtedly lose all influence over the Eastern Church,

At this juncture negotiations were resumed between the Papal Court and the Sublime Porte with regard to the right of the latter to confirm the high prelates of the Catholic Church in Turkey. This was due to a menace on the part of Ali Pasha, that, as negotiations had been broken off by the Papal Court in consequence of the intrigues of Hassoun, he would deprive the latter of the "Berat of Investiture." At the same time the Pope addressed a letter to the Catholic Armenians, exhorting them in the usual paternal style to return to the pale of the Church, but threatening to inflict upon them the extreme penalties of the Church in case of further disobedience.

Toward the end of August the Sublime Porte decided to disregard the decree "Reversurus," which made the disposition of the Church property of the Catholic Armenian congregations dependent on the will of the Papal Court. The imperial firman communicating this decision created an immense sensation among the Catholic Armenians, as it solved the most essential part of the question in dispute entirely in their favor. They simply refused to recognize the civil as well as ecclesiastical authority of Hassoun, and, although Ali Pasha had not up to the latest account given his consent to the election of a new Patriarch, no doubt existed at Con

stantinople that this authorization would be obtained at an early date. The last official act of Hassoun was the excommunication of four dissenting Bishops and six clergymen for their refusal to recognize the decrees of the Ecumenical Council at Rome.

ART. X.-FOREIGN LITERARY INTELLIGENCE. THE valuable History of the Evangelical Church in Bohemia, by B. Czerwenka, (Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirche in Böhmen. Bielefeld, vol. i, 1869; vol. ii, 1870,) has been completed by the publication of the second volume. It embraces the period from the end of the fifteenth to the end of the eighteenth century. The author has used a large number of sources, especially such as are written in the Czechic language, which have not been accessible to former historians. A history of the Evangelical Church in the other crown-lands of Austria is expected from the author.

Next to the celebrated work of Janus on "The Pope and the Council," the most important which has appeared out of the midst of the Catholic Church against the late Vatican Council and the promulgation of Papal infallibility as a doctrine, is a work from Schulte, Professor of Canonical Law at the University of Prague, on the "Power of the Roman Popes over Princes, Countries, Peoples, and Individuals," (Die Macht der Römischen Päpste. Prague, 1871.) The author has heretofore passed for one of the ablest and most prominent champions of the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, and his work has, therefore, made a profound impression. He reviews the claims which the Popes, formally and ex cathedrá, have put forward with regard to their power over secular governments, and the stead fast opposition to these claims by Bishops and large Churches. He shows that an adherent of infallibility cannot possibly be a loyal subject of a Protestant prince; yea, hardly of a Catholic prince. The learned author, who by numerous previous writings has shown his thorough acquaintance with the whole literature on the subject, has made use of many documents which have not yet been printed or used by other writers. Professor Schulte has also prefaced and published another work, by a Catholic priest of high standing, which examines from the stand-point of ecclesiastical law the origin of the decree on Papal infallibility, and shows how all the requisite forms of law were set aside in order to reach the desired aim, that the discussion was not free, and that the doctrine is therefore not obligatory for Catholics.

An interesting work on the trial of Galileo has been published by Emil Wohlwill, (Der Inquisitions Prozess des Galileo Galilei. Berlin, 1870.) When the official acts of the trial were returned by the French government to the Papal Court the latter engaged to publish them. This promise was fulfilled in a very imperfect manner by the Papal Recorder, Marini. A complete edition of all the manuscripts from which Marini prepared his mutilated and misleading account was not published until 1867, by Henry