allowed to resume her work in that field. There is room enough for all; and we have been so liberal in former years in throwing open our treasures to the world that people cannot call us greedy simply because we wish to continue, in friendly rivalry with them, our researches with regard to the early history of civilization in the Nearer East, in which we have been engaged so long.

493RD ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, MARCH 1ST, 1909.

HEYWOOD SMITH, ESQ., M.D., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed.

The following paper was then read by the Author :

MODERNISM: ITS ORIGIN AND TENDENCIES. By REV. CHANCELLOR LIAS, M.A., Hulsean Lecturer, 1884.

PROPOSE to state, as plainly as possible, my own personal views on the subject which I have been asked to discuss in this paper. The outspoken utterance of convictions which may be unpalatable to others, has not, I admit, been a principal characteristic of our past discussions, but it must be obvious to all who are acquainted with this Institute, that it is now attempting to meet the changed wants of the time by a certain. change in its methods. Years ago, when Christianity was confronted with the somewhat rash dogmatics of a then new school of physical science, great care had to be taken in our papers and debates not to trample on the feelings, or, as may sometimes have been the case, the prejudices, of particular schools of thought among Christians. Our first desire was to unite all Christians, as far as possible, in resisting the materialistic teaching which threatened to overthrow, not merely Christianity, but every reasonable form of Theism. It must, however, be evident to us all that the forms under which scepticism and unbelief now lurk are of a different kind. The danger to faith assumes the shape, at present, of random

assertions, of false philosophies and one-sided schools of criticism. The only way, as it seems to me, to combat these new difficulties is to lay down the true principles of Christian philosophy, and to ascertain the true limits of criticism. This, however, can only be done by the fullest and freest interchange of opinion. The time has, I believe, come when Christians can meet together and discuss their differences reasonably and temperately, without unnecessarily offending prejudices, or evoking violent antagonisms, and without the endeavours, far too common, I am afraid, in the past, on both sides, to muzzle the free expression of opinion by calling names and imputing motives. If the Victoria Institute will boldly embark on this new departure, that of giving a fair hearing to all who "profess and call themselves Christians," on the weighty questions now debated, and of encouraging everyone to speak his mind plainly, so long as he shows proper respect for the opinions of others, it may do even a greater work in the future than it has done in the past. To the policy of repression must chiefly be attributed the intellectual and political convulsions which have alarmed the world. The permission of free speech to every man is the safety valve which prevents dangerous explosions.

Modernism, I take it, is the demand for free speech in the body which, for centuries, has been the greatest and most consistent enemy to all freedom of thought whatsoever. The barriers to that freedom of speech have of late been breaking down on all sides in the Roman communion. In the last paper I read before the Institute I gave the history of the first successful attempt since the Reformation to shake off the fetters of the Roman Curia. It is now my task to indicate, as far as I can, the character of a second great revolt, which is spreading rapidly in France and Italy, and which has its adherents even in England. It is an attempt which differs from that made by the Old Catholics both intellectually and practically. It not only deals far more freely with first principles than the older movement, but strangely enough, it demands the right to express far more advanced opinions than any Old Catholic has avowed, without separating from the communion of the Church whose most authoritative utterances it rejects. Such a movement in a church whose policy for ages has been the most rigid repression of independence, is absolutely certain to run into dangerous extremes in the opposite direction. Consequently, earnest religious men among ourselves have-again, naturally enough-treated it with scant sympathy. I venture to think this is a mistake. Before we withdraw our sympathy

from the Modernists, we are bound to remember the circumstances of their case. The iron repression to which they have so long been subject must of necessity lead to the strong recoil in the other direction which is displayed in their writings, and if we find reason to deplore some of their utterances, we ought not to excommunicate them altogether, but endeavour in a spirit of brotherhood and loving-kindness to bring them to view things from a wiser and more truly liberal standpoint.

Most of us are fully acquainted with the position of Dr. Tyrrell, once a member of the "Society of Jesus," but now expelled from the Order, and disavowed by the Church to which he belongs. He has told us that Modernism is not a sect, but a school. That is to say, it lays down no principles and imposes no dogmas. It simply claims a right to express opinion freely while still belonging to a body which for a thousand years and more has not only systematically denied that right, but has been accustomed to put down those who claimed it with not a little ferocity. I am sorry to say that Dr. Tyrrell's description of Modernism is, I am afraid, not altogether correct. In Italy, at least, the Modernists have laid down dogmas of their own in the place of those against which they contend. In an article in the last number of the International Theological Review, an Old Catholic organ of independent Catholic thought, published at Berne, Dr. Herzog, Old Catholic Bishop for Switzerland, quotes the organ of the Società Internazionale Scientifico-Religiosa at Rome as laying down as a commune terreno d'intesa in the Programma dei Modernisti which it has issued, such propositions as the following, in regard to the gospels: "Mark is the oldest of the Synoptic gospels"; it was used by Matthew and Luke; "Matthew and Luke are independent of each other"; these last "have both used a writing called 'Logia'"; while "of the compiler of the fourth Gospel we are not able to catch a passing indication, but he is probably not identical with John." Then "the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews are clearly not authentic, and the Catholic Epistles are pseudepigraphic."* Now, let it be understood that I have no objection to the freest possible investigation of the critical problem, unless in the case of persons who have undertaken obligations to some particular religious body, and to the public at large not to carry such investigations so far as to

* It is only fair to say that in a paper by the Abbé Minoechi which has reached me from Italy I find no tendency to dogmatism of this kind but only a plea for free inquiry.

conflict with the principles that religious body was formed to maintain. But for my own part I believe the establishment of positions by critical analysis to be a task of extreme difficulty, and also that it would be well for critics to be a little more modest in representing their conclusions as irrefragable and final. I would further observe that the modern critic is wont to establish his case by ignoring all methods of investigation save his own, and all considerations outside his particular methods which have led, or may lead, to a contrary conclusion.

Such a method seems to me as unscientific as it would have been for astronomers to have ignored the calculations of my dear and honoured friend the late Professor Adams on the perturbations of Uranus, and to have declared that there was not, and could not be, any cause but the idiosyncrasy of Uranus himself, for the eccentricities in his orbit. I shall return to this question later on. But I may mention here that in the article to which I have alluded, Bishop Herzog-he was for years Professor of N.T. Exegesis, I may say, in the University of Bern-has once more re-stated the arguments against the theory that St. Mark is the oldest gospel, and has at least shown that there is a good deal to be said on both sides of a question which, as far as my experience goes-and I have been reading both sides of it for more than half a century-is as insoluble by purely critical methods as is the problem of squaring the circle.

The principles of modernism, I think, find their most adequate expression in Dr. Tyrrell's now famous "Letter." I shall take this as my text-book, illustrating it, when necessary, from one or two of his subsequent productions. That it is a formidable attack on Romanism considered as a practical system, and that it deserves the closest attention of those among us who have been led to regard that system with deep admiration, few will be found hardy enough to deny. Its admissions are remarkable indeed. He acknowledges (pp. 48, 49) that "the conservative positions" in that Church "are maintained by ignorance, systematic or involuntary "; that "the close historical study of origins and developments must undermine many of our (ie., the Ultramontane) most fundamental assumptions in regard to dogmas and institutions"; that "the sphere of the miraculous is daily litnited by the growing difficulty in verifying such facts, and the growing facility in reducing either them or the belief in them to natural and recognized causes." He further grants (p. 49) that "in the approved writings of her ascetical teachers (ie., those of the Church of Rome) and her moralists, in the