, 1875-05-19

tuted authorities by overt acts and Its
proprlety or improperly, which will be
Judged ultimately by its success or failure,
will be Judged in the meantime in different
quarters upon the opinion that may
be entertained as to whether the political
authority has, in making the laws, gone be-
yond the true sphere Of the law-making
power, and concerned itself with points of
morality and faith rather than with govern
ment. 1t is claimed inRome thatthis is what
has been done, and that for this reason
the enactments are without validity as
law. In short, the position of the Church
party in Germany is analogous to that of
the "higher law party" of which we
have had some experience in cur own
country. Rome makes q claim now that
it never made in any country where the
political authority was subject to lis
will or in harmony with its will. 1t as
sutnes the unusual attitude Of a champion
Of religious liberty, 1t holds for the time,
with Constant and the political philoso-
pliers, that there is a part of the life Of
every human creature into which govern
msnt can only come as an intruder where
it is without right aud cannot justly exer-
else any control aud-here il does not
agree with the phiIosophers-that in this
sphere the Church alone is supreme.
Are the German laws that have led to
this dispute such as come within the claim
made by the Church Do they invade
that sphere in which only the religious
authority should be supreme? They regu.
late how and by whom certain salaried
offices Of the German Empire shall be-
filled, and they recite the reasons for which
in defined cases the salaries shall be with
held and the offices become vacant. In
asmuch as these laws relate directly to the
disbursement Of money raised by taxa
ton in the German Empire they would
seem to be as clearly within the exclusive
competence of the German government as
laws on any conceivable subject. But the
persons whose salaries are thus touched by
the ecclesiastical laws" are priests and
pedagogues education and worship are
the subjscts involved and the Church
claims that the laws exercise an undue and
improper pressure against its doctrines.
No doctrines are sought to be imposed by
the German authorities. Only they re-
quire that the person who o~ffiGiates as
priest or bishop shall be recognized by
the government, aud shall be ousted from
his position by the government from which
he draws his salary if he raises his voice
against its supremacy within its own do
minions. l, is toIerabIy clear, therefore,
that the real point in dispute is as to where
the line is to be drawn between God and
Caesar. That which is called religion on
one hand is called politics on the other.
His Holiness claims supreme control over
the religious instruction of certain German
subjects, and then proceeds to teach them
what the German government says shall
not be taught, because it is not religion,
but politics. But the government, which
pays the salaries, says that the salaries shall
not be paid, nor priest nor bishop oficlate,
unless each shall acknowledge the supre-
macy of the laws and give over all propa-
gandism against them and this the Church
says is not political Legislation, but legIsla-
ton that affects morality aud faith and reli-
gion by pressure imposed on the priesthood.
With the difference in this position the
characteristic vigor in dispute of the Ger
man Premier gives it suddenly a FLIP OF
variety. He inquiries who gave the Pope
authority to supervise German enactments
and to say what laws the Parliament may
make and for what laws its authority 10 IN.
sufficient. By what right does he pretend