MODERNISM : ITS ORIGIN AND TENDENCIES. 



assertions, of false philosophies and one-sided schools of criticism. 

 The only way, as it seems to me, to coml)at these new dithculties 

 is to lay down the true principles of Christian philosophy, and 

 to ascertain the true hmits of criticism. This, however, can 

 only be done by the fullest and freest interchange of opinion. 

 The time has, 1 believe, come when Christians can meet 

 together and discuss their differences reasonably and temper- 

 ately, 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 depar- 

 ture, that of giving a fair hearing to all who " profess and call 

 themselves Christians," on the weighty qtiestions now debated, 

 ond 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 (ittributed 

 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 Koman 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 i'ar more freely with first princi- 

 ples tlrin the older movement, but strangely enough, it demands 

 the right to express far more advanced o|)inions 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 wdiose policy for ages has been 

 the most rigid repression of independence, is absolutely certain 

 to run into dangerous extremes in the opposite direction. Con- 

 sequently, earnest religious men among ourselves have — again, 

 natm^ally enough — treated it with scant s}'mpathy. I venture to 

 think this is a mistake. Before we withdraw our sympathy 



