"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