compiling learned works to shew how inconsistent with the Bible and with the Fathers was popular Calvinism. But when, on other grounds, he was almost persuaded of the duty of submission to the Holy See, he found himself confronted with his own sword. There were things in the actual Roman Church which he was too learned and too honest to find in antiquity-the supremacy of the Pope, the modern devotions to the saints, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, the Scholastic statement of the Eucharistic Presence. How were these things to be accepted as matters of faith without transgression against the familiar standard of 'always, everywhere, by all'? His answer is given in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). The book was written frankly for the purpose of removing a difficulty from the way of those who, like the author, were already convinced or anxious to be convinced of the validity of the Roman claims, and naturally its effect is not great on minds which do not share the conviction. To them it will seem that a clearer criterion is needed between genuine development and exaggeration. But to the Roman Catholic its value is immense. He no longer feels bound to discover the precise teaching of Trent in the age of Nicaea, because Christian truth was given to the Church at its foundation, not in the form of a solid and exhaustive deposit but in the form of a living germ which was to grow in the fostering atmosphere of the Church into a tree, identical indeed with the seed in essence, but very different from it in appearance. It was, as has been well said, the introduction of a dynamic theory of Christian doctrine to supplement the static theory which had prevailed. It had to contend with much suspicion, but in time it found a welcome.

But what were the elements of this development? Was nothing needed but a prolonged study of antiquity; or had the progress of the world some part in the development of Christian belief? The question pressed for an answer in an age which was eminently one of progress. There was the philosophy associated with the name of Kant, which to some seemed to point to agnosticism, but to others suggested rather a differentiation of the modes of knowledge; there

was the wonderful growth of natural science; there was the rise of new conceptions of historical criticism; there was the spread of the democratic spirit. Though none of these elements was perhaps directly religious, they were all things which the Christian must desire to sanctify to the service of God; and the Roman Church has never foregone the noble ambition of making Theology the mistress of all the sciences. But when an empire annexes new realms, some adaptation of itself is implied. When we have planted colonies all over the world, it does not mean only that we have spread English institutions, but that England herself has been modified in response to her new opportunities. We can no longer think just like Bacon or Bentham of the English constitution when we are called to rule Canada and Australia and India.

When we inquire how far the Roman Church has officially adapted herself to her new environment, the answer is disheartening. She has but made her old walls firmer; for the whips which were grievous she has substituted scorpions. Continually she has become more unprogressive, more dictatorial, more centralized, more predominantly Italian. But, after all, it is not to Governments that we should look for progress. They are habitually conservative, and profitably so, because they provide a necessary check to the enthusiasm of individuals. We have, then, to look to individuals for attempts to win new worlds for Christ; and it should suffice if the ruling authorities are not found too unsympathetic and repressive.

We are familiar with the distinction drawn between the ecclesia docens and the ecclesia discens. It is often made to represent two different societies-a teaching body consisting of the hierarchy with the Pope as its head; and a learning body of the lower clergy and the laity, who have no function save that of listening to their superiors and humbly submitting to them. Such a conception was not obviously inconsistent with the static view of Christian doctrine, for, if tradition were all that is required, it might be thought that the bishops, presumably chosen for their age and intelligence and sobriety, would be the best witnesses to what

in their several dioceses had been handed down; though even then the bishops have not always answered to what was required of them. But if we take a dynamic view of Christian doctrine, other persons find their place in the teaching Church: the saint, who, though he be a layman, by living the life has understood the truth; and the doctor, who by his studies has added to the knowledge of the faith and of the sciences which are to be subjected to it. There were many bishops at Nicaea who delivered faithfully the tradition of their dioceses that Christ was worshipped as God; but it was a deacon, a saint, a profound philosopher, a consummate theologian, who overthrew Arianism; and what was done by Athanasius in the fourth century may be done by men of like position in the twentieth. We do not maintain that the bishops have no special function, or that they have no other than that of registering the conclusions of professors; but rather that their function is that of examining, sifting, approving, rejecting if need be, the teaching which others propose. The 'teaching' and the 'learning' Church are not two distinct bodies, but the whole Church, every member of which, in his measure, both learns and teaches.1

We turn, then, from the hierarchy to look in humbler quarters for signs of progress in the Roman Church. And at first sight, it must be owned, our search is disappointing. In Italy the great mass of the people is not hostile to religion, but equally listless whether they go to church or stay away; worship seems to have little effect on conduct, and the best of the bishops and clergy lament the prevalence of superstition and paganism. Of theological literature worth the name there is hardly any. In France, where the faithful are face to face with a bitter secularism, things are better; and in England and Germany Roman Catholics are stirred to godly rivalry by other Christians. Considering the immense number of its adherents, the theological output of the Roman Church is inconsiderable in bulk and hardly more notable in quality. In Biblical exegesis, France and Italy are almost barren. Which are your best commentaries ?' a friend of ours asked 1 Archbishop (Mignot) of Albi, Lettres sur les Études ecclésiastiques, (Paris Lecoffre, 1908), p. 312.

a learned French bishop. His host led him to the shelf on which stood Lightfoot and Westcott, and answered These.'

Yet a further search will have more cheering results. There is, especially in France, a considerable revival of theological study. The fields which it affects are chiefly history and archaeology, which the French have made their own; but there is also a considerable interest in religious philosophy. There are several excellent magazines of theological studies, and admirable use is made of the literary form in which the French excel-the essay. It may have come as a surprise to many Englishmen to learn that the French Church was greatly perturbed by questions of Biblical criticism, and that the centre of the disturbance was a French priest, the Abbé Alfred Loisy.1

M. Loisy was born in 1857, and after a short experience of parish work he was appointed, in 1881, Professor of Hebrew in the Institut Catholique of Paris, then under the enlightened and stimulating direction of Mgr. d'Hulst. The trend of his life may be said to have been decided by an epigrammatic saying of Renan, about as true to facts as epigrams usually are, that it is impossible for a theologian to be an historian: the historian has no concern save with his art and truth, but the theologian must always be concerned with his dogma. M. Loisy was eager to take up the challenge, A theologian in the technical sense he has never claimed to be, but he declared himself a Christian, and he would shew that a Christian can be unprejudiced in dealing with history. Of his early work, which was spent on the Old Testament, we know little and will say nothing, save to remind ourselves, in excuse of the alarmed French authorities, that about the same time the far more moderate statements of Lux Mundi caused great distress and alarm to some venerable persons. In 1902 M. Loisy became con

For the facts of M. Loisy's life we are mainly indebted to his Autour d'un Petit Livre (1904), Simples Réflexions sur le Décret Lamentabili. . . et sur l'Encyclique (1908), and Quelques Lettres (1908). We are also indebted to articles in the Guardian, January 15, 22 and 29, 1904, and to personal friends. His recent works are published 'Chez l'Auteur, Ceffonds, Près Montier-en-Der (Haute-Marne), France.'

spicuous in a more serious controversy. The eminent critic Adolf Harnack, using a trenchant criticism which he has since modified, had published his work on the Essence of Christianity, in which he reduced the elements of the Gospel which must undoubtedly be ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth to a few simple doctrines such as the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of men, and a life after death. It was astonishing to find a French priest going far beyond Harnack in the vigour of his criticism, and yet holding every Catholic doctrine as divinely revealed.

The outline of Loisy's argument in L'Évangile et l'Église (1902), may perhaps be stated thus in our own words. What Christ gave to man was not this or that doctrine, however many or however few, but Himself. He is the ever-living source of the Church's life, and our faith rests far less upon what He did and said almost two thousand years ago than upon what He is.

So far we are in general agreement with M. Loisy's view, and should have no serious quarrel with him if he put it forward as apologetic rather than constructive theology. Apologetics is rather an art than a science; it does not aim so much at the knowledge of truth as at its presentation in a useful form. We are familiar, for instance, with writers who hold the Pastoral Epistles to be the genuine work of St. Paul, yet in controversy confine themselves to reference to the five Epistles which are almost universally admitted. Their work is wise and useful for its purpose, which is not the construction of a complete Pauline theology but the demonstration that a particular doctrine really forms part of it. And it would be most unfair to infer from the absence of any reference to Ephesians in the book that the author rejects it. If M. Loisy constructed a bold apology on these lines-did he maintain that even if almost all the Gospels were untrustworthy, and there were no evidence that the Lord Jesus ever did or said anything to force the conclusion that He was more than a most holy peasant, yet the experience of those who claimed and were actuated by His continual presence shewed Him, and with growing clearness as the centuries went, to be the very Son of God incarnate-then