196 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DOM PEDRO II. 



The fraternity, in united council, decided to beseech tbe bishop to with- 

 draw this order as being doubly illegal. It required what was in fact 

 contrary to the organic rules of the fraternity, which authorized no 

 expulsion of its members on account of being Masons, and contrary 

 also tq_ the constitution of Brazil, which required (article 102, § 14) that 

 apostolic letters and other ecclesiastical mandates must receive the con- 

 firmation of the government before they could be carried into execution. 

 Xow, the order condemning Masonry had not been authorised with the 

 imperial seal ; besides, the fraternities were not only religious but civil 

 orders, and in the latter capacity did not come under the authority of 

 the church. Au order such as that of the bishop of Pernambuco had 

 never before been given by any of the bishops of the empire, Masonry 

 in Brazil having the same legal title to existence as auy other society 

 whatever. 



Notwithstanding these considerations, which the fraternity endeav- 

 ored to impress upon the bishop, the latter persisted in his design, and 

 ended by pronouncing the sentence of interdiction, by which the mem- 

 bers of the fraternity were forbidden to appear in any religious cere- 

 mony whatever with the insignia of the society. The fraternity en- 

 treated the bishop in vain to withdraw this severe and illegal restric- 

 tion ; they then carried it, as an abuse, to the crown, founding their 

 appeal upon the requirement of the constitution which had been dis. 

 regarded. 



The government, wishing to act with prudence and justice, consulted 

 the council of state, which was of the opinion that the bishop had abused 

 his authority in requiring the expulsion of the masonic members of the 

 fraternity, and in pronouncing against the society the sentence of inter- 

 diction, inasmuch as the organic laws of the fraternity were under the su- 

 pervision of the civil authority, the bishop having only the right to approve 

 and control those appertaining to religious matters. In consequence of 

 this decision the government ordered the bishop to withdraw, within a 

 month, the sentence of interdiction. The bishop not only refused obe- 

 dience himself to this requirement, but enjoined the same on his vicars, 

 under threat of suspension ex informata conscientia, a threat he im- 

 mediately executed upon one of them who merely seemed irresolute. 

 He besides declared in a public address that he had not taken the de- 

 mands of the constitution into account, as he recognized no higher au- 

 thority than that of the church. This act of real rebellion obliged the 

 government to prosecute the bishop for disobedience to the laws, but 

 this was not done without again consulting the council of state, this 

 time in full conclave. An embassador was at the same time sent to 

 Home to demand the support of the Pope against the refractory bishop, 

 which proves conclusively that the imperial government desired to re- 

 main on good terms with the religious power. The Emperor was, besides, 

 quite ready to remit any penalty the tribunal might impose upon the 

 bishop, if the Pope induced the prelate to withdraw the interdiction. 



