dogmatic as well as moral" (pp. 85, 88).

The monograph on Clement of Alexandria was prefaced by prolegomena, containing a sketch of Clement's life, an analysis of his doctrine, and an inquiry into the historical sources of his doctrine on the Word. For this the author had to examine the relation in which Clement stood in philosophy and theology towards classical antiquity, Alexandrine Judaeism, the Apostolic Fathers, and the first Christian apologists. The subject proper of the essay was divided into two parts: the first treated of the relations of the Word with God; the second considered the Word as the Revealer. The work was well received by the faculty of theology, and its author was declared the successful candidate, 31st of October, 1854. By the advice of Winer and others, and by the kindness of Tischendorf, it was published in March, 1855. Wachsmuth, dean of the faculty of philosophy, advised M. Laemmer to stand his examination for the doctorship in philosophy, and backed his advice by the offer of a burse to enable him to meet the expenses. The young student obtained this degree after having presented a dissertation on the religious philosophy of Clement of Alexandria, and having passed a successful examination.

We have seen that M. Laemmer qualifies this episode in his studies as the first step he made towards Catholicity. It may be asked, what was the special fruit derived by him from these patristic studies? The answer is, that it enabled him to shake off the influence of the Tübingen theories, which had hitherto held sway over his mind. The whole work of that school simply amounts to an attempt to submit to the all-powerful action of critical caprice the canon of Scripture and the most remarkable works of Christian antiquity, and to affirm all their own theories as indisputable facts, while they treat as fables the most authentic facts of history. Now, the more clearly it is proved that the historical origin of Christianity is able to resist the crucial tests to which it has been submitted, the more shadowy and insubsistent do these capricious theories become. Hence, the study undertaken by M. Laemmer did in reality, by occupying him with the objective side of patristic teaching, most powerfully contribute to destroy in his mind the authority of Baur, Hilgenfeld, and the others of the Tübingen school.

Soon after the publication of his work, M. Laemmer was invited to the University of Berlin by his kind friend Lehnerdt, who had never lost sight of his promising pupil, and now wished him to prepare himself for a professor's chair by a solid course of theologico-historical studies. On arriving at Berlin the youthful doctor of philosophy was appointed to hold for two years the Evangelical Centenary Burse, founded by the city of Berlin in commemoration of the three hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. After his conversion many persons demanded that he should make restitution to the burse fund, which, according to them, he had employed against the intentions of the founders.

"But (asks Mr. Laemmer), for what reasons was I chosen in preference to the other candidates? I contented myself with presenting my memoir on the Alexandrine Clement's doctrine on the Word; the examiners of the Leipsic faculty of philosophy testified that I had successfully passed the examination: the faculty of theology of the same city said, amongst other flattering things, that I had applied myself to the studies of theology with equal ardour and success. As to the two memoirs presented for the concursus of 1853 and 1854, it was said that in them I had given proof of solid classical studies, of a remarkable knowledge of theology, of sound judgment, and penetrating mind, and that my work on the Word showed great aptitude for historical investigations. These were beyond doubt the reasons why the committee preferred me to the other candidates; and the sole condition imposed upon me—namely, that of becoming a licentiate, I complied with within the appointed time. Why then all this outcry? Why these demands for restitution, with which even a Hengstenberg has been associated? Herein consists the head and front of my offending, that the use of private judgment, or, to speak accurately, the secret inspirations of God's grace, led me to see the truth and to betake myself to the bosom of the true Church. If, instead, I had become an unbeliever, the slightest murmur of complaint would not have been heard; but when there is question of Catholicism, pietism the most honeyed often makes common cause with the grossest infidelity: the great point then is to form a compact body against the mighty foe" (p. 105, 106).

We cannot linger over the account given by M. Laemmer of the different tendencies he found in the theological faculty of Berlin, nor on the present state or future prospects of the Union. 15 But the name of Hengstenberg 16 is so well known to most Catholics that the description given of him by one who has known him so well, is sure to excite interest.

"The reputation which Hengstenberg had acquired by his numerous works brought him frequently before my mind. The impression he made on me when I saw him at Berlin, did not modify the notion I had long formed of him. It is well known that he passed through many phases of doctrine before he reached the point at which, for some years, he has remained stationary. He left the University full of the pietism of the day, and was immediately appointed professor at Berlin, where, as professor and author, he bent all his energies against the rationalistic criticism, the application of which to the Holy Scriptures had produced such disastrous consequences. It must be admitted that, in this respect, he has brought back to better ways a certain number of his contemporaries; that he has arrested the progress of extravagant criticism; that in his works on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Messianic Prophecies, he has won for sound views the consideration long refused them. But it was impossible that his ablest scholars should not see the weak side of his hermeneutical and theological principles; hence, many of them have abandoned his method for one altogether different. His Commentary on the Apocalypse is assuredly his most characteristic work. To comprehend his stand-point in this work, we must remember that he composed it in 1848 and 1849. In it he frequently and unreservedly favours the chiliastic tendencies of Irving.... He has endeavoured to remove some of the Protestant prejudices against the Catholic Church, such as Luther's blasphemy of the Roman Antichrist. He admits (as Luther did, when under the influence of the Christian idea) that Catholicism is in possession of the word of God, the true sacraments, and the power of the keys. He is clearer and more straightforward than his predecessor Bengel in the Gnomon Novi Testamenti. But he halts in his march, laying himself open to the charge of Catholic tendencies, and could but be silent when reproached by Schenkel, who told him that Romanism was more honourable than the vacillating and intermediate position he had assumed. He resembles Stehl, Kliefoth, and others, who would wish to place in the same setting the jewels of Catholicism and those of Wittemberg; who rank together the theory nothing but the Bible, and the principle of authority; who are but half acquainted with Luther, and almost ignorant of Rome; who, in spite of their pretended adhesion to principle, would be disposed to all kinds of compromises; who lack the courage and the