132 



KEY. CIJAKCELLOR LIAS, ON 



conclusions by altogether refusing to discuss any conflicting 

 results which may seem to have been established on lines other 

 than its own. I may myself claim to have established the facts 

 (1) that the doctrinal matter declared in the fourth Gospel to 

 have been taught l)y Christ is the foundation of the doctrinal 

 system proclaimed in everyone of the Epistles ; and that (2) the 

 language in which Christ's teaching is reported in that Gospel 

 is invariably more elementary in form than the language in 

 which that teaching is presented in the Epistles. Now the 

 conclusion I have drawn from these facts, namely, the genuine- 

 ness of the fourth Gospel, may be sound, or it may not. But 

 it cannot be said that the opposite conclusion is established 

 until this theory has been examined and proved to be false. 



M. Loisy, it is true, does not, at least in liis Gospel etnd the 

 Church, accept the doguias about the priority of St. Mark's 

 Gospel laid down by the Italian modernists. But he appears 

 to be working on their lines, which appear to me, I confess, to 

 be altogether unscientific. Therefore, it may be well to bear in 

 mind the language of Bishop Herzog in the article I have 

 mentioned above, echoed as it has been by Professor Flint, by 

 Professor James Eobertson, by Professor Orr, and other 

 competent authorities. " The programme of the modernists is 

 an expression of opinion whicli compels respect. But we shall 

 do well to examine it critically before we accept it." A great 

 question such as this should surely be regarded from every 

 possible point of view, and every argument in relation to it 

 carefully examined before the matter is assumed to be settled. 

 Otherwise our methods, by whatever epithets we may be pleased 

 to describe them, differ in no way from those of the Vatican, and 

 must ultimately, however long they may hold the field, share 

 the fate of all unproved sayings, from whatsoever quarter they 

 may come. 



Dr. Tyrrell, like M. Loisy, does not remain altogether 

 stationary. With what I cannot help thinking to be the 

 somewhat hazy metaphysics of a good deal of his Scylla and 

 Chrtryhdis I have, I must confess, little sympathy. But with 

 his bold indictment of modern Eoman methods, and his vigorous 

 protests against the Cardinal's characteristic phrase, " the 

 apostate Dollinger," I am thoroughly in accord. I have not, 

 I must admit, made an exhaustive study of Dr. Tyrrell's works. 

 But what I have been able to read, I liave read with attention : 

 and I have not found a word which need prevent him from 

 becoming an Anglican, an Old Catholic, or even what is called 

 an " orthodox Nonconformist." I admire heartily his concluding 



