stubborn even for "critical" manipulation. Fortunately we can, to a great extent, restore the text of Marcion's Luke, and it is now confessed by all who have studied the controversy, it is in truth a matter of demonstration, that Marcion got his Luke out of ours by the free use of the knife. This again is an unintelligible proceeding if there were ancient documents which would have served his ends. On turning from forgeries to early and undisputed records, everything agrees with the belief in the original harmony of the Apostles. If we take the Epistle to the Galatians as it is, instead of following Baur, who puts his ideas into it, we can easily satisfy our ourselves that in spite of this misunderstanding at Antioch, Peter and Paul were one in principle. St. Paul went up to see Peter at Jerusalem three years after his conversion, then again at an interval of fourteen years, and on this second occasion difficulties had arisen about circumcision. But St. Paul distinguishes between the false brethren (the Taρsioaктo), and the Apostles. The former wished to spy out Christian liberty that they might "enslave" converts; the latter gave St. Paul the "right hand of fellowship," recognized the "grace given to him," and his dignity as the Apostle of the Gentiles. Even at Antioch, St. Paul withstood his brother Apostle to the face, precisely because his practice was inconsistent with his belief, and inconsistent with itself, and it was this which made him karɛyvwoμivos. The whole object of St. Peter, as St. Paul lets us know, was to avoid shocking prejudice and raising opposition. We cannot go on to elucidate the matter more completely, with the light which is thrown upon it by the Acts of the Apostles,* for M. Renan would contend that this book is a studious perversion of history with the design of glossing over the difference between the Apostles. But how did the Acts of the Apostles pass current, and pass current so soon, as true history? If there is one thing more than another which strikes us in the early Christians, it is the tenacity with which they held to tradition. We have seen above, the immense authority which men who had been appointed to teach by the Apostles themselves enjoyed in the Church; we know how sedulous Papias was in collecting the traditions of the elders, in noting down "what Andrew, or Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples had said" (Euseb. Hist. iii. cap. ult.); how Irenæus later on gathered up the traditional fragment of Apostolic teaching (Iren. iv. 27). How was it then that if, as

The first epistle of Peter offers even greater difficulties to the Tübingen critics. They acknowledge that it contains Pauline doctrine. Yet at early as the time of Papias, it was accepted as the work of Peter (Euseb. Hist. iii. 39, 17).

the first century was at its close, so astounding a change passed over the face of Christianity, all recollection of it was lost? The Epistle of Clement was written to a distant Church by a man of high position, and endowed with greatness of character, within a generation of the Apostle's death. Yet in his Epistle, all trace of opposition between the Apostle is absent; the author has evidently no idea that the Apostles taught two kinds of Christianity. Clement, of all people, must have had the best reason to recall these early controversies, for Rome, M. Renan informs us, "had two churches, the one descending from Peter, the other from Paul" (p. 132). It is all very well to reassure us by a fanciful picture (p. 133) of the manner in which "the lives of the Apostles began to fade away from men's minds. All who had known them were gone, and for the most part without leaving any record behind. Upon this virgin canvas, men were free to paint what picture they liked." One misstatement here, we have already corrected by anticipation. Let the reader bear the correction in mind, and then think if this account of things is credible. Is it credible that Clement, who lived among the friends of the Apostles, was so ignorant of Apostolic history? Is it credible that he was able to present facts in the presence of men who were unable to contradict him? Free-thinkers profess to construct the history of Christianity on natural principles, and then tax our credulity to a degree which would not be tolerated in common history. We are a thousand times more manly, more respectful both to history and reason, if we accept the divinity of our religion, instead of forcing upon natural causes a weight which they will not bear.

A little attention to the dates at which the books of the New Testament were written may save us from another error. A great teacher, who was a mere man, might in the lapse of time be deified by his followers. His real history, if there were no contemporary records, might be gradually forgotten, and after those who had known him had passed away, fable and devout imagination might depict him as a worker of wonders, or even as a god. But to bring this about time is needed, and myth cannot displace historical truth while personal recollection is still clear and vigorous. We suppose this is true of any age, but it is obviously true of an age which has the advantage of literature and civilization. Yet, if we believe the adversaries of the Christian faith, we are obliged to suppose that this did take place with regard to our Lord. St. Paul, who knew the very men who walked on the earth with Christ, speaks of him not only as risen from the dead, but also as the Lord who had ransomed men with his blood (Rom. iii. 24), as the source

of every grace, as of Him before whose judgment-seat we are all to stand (Rom. xiv. 10).* In another Epistle, that to the Hebrews, we find an elaborate theology based on the person and work of Christ. We have nothing to do for the present with the authorship of this Epistle. Whoever may have written it, it belongs in any case to a very early period. Hilgenfeld even, is obliged to place it about the year 70 after Christ, and no one can place it much later, for it is largely quoted by St. Clement of Rome. Yet it assumes that through Christ the worlds were made; that he is the God whose throne is for ever and ever. It represents the eternal Father as introducing Him, the first begotten, into the world, and bidding all the angels adore him. It is idle to talk, in the face of facts like these, about the natural development of religion. It is anything but natural that a human teacher should be so glorified in the lifetime of those who knew him. There is no parallel which can be brought from other history to justify belief in the growth of so strange a delusion. It is easier to believe that Christ was God than that he was a mere man, with merely human powers, whom his disciples mistook for God.

In conclusion, we will bar the way against a possible misconception of our own meaning. We are very far from wishing to ignore the fact that natural causes, or as we should prefer to put it, the ordinary course of God's providence, did materially assist the cause of Christianity and the Church. All we have been striving to prove is, that there are in the history of the Christian religion direct proofs of miraculous interposition, and that Christianity could not have succeeded as it did, unless Christ was God, and unless His Church had been a divine work. If this be granted, we are thankful for any light which can be thrown on the natural causes which helped the victory of the true religion. He most assuredly would be a timid and a halfhearted Christian who shrank from acknowledging that the Roman empire and the Greek language had been powerful agents in the service of Christ. The ancient Apologists loved to dilate on such topics, as fresh proofs that Christ was the sent of God. So in truth they are, and so we will see them to be, if we do but consider them in their proper connection. The God whom Christians adore is the God both of Nature and of grace, and He ordered the forces of the one and of the other, in favour of the cause which was his own.

W. E. ADDIS.

In the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul separates Christ utterly from mere men, and places Him in juxtaposition with God the Father. He was an Apostle, he says, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.

ART. VI.-HISTORY OF THE PRUSSIAN

"KULTURKAMPF."

PART III.

THE NEW LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS.

CCORDING to all appearances, the Chancellor of the German Empire had good reason to congratulate himself upon the Parliamentary measures of 1874. A series of laws had been enacted against the Catholic Church, and, humanly speaking, provided only these laws were rigorously enforced, the Government must be victorious. Moreover, Bismarck was not idle in seeking from abroad the means of resistance to Rome. To his influence was probably owing the departure of Austria from the Catholic traditions of the ancient House of Hapsburg in her "Confessional Laws." The enemies of the Church in Baden and in Hesse were attentive to every sign on the part of the Imperial Chancellor; whilst, to the effect of the "cold shoulder" given to France by Germany may be ascribed the announcement by the Duc de Decazes to the National Assembly, that France was prepared to maintain friendly relations with the Italian Government as circumstances had established it. Further, the recall of the Orénoque, the only remaining French vessel at Civita-Vecchia, was felt to be in compliance with the wishes of Bismarck. Italy herself, in her revolutionary enactments touching all things hitherto held sacred by the laws of God and the Church, openly boasted of her identity of interests and her alliance with the Prussian monarchy. The cruel persecution of Catholics in Switzerland, and especially in the Canton of Berne, was at least countenanced, if not actually aroused, by the German Chancellor. Even the absurd attempt on the part of Turkey to support Old Catholicism in her empire, may be traced to the same influence; for example, the forcible introduction of sectaries into the Armenian Patriarchal Church was nothing less than the humiliation of France. It seemed, therefore, as if in every Government hostile to the Church the hand of the mighty Chancellor was visible. And yet was all this labour and trouble to be pro nihilo? In the midst of the alarming storm which threatened the Church in every direction, her venerable Head maintained his calm dependence upon God, and his unshaken confidence in the Almighty protection. Abandoned by every earthly power, a prisoner in his own city, outwardly a very sign and symbol of impotence and helplessness, Pius IX. prepared to enter the lists with the strongest Government in the world,

and this with a resolution and courage as determined as if the Papacy were in the hour of her greatest ascendancy. In Prussia, be it added, clergy and people were prepared to carry out, as one man, every admonition which should fall from the lips of the Supreme Pastor.

The opening of the year 1875 saw nearly all the bishops, and a large number of priests, in prison; the Bishops of Posen-Gnesen and Paderborn had been declared "deposed" by the Court for the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Matters, and a similar fate apparently awaited all the Catholic clergy of the land. The Government and the various Protestant parties began openly to speculate upon the submission to the laws of an adequate number of priests, and the readiness of the parishes to accept Old Catholic pastors. With a view to create discord between the clergy and their flocks, the Government had just prepared a fresh law, by which the administration of ecclesiastical property was to be placed in the hands of the laity.

The danger threatening the Church in Prussia was indeed great the tempter was powerful, and his voice enticing. Here and there, also, some timid and fainthearted Catholic would suggest that submission to a Government so mighty as that of Prussia could not be withheld; and who could say what would happen when all the bishops should be either banished or dead? Thereupon Pius IX. came forward to dispel all doubts. Taking occasion of the deposition by the State of the Bishops of Posen and Paderborn to complain bitterly of the persecution directed against the Church in Prussia, the Holy Father declared in his Encyclical of February 5, 1875, that " Whilst the Bishops might truly be pronounced happy, inasmuch as they were suffering for God's honour, yet the contempt of their episcopal prerogatives, the grievous violation of the rights and liberties of the Church, and the miseries inflicted upon whole dioceses, called for the authoritative interposition of the Chief Pastor." In the following words, the Pope there declared the laws enacted against the Church in Prussia to be non-obligatory: "Ad has partes Nostri muneris implendas intendimus per hasce litteras aperta testatione denunciantes omnibus ad quos ea res pertinet, et universo Catholico orbi leges illas irritas esse, utpote quæ divinæ ecclesiæ constitutioni prorsus adversantur." The laws themselves were aptly characterized by the Pope in the following terms: "One can scarcely imagine these laws to have been framed for the purpose of dealing with free citizens, and to expect obedience from them; rather would they seem to have as their object the extortion of an unwilling obedience from a set of slaves." The attitude of anger and irritation now assumed by the Government and the various factions in league with it, made all dispassionate