136 



EEV. CHANCELLOR LIAS, M.A., ON 



little to say, for all those who had spoken were, like the game cocks 

 in the story, all on one side. Something had been said of the danger 

 of development, which applied not only to the movement now being 

 discussed, hut also to such societies as the Victoria Institute. It 

 was impossible that they should all be able to accept one another's 

 theories as they stand, and agreement could only be arrived at 

 through free discussion. Agreement so arrived at would be develop- 

 ment, and this development was that which was needed on all sides. 

 The development against which all should be on their guard was that 

 of " Reason led by imagination." Imagination was too apt to run riot. 



As regarded the definition of Modernism, he agreed with the 

 Rev. Faithfull Daviesthat the subject was too wide for exact definition. 

 But in their criticism it would be well to l)ear in mind that Modernism 

 was in great measure a revolt. They must bear in mind the case of 

 the ex-priests, and remember how helpless these people were when 

 they first escaped. So it must be with the Modernists, they must 

 be treated patiently. For with them too the revulsion must at first 

 be extreme. 



Communication from Rev. A. Irving, D.Sc, B.A. 



Being prevented from attending the meeting on March 1st, I 

 beg to offer a few remarks upon Mr. Chancellor Lias's paper on 

 " Modernism." The term seems to me to carry a wider connotation 

 than the author of the paper has given to it. Modernism, it is con- 

 ceived, has two phases— (i) the scientific, (ii) the pseudo-scientific 

 and it is with the latter phase that the learned Chancellor mainly 

 deals, in such a way, however, as to have my full sympathy. I am 

 glad to find that (pp. 124-5) he substantially endorses the criticisms 

 which I ventured to make on the position of the " Higher Critics " 

 in the discussion of Professor Sir Wm. Ramsay's paper two years 

 ago (see also my letters to the Guardian of last year (November and 

 December) in reply to the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, and to 

 Dr. Dukinfield Astley). I entirely agree with the author's rather 

 severe remarks upon the position of M. Loisy on pp. 130-1, and with 

 the stricture of Bishop Herzog (p. 132). The spirit of that Trpwroi' 

 Yref/rov (p. 131) taints the whole method of that school, and I am bold, 

 therefore to maintain that it is "pseudo-scientific." 



