seven years of study at Wittenberg, was six months at Utrecht, a year at London and Oxford, and a year at Paris. Von Derschow of Königsberg studied in 1635 with Pococke, then a young man; Mieg, of Heidelberg, was in 1633 and 1644 with Lightfoot. In 1675, Dassov of Kiel studied in Oxford with the Jew Abendana, and Danz resorted to the aged Pococke in 1683. Paris and even Geneva were much frequented, especially for the acquisition of the French language. It is a very natural question, how the poor students of that age obtained means for such long journeyings and expensive residences abroad. In the early years of the period, the journey was commonly made in the company of travelling merchants. When Heckermann was recalled, in 1602, from Heidelberg to Dantzic, he had to remain eight days in Frankfort, because there was no Dantzic trader there. From Basle to Dordrecht is now a journey of two days. But the four Swiss commissioners in 1618, partly in a four-horse coach, with an armed guard, and partly by water, took twenty-one days, and received from the government two hundred ducats for expenses. Moreover, these peregrinations were not intermitted during the thirty years' war. The answer to the question is first this-there were in certain universities fixed travelling bounties, as, for instance, at Copenhagen to the amount of three thousand rix-dollars. Then there were benefactions of princes, nobles, and other patrons. Calovius received from the Prussian estates three hundred and thirty dollars for travelling. Winkelmann was sent abroad by his landgrave. Many went as compagnons de voyage. In some cases, especially in Holland, the stranger made something by private lessons. But we must withhold our hand, and advise those who need fuller details to resort to the original volume. ART. III.-History of the Apostolic Church; with a General Introduction to Church History. By PHILIP SCHAFF, Professor in the Theological Seminary, Mercersburgh, Pennsylvania. Translated by EDWARD D. YEOMANS. New York: Pp. 684. THIS work of Dr Schaff having been reviewed in its original form in our Journal,* we do not propose to enter upon any extended examination of its merits in its English dress. We may say, in a single sentence, that the Rev. Mr Yeomans has executed his office of translator with great fidelity and success. It cannot be expected that any version should possess the *The Biblical Repertory, from which this paper is taken, and in which a short review of the original edition of Dr Schaff's work (in German) appeared a short time since. freshness and idiomatic vigour of an original; but Mr Yeomans has certainly succeeded in producing a very satisfactory and trustworthy exhibition of his author. This we consider great praise, for it is an excellence not often attained. The work of Dr Schaff has already excited a great deal of attention, both in this country and Europe. This is prima facie evidence of its merit. It has also received the highest commendations from competent judges of every ecclesiastical and theological status. Its highest praise comes from its severest critics, whose censures assume the form of lamentation. The judgment, therefore, which we expressed upon the work on its first appearance, has been fully sustained by the general verdict. No one can deny that it is characterised by a thorough mastery of the subjects of which it treats; by clearness, order, precision, and conciseness of exhibition; by vivacity and eminent powers of discrimination and portraiture, and by a Christian spirit. Notwithstanding all these grounds of recommendation, it is regarded by many of our best and soundest men with a good deal of misgiving. It is suspected of containing insidious principles of error, only the more dangerous from the plausible and inoffensive manner in which they are presented, and from their association with so much that is true and important. These suspicions have taken the form of an apprehension of a Romanising, or, at least, of antiProtestant leaven, pervading the book. We are not surprised that such suspicions should exist. We think there is good ground for them, both external and internal; that is, both in the status and antecedents of the author, and in the character of the book itself. We, however, no less believe that these suspicions are in many cases exaggerated, and that they rest, in some measure, on misapprehension both of Dr Schaff's position and opinions. It is our object, in the few remarks which we propose to make, to state our own view of the case, and to show how far we think there is just ground of want of confidence in Dr Schaff as a theologian. This is at once a difficult and a delicate task. It is delicate, because there is a very serious responsibility assumed in the public expression of an opinion adapted to weaken confidence in the soundness of such a man, and one for whom we feel personally an affectionate respect. It is a difficult task, because it is almost always hard to understand and appreciate a mode of thought and statement foreign to our own. Dr Schaff greatly misunderstood the American mind when he first came among us, and this misapprehension led him into serious mistakes. In like manner, we are unable properly to understand and appreciate the German mind. We cannot make due allowance for the influence which the peculiar philosophy and modes of thought and expression must exert over the manner in which the same doctrine is presented by minds subject from birth to different training. It is a small part of what is within him that any man can reveal by his words. A thought may lie in his mind, in manifold relations and associations essentially determining its character, very different from those which its most appropriate expression may awaken in the minds of others. This is one fruitful source of misapprehension. There is another, much of the same kind. The reigning philosophy of any age or nation not only impresses itself upon the minds of those who consciously adopt its principles, but to a certain extent modifies the language and modes of thought of the public generally, and even of its opponents. The consequence is, that foreigners who study such philosophy attach a meaning to phrases and modes of statement, wherever found, which belong to them in the system to which they owe their origin or prevalence. Thus the terminology of the pantheistic philosophy of Germany, to a good degree, affects the whole literature and theology of that country. We are very liable, on this account, to set down as pantheists men who have no affinity whatever with that specious form of atheism. Thus it has happened to the holy and humble Neander to be placed in the same category with the self-deifying Hegel; though it is probable neither Europe nor America contained a man who more thoroughly execrated Hegel's doctrine. Dr Schaff has doubtless suffered from the same cause of misapprehension. His whole philosophical and theological training has been foreign to our own. His modes of thought and expression are German rather than English. His language, as interpreted strictly according to the system from which it is borrowed, often conveys a meaning inconsistent with his clearly expressed opinions, but on that account not the less adapted to be misapprehended. When to all this is added the imperfect knowledge of German philosophy and theology generally possessed by the readers of this book, it is not at all wonderful that he should have been in many cases unfairly condemned, or that the proper understanding of his position is a matter of no small difficulty. Of the external circumstances which have tended to produce a suspicion of a Romanising tendency on the part of Dr Schaff, the most important is his association with Dr Nevin. The latter gentleman has justly, as we think, forfeited entirely the confidence of the Protestant community. Under the disingenuous designation of "ultra-Protestantism," he has, in his later writings especially, impugned and contemptuously rejected almost every principle which constituted the Protestantism of the Reformers themselves. This is done, too, with a ness. degree of acrimony and contempt which shows his heart is thoroughly turned against every thing that deserves the name of Protestantism, and that his position in the Protestant Church is just as anomalous as was that of Dr Newman when he published his famous Tract No. 90. To be associated with one who has publicly assailed Protestantism in its most essential principles, as Dr Schaff has been with Dr Nevin, justifies and even necessitates grave suspicions as to his own soundWe fully believe that he differs essentially from Dr Nevin, that he seriously disapproves of many of his principles and measures, and that he deeply laments the position in which his friend and colleague has placed himself and his associates. We believe also that he is withheld only by feelings of personal regard and affection, highly honourable to him as a man, from avowing publicly what he regards as a radical difference between Dr Nevin and himself. The fact, however, that he voluntarily consents to be misapprehended, rather than appear to desert a friend or turn against a brother, does not render such misapprehension the less certain or injurious. So long as he not only fails publicly to avow his dissent from Dr Nevin, but continues, as he does even in this his latest publication, to speak of him in terms of such high commendation, he has no right to expect that Protestants can regard him with confidence. The relation in which these two gentlemen stand to each other seems indeed to be very generally mistaken. Dr Schaff has been frequently represented in the public prints as the master spirit, and Dr Nevin as his neophyte. Every thing German or Romish which emanates from the latter has been attributed to the instigation and influence of the former. This we believe is an entire mistake. In the first place, Dr Schaff is much the younger man of the two. When he came to this country, fresh from the university, he found Dr Nevin a man in mature life, of established reputation, and extended influence. He looked up to him, therefore, as a parent, or at least as an elder brother, and has always stood in this relation to him. In the second place, Dr Nevin is much the stronger We do not say the abler, the more learned, or the superior man-but simply, the stronger; stronger in will, in conviction, and in feeling. In saying this, we no more intend to put the one above the other, than if we had said that Dr Nevin were the taller of the two. The strength we speak of is a matter very much of constitution, but it gives power. It determines who shall lead and who follow. In the third place, every one who knows any thing of Dr Nevin's mental history knows that he was thoroughly imbued with the principles which have at length brought forth their legitimate fruit, VOL. III.-NO. IX. ន long before Dr Schaff came to this country. The roads which lead to Rome are very numerous. Some men go there by the path of inward experience. Sensible of guilt, unable to save themselves, ignorant of the gospel or averse to it, they gladly submit themselves to a Church which promises to save all who acknowledge her authority and submit to her prescriptions. Others, as the Puseyites, take the road of history. Conceiving of the Church to which the promises belong as a visible organised body, it is a mere matter of fact what organization of professing Christians has the best claim to uninterrupted succession, to external unity, and to catholicity, or wide diffusion. Every one can see that these attributes are found pre-eminently in the Romish Church, and therefore, by all the force of logic, they are constrained to bow the knee to Rome. Another road, less frequented and less obvious, but not less dangerous, is the philosophical. There is a strong affinity between the speculative system of development, according to which every thing that is is true and rational, and the Romish idea of a selfevolving infallible Church. As God is the principle which unfolds itself in history, so the Spirit dwells in this external Church as its principle of life, and expands it outwardly and inwardly in all its forms of doctrine, discipline, and worship. No one can read the exhibitions of the Church and of theology. written even by Protestants under the influence of the speculative philosophy, without seeing that little more than a change of terminology is required to turn such philosophy into Romanism. Many distinguished men have already in Germany passed by this bridge from philosophical scepticism to the Romish Church. A distinct class of the Romanising portion of the Church of England belongs to this philosophical category. Dr Nevin had entered this path long before Dr Schaff came from Germany to point it out to him. It is, therefore, a great injustice, as we conceive, to Dr Schaff, to make him responsible for the opinions and measures of Dr Nevin. They do not stand to each other in the relation of deluder and dupe, of manager and tool, of master and pupil. Dr Nevin has doubtless thought and acted for himself, and, it is probable, would have made more rapid progress Rome-ward than he has actually done had his German friend and colleague never come to America. Though we do not regard Dr Schaff as being at the bottom of Dr Nevin's Romanism, we nevertheless think that the intimate association between them, and the silence of the former as to the anti-Protestantism of the latter, and his continued laudation of him as a historian and theologian, justly expose him to the suspicions of the Protestant community. Another external circumstance which gives just ground for |