"letters" and "decrees" purport to have been written.* This clumsy and palpable counterfeit was executed in the ninth century; it was suspected at the very cock-crowing that preceded the dawn of the sixteenth, and was exposed, beyond all possibility of denial or doubt, by the earliest light of the Reformation. "The pressure of Protestant criticism" has driven it to the wall, and demonstrated its absurdity so effectually that no respectable Romanist could now be found who would claim the least authenticity for it. But Dr. S., in classifying the sources of church history, places these "official letters, decrees, and bulls of the popes," in "A. a. 1," and pronounces them "pure, original utterances of history!" Should Dr. S. ever find leisure to give an account of the sources of secular history, we may expect him to put the Golden Ass of Apuleius, the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, and the History of Dietrich Knickerbocker, in “A. a. 1," as pure, original utterances of history."

And what sort of revelations the "bulls of the Popes" would afford in the "department of doctrine and govern

* *

Blondell (Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes) mentions the above and a multitude of other anachronisms and contradictions, in these "letters of the popes." The above work of Blondell so completely demolished all claim of the collection to authenticity, that no Romanist can hold up his head at the mention of it. "To say anything on this subject after Blondell," says Cave, "would be to make an Iliad after Homer." Cave pronounces the collection "stupenda plane impostura et ita quidem esse, uno fere ore jam agnoscunt cordatiores Pontificii"-(" a stupendous imposture manifestly, and that it is so in fact, all the more sensible papists now, with nearly one consent, acknowledge.") Script. Ecc. Hist. Seculum ix., p. 445. The eminent Romanist, Baluze (cited by Cave), calls the compiler impudentissimus ille nebulo (that shameless vagabond). Constantius (Romanist) Prolegom. ad Epist. Pont., admits in full that they are forgeries. So does Fleury, Hist. Ecc. Diss., Pref. to the 16th vol. (cited by Mosheim, vol. ii., pp. 126, 7). Even Bellarmine has not a stomach strong enough for them. He says, Epistolæ SS. quæ nunc extant non carent scrupulo. Nam constat S. Jacobum, ad quem scribuntur duæ epistolæ, obiisse multo ante S. Petrum: et tamen in iis significatur mors S. Petri.-Bell. de Script. Ecc. Yet here we have Dr. Schaff, a German, and a professed protestant, pronouncing "the official letters of bishops, particularly the bulls of popes," "decrees and bulls," sine "scrupulo," without the slightest caution or discrimination, "immediate sources," "pure utterances, &c. The reader will doubtless mark the adroit wording of the enumeration. But it will by no means enable Dr. Schaff to evade the responsibility of the avowal.

ment," the reader may conclude from a glance at the bulls "In Coena Domini" and "Unigenitus ;" or, in fact, from almost any "bull" which has ever been "fulminated" from the papal throne.

But "letters, decrees, and bulls of the Popes" are not the only "pure, original utterances of history." To this class also belong, "2. Inscriptions; particularly upon tombs." The high veneration which Dr. S. has for "relics," * causes him, doubtless, to attach this great importance to "tombs" as "immediate or direct sources" of church history.

To the same class belong, "6. Unwritten (sources); particularly church edifices, religious paintings, the Gothic domes of the middle ages, are of the greatest mo

ment for the historian."

At a modest distance after "decrees and bulls of the popes,' ," "tombs," "religious paintings and Gothic domes," come "the accounts and representations of historians," among which are admitted "the Acts of the Apostles," which Dr. S. allows, however, to be "almost the same as immediate sources;" i. e. the narrative of the accurate and truthful Luke," a man of God," moreover, whose " scripture is all given by inspiration of God," is "almost the same" (not quite) to the student of history, as the pseudo-Isidorus, the admitted forger of "the false decretals," "the acts of councils," "the letters of bishops," "the bulls of popes," "monastic rules," "inscriptions upon tombs," "religious paintings," "Gothic domes," &c., &c. The inspired narrative is, in fact, only five degrees lower in value and "importance" than these remarkably veracious "documents," "A. a. 1 Bulls and decrees of the popes and monastic rules. 2 Inscriptions upon tombs. b: Religious paintings, Gothic domes, &c. (The above are all "immediate or direct sources-pure utterances of history.") Then

"In the Roman Catholic Church

remembrancers of the world unseen meet us on all sides, in crosses, churches, images of saints, relics, and expressive symbols of every kind." Dr. S. cites this as a reason why “she exercises a much greater power than Protestantism over the consciences and spirits of those who stand in her communions." (Prin. of Prot., p. 140.) Why does not Dr. Schaff "stand in her communion," and avail himself to the full of the spiritual benefits to be derived from such "remembrancers of the world unseen," as "crosses," "images" of saints," "relics," &c., &c.}

*

follow, "Mediate or indirect sources: B. a. Acts of the Apostles, by Luke," &c. Such is Dr. Schaff's scale of historical credulity! Such is his conception of "immediate sources-pure utterances of history!"

"Among the mediate sources," continues Dr. S., "though in a very subordinate rank " (i. e. one degree lower than "the Acts of the Apostles, by Luke," the transition being only from "a" to "b"), "we may place oral traditions, legends, and popular sayings, which are often characteristic of the spirit of their age: the saying, for example, current through the middle ages, that the church, since her union with the state under Constantine, had lost her virginity."*

What sort of a stream will flow out of such "sources" the reader may conjecture. It is to hold on its course, it seems, through eighteen centuries. If it is so filthy in its first gushing forth, it is hard indeed to tell" to what complexion it will come at last."

It is hardly worth while after this to find fault with Dr. Schaff's "division of church history." His "FIRST AGE" is "the primitive, or the Græco-Latin universal church, from its foundation on the day of Pentecost, to Gregory the Great (A. D. 30-590); thus embracing the first six centuries."

What possible reason can there be for comprising "the first six centuries" within one "age?" What resemblance or congruity between the first century and the sixth? What even between the second and the fifth? No two continuous centuries, in fact, are so utterly unlike as the third and fourth (unless we except the fifteenth and sixteenth). In the third, the church was still bleeding and fainting under persecution and the world's contempt. Before the middle of the fourth she had become the opulent and powerful ally of the State, her bishops independent of, and superior to, secular judges and magistrates. Dr. Schaff thus defines an "age :" "A new age will commence where the church, with a grand and momentous revolution, not only passes into an entirely new outward state, but also takes, in her inward development, a wholly different direction."† Now,

* Some truth in that "oral tradition," at least. † Ap. Ch., p. 36.

if the Christian church did not, "with a grand and momentous revolution, pass into an entirely new outward state" in the fourth century, it would be difficult to find such a "revolution" in history. From being arraigned as a criminal before kings and governors, she was acknowledged, honored, and enriched as the ally of the autocrat of the civilized world. From being denounced and doomed as "a mover of sedition," "an enemy of the human race," an abetter of impiety and atheism, she is now extolled as the source of all that is pure and excellent in humanity. Till the third century had considerably advanced, she had not, like her Master, where to lay her head. She owned not a house on earth in which to assemble her disciples. "In an upper room," "on the sea shore," "by the river side," in the sepulchres, "in dens and caves of the earth," they gathered stealthily and tremblingly to pray, and praise, and "feed their souls with the inspired utterances." By the middle of the fourth she had magnificent churches of her own, a ritual considerably matured, bishops with large revenues and extensive sway, and with pride, luxury, and tyranny to match. As her "foundation" was laid by her divine Lord, she was "not of this world." Who could affirm this of that which bore her name in the sixth century? Was not here" a grand and momentous revolution ”—“an entirely new outward state?" And whoever looks, by way of comparison, into the epistles of Paul and Peter, and the letters of "Gregory the Great," will, we think, discern, "in her inward development, a wholly different direction." This division is a bold violation of historical truth and unity, for no other purpose, we apprehend, than to get the rise of the Papacy into the same "age" with "the primitive or universal church;" to embark "Gregory the Great" in the same bottom with the apostles, that they may sail down the stream of history, and meet the admiring gaze of mankind together. But it will not do. The papal craft must cut loose from such "goodly fellowship," hoist its own colors, and meet its own destinies.

We only notice Dr. Schaff's "division " further, to observe that his "ninth" (or last) "period" partakes of a sort of prophetico-historic character. It is as follows:

"Ninth Period.-Subjective and negative protestantism (rational

ism and sectarianism), and positive preparation for a new age in both churches (from the middle of the eighteenth century to the present time)."

Such are the two and only constituent elements, according to Dr. Schaff, of Protestantism "from the middle of the eighteenth century to the present time,"-" rationalism and sectarianism!" No wonder that Dr. S. considers it "in an interimistic" (i. e. perishing) "state." The present stage of its aufhebung (to follow out this Hegelian formula) will negate or abolish all that has gone before; and the next will. present it in a new form! The tendency of this "ninth period" is, "a positive preparation for a new age in both churches" (the Protestant and Roman). What this "new age," this "magnificent UNION," as it stands revealed to the eye of our historic seer, is to be, will appear in the sequel.

The reader will now be hardly surprised at the assertion that Dr. Schaff's "History of the Apostolic Church" is neither more nor less than a historical plea for the papacy. Thither his "sources" and "divisions," his theories, criticisms, "legends," and vaticinations plainly tend. But the proof is still more lamentably and overwhelmingly certain. Through the misty drapery of Dr. Schaff's philosophy, every essential feature of the papal system stands forth with a prominence so sharply defined, as to leave doubt impossible, and charity in despair.

The first of these which we shall mention is "the primacy of Peter," which Dr. Schaff pronounces " a subject of vast importance," and justly observes that "the claims of the papacy are well known to centre here." Dr. Schaff fully asserts "the primacy of Peter," and devotes about thirty pages of his work to the proof of it, and the exposition of its relations to the Christian church and its history.

The character of Peter" is his first topic and source of proof.

"This apostle was distinguished from the other eleven by an ar

* Prin. of Prot., p. 178.

The italics are his own; p. 374. n. ‡ Ap. Ch., p. 348–377.