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 humility requisite to comprehend that the fragments of truth possessed by Luther have been borrowed from the immense and indivisible treasure of the Church. The Church has nothing to hope from men of this class; they lack a thorough and absolute thirst for truth; they are self-complacent; they imagine themselves to have received from heaven an extraordinary mission like the prophets; they assume the right to dictate to the infallible authority of the Church; to satisfy them, we must become syncretists, and ask them in what is it their pleasure that the Catholic Church should modify in its doctrines, its ceremonies, and its discipline; men of fine phrases, and not of action; more of show than of reality" (p. 117).
During his residence at Berlin, M. Laemmer entered upon a careful preparation for the degree of doctor of divinity. He devoted himself more and more to the study of the Fathers; the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity left him an humble and firm believer in that august mystery. In 1856 his mind received a fresh and more decided impulse in the direction of the Church. In that year the Berlin faculty of theology gave as the subject of the concursus, Give an exposition (from the documents) of the Roman Catholic doctrine, contained in the memorial presented to Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, in as far as it appears to throw light on the true Evangelical doctrine set forth in the Augsburg Confession. This subject was chosen for the concursus by Lehnerdt, who felt that Catholic theology, from the beginning of the Reformation to the Council of Trent, was almost entirely unknown. M. Laemmer having resolved to become one of the competitors, at once set about the necessary study. He first examined the Protestant confessional books, in order to fix the points at issue between them and their adversaries. If he were to trust these authorities, nothing could be clearer than the stupid ignorance of the Catholics, and the wisdom of the Protestants. But the declamation with which this was urged appeared to him to be the language of passion. He determined to learn from their own writings the character of the Catholic theologians so soundly abused by their opponents. He first examined the Official refutation of the Augsburg Confession, the joint work of the flower of the Catholic theologians, Eck, Faber, Wimpina, etc.; next he came to the various works published by them, before and after 1530, against the various successive developements of Protestantism; then came the German theology of Berthold Chiemsie; the Confession of Cardinal Hosius; Erasmus; Tetzel; Henry VIII.; Fisher, Bishop of Rochester; Ambrosius Catharinus; the Sorbonne; Sadoletus; Contarini; the minutes of the conferences held at that epoch in Germany and Switzerland; the Pontifical instructions in Rainaldi and Leplat, and last, the acts of the Imperial Diet, as far as they touched on religious and ecclesiastical questions. In all, he had to study seventy Catholic works of the period.
"God knows", he tells us, "how I was moved as I read them, and how violent were the struggles in which I was engaged. I endeavoured to resist the force of the arguments before me, but I could not. I would not permit myself to call in question that great axiom of Protestants, that the Reformation was right and necessary. The humility required to correspond with the motions of grace was wanting to me; scientific pride still insisted on its pretended rights. I had only arrived so far as to understand that the opinions pronounced by the reformers on their adversaries were frequently partial, erroneous, and malevolent; that the intellectual power of these latter was not so contemptible as it had been represented; and finally, that their principles had been frequently travestied at the pleasure of the fathers of Protestantism" (p. 139).
Having completed his study of these sources, he arranged his materials in the following order: The first chapter treated of the Church, the Primacy, the Scripture, Tradition, the Councils; the second, of the state of innocence, of the fall, of original sin and its consequences; the third, of free-will and grace; the fourth, of justification, of the fulfilment of the law, and of the evangelical counsels; then came the sacraments in genere et in specie; finally, the saints and the worship due to them. The title of his manuscript was De Theologia Romano-Catholica quae Reformatorum aetate viguit, ante-Tridentina. The work was successful, and received high praise from the faculty of theology. It was said, however, that the author was too impartial—nimis justus—towards Catholicism. This qualification was added at the request of Hengstenberg, who did not like too well the favourable notice given of Catholic writers. And yet notwithstanding all this, Dr. Laemmer was still far from being a Catholic. He himself tells us that at most he had arrived at the position held by Leo. On the 3rd of August, 1856, he received the prize, and had the satisfaction of learning at the same time that his memoir was accepted as the dissertation required for the license. In a few days he passed the rigorosum, and in the same month made his public disputation, taking for the theme of his introductory discourse St. Bernard's work, De consideratione. He received his license, and immediately left Berlin for the country to recruit his shattered health. In the country he preached frequently, wrote an analysis of G. Voigt's Pius II. and his age, and a dissertation on the doctrine of justification, held by the Catholic theologian, Contarini, in which he now admits he was mistaken as to his estimate of the sentiments of that divine. Returning to Berlin with renewed health, he was appointed to give religious instruction, and to teach Hebrew in the Frederic Gymnasium. It must have been a difficult task for one perplexed in mind as M. Laemmer was, to undertake the religious instruction of a body of young men at the very doors of the University of Berlin. Among his youthful hearers he found open infidelity, rationalism, the doctrines of Schleiermacher, Pietism, confessionalism, in one word, each class was a miniature copy of the Protestant world around. But he did not swerve from the path of duty. He boldly set before them, as the central truth of religion, the Man-God dying on the cross for the world. In vain did his hearers bring forward the pretended results of modern criticism, and natural explanations of supernatural facts; M. Laemmer insisted with energy upon the credibility and the inspiration of S. Scriptures, and on the miracles and prophecies narrated in them. He also made it his duty to lead his charge to love and practise prayer. In spite of their resistance he obliged even the higher classes to recite the Decalogue and the Apostles' Creed; and he was consoled by seeing his firmness rewarded by the happiest results. At Easter, 1857, he passed his examination for the doctor's degree, having chosen for the subject of his theme Pope Nicholas I. and the Court of Byzantium. Again he was successful: Lehnerdt, to whom he had dedicated his thesis, observed to him with great gentleness that he was not far from Hurter's idea of the Papacy. And in truth this last labour had brought him much nearer to the Church by reason of the brilliant light it cast on the character and office of the Papacy in Christianity. In 1857 he found time to publish a new edition of St. Anselm's Cur Deus homo, and to write a paper on the conversion of Herman of Kappenburg. In June 1858 he revised for the press his treatise on the ante-Tridentine theology. In preparing the revision he made a study of modern Catholic works on history, dogma, moral and canon law. He became familiar with the Roman Breviary, to which his attention had been called by the attempt made by a Protestant minister to form a Lutheran Breviary. He also read and admired Cardinal Wiseman's Fabiola.
"I now understood the Memorare and the Sub tuum; I began to recite the Ave Maria, to salute together with the angel the Mother of my God, to seek her compassion, that she might obtain for me grace to be completely enlightened, and to enter into the Saviour's one fold. The sting of doubt tormented me unceasingly; on my knees, before my crucifix in my lonely chamber, I experienced the most painful struggles. As I had ever preserved such fragments of Christian truth as the Reformers had spared, and as for many long years I had occupied myself with the solution of the leading questions in philosophy and theology, it appeared to me very hard to submit my reason to the yoke of faith. But prayer removed all these obstacles, and when soon after I came to knock at the door of the Church, I found it easy to assent to all the truths that were proposed to my belief" (p. 163).