134 



REV. CHANCELLOR LJAS^ M.A., ON 



vast range, from a position tenable to the Roman Church to one that 

 could not be recognized as Christian ; the term Modernist was used 

 to denote men who differed very extremely from one another on 

 points of the greatest importance. It was, then, very difficult to gain 

 a general idea of the movement. Modernism must be defined as a 

 tendency even more than a school. Those Modernists who remained 

 in the Roman Church traced their opinions to the doctrine of 

 development of Newman, and it is considered possible that Newman's 

 letter may be condemned as a source of Modernist principles. It 

 was very difficult to gain a general idea of the movement. Loisy's 

 book, Autoiir (Vun pefit livre, gave a very interesting view of his 

 position ; while Tyrrell's Throufih Sr.i/lla and Charyhdis was also very 

 interesting. Perhaps a good general idea could be obtained from a 

 little 1)Ook called JFhat ive JFant, being a translation by Mr. Lilley 

 of a protest by thirteen Italian priests. A translation of the 

 encyclical Pascendi is appended to M. Paul Sabatier's interesting 

 lectures on Modernism. In the Encyclical the Modernists are 

 denounced up hill and down dale, and the opinions ascribed to them 

 severely condemned, but it is a question whether they really hold 

 these opinions, or whether the Vatican thinks that this is what 

 Modernists believe, or ought logically to believe. The representation 

 is, however, of the nature of a caricature. In Sabatier's volume 

 there is not a great deal of information, but the position of the 

 extremists will l)e found to be stated by Loisy. 



Professor Orchard said that Modernism appeared to be the 

 revolt of the slave against his fetters. It was produced by the 

 reaction against the Roman system and its intellectual and moral 

 slavery. In the movement itself the love of liberty could be 

 recognized as its inspiration to a greater extent than the love of 

 Truth. Its followers were affected not a little by the dominant 

 passion of the present day. They had not been able to keep clear 

 of the methods of the higher criticism. 



There were two points in the paper on which he would like to make 

 separate comment. First on p. 129 where reference was made by the 

 writer to Newman's system. It was interesting to know that 

 Newman tried this on his brother. Professor Frank Newman, 

 surrounding him with objects of contemplation which were to lead to 

 the desired result, but without effect. 



Again, on p. 1 30, where the Cardinal was quoted as writing of an 



