1908 126 It is a fact well known to students of physical geography that the inland seas have, in common with the greater oceans abroad, their tides and currents of more or less account. And, after all, when it is considered to what these movements owe their origin, it is not surprising that, wherever we have the gathering together of waters, which God called seas, the influences producing such moyements should be apparent.
A great land-locked sea, the Church of Rome throughout the centuries, in many respects has appeared to be shut off from the tides and movements of human thought and mental activity, not to speak of something higher still the free circulation of divine truth. Yet in reality she cannot pretend to have been uninfluenced throughout by changing opinion. The main currents as they flowed on, have always sooner or later penetrated to her depths, or have been reproduced at least on her placid surface. However quiet the composure she may profess, however complete the stagnation to onlookers may appear, isolation from the effects of the intellectual progress around, modern history, in particular, forbids her to claim. It may be questioned, however, if in all her history the tide of contemporary thought has ever produced within her borders a movement of exactly the same character or intensity as that now appearing under the name of Modernism. The mention of the famous Galileo recalls no truly analogous movement. The Reformation was of another character entirely. The agitation in the thirteenth century again has been seized upon by Liberal Catholics as an appropriate historical allusion. It was concerning Aristotle's natural philosophy during the time of Pope Gregory 9, who at first forbad its study, and step by step thereafter came round to its sanction. The precedent may, or may not, be followed by Pope Pius X.; but there is no true parallel, for the nature and the extent of the dispute are both entirely different. Wherein this is unique may appear, if we but consider, on the one hand, not only the nature and history of Modernism in the Latin church, but also the unprecedented nature of that more widespread eruption of which this is but a local manifestation, and on the other, remember the essential character of the special zone here seen to be, equally with the rest, affected.
First, then, to consider the nature and history of the movement itself. As stated by Father Tyrrell, a prominent Modernist in our own country, who also has received the distinction of being "excommunicated" on account of his rebellious attitude, the chief points raised in the controversy may be summed up as follows:—
On the one side "there are those who hold that the Roman Catholic Church, with the Papacy, the sacraments, and all its institutions and dogmas, was in its entirety the immediate creation of Christ when upon earth; that there has been no vital development, but only mechanical unpacking of what was given in a tight parcel two thousand years ago; that the scriptures were dictated by God, and are a final court of appeal, while all doctrinal guidance, etc., is mediated through the infallible Pope from God to the Church."
On the other side are those, with whom he ranges himself, still loyal to the adopted church of John Henry Newman and others in a spiritual ancestry of which they are proud, "who do not believe that truth has been stagnating for centuries in theological seminaries; but has been streaming on with ever-increasing force and volume in the channels which liberty has opened to its progress." In contrast to those "who will not allow the least truth or value to the mental and moral progress of recent centuries," theirs is a belief "in time, in growth, in vital and creative evolution." Of one point in all this we may take especial note — on the one hand are those who stand for an authoritative standard of truth, on the other those who press for liberty and free thought.
Then as to the history of the controversy. The campaign against Modernism is held to have been inaugurated by the late Pope's Encyclical of 1893. The Americanist controversy, and the condemnation of Schell's works were early stages in that campaign, also under his late Holiness. An astute ecclesiastical statesman as Leo XIII. is on all hands allowed to have been even his hand at last was forced, by the magnitude of the evil becoming apparent. But with the advent of Pius X. all appearance of hesitancy was laid aside. A different temper at once became apparent in the conduct of affairs. The trouble with France was its first-fruits politically, while in the theological field our Modernist friends early came under the notice of the Holy See. Almost immediately, an eminent writer, Abbe Loisy, regarding whose case a certain amount of action had already been taken, had his chief writings placed upon the Index. Others, less heard of, followed Houtin, Denis, Georgel. The distinguished French Catholic Viollet's brochure on the Syllabus and the infallibility of the Pope, and Laberthonnière's philosophical works have since shared the same fate, as did even a novel by Fogazzaro, the Italian, characteristically a work of fiction, and which has had a phenomenal circulation. There is also Le Roy, whose statement of the Modernist position is described as masterly, besides Battifol and Tyrrell.
On the part of the Vatican itself, there has been, not merely the placing upon the Index Expurgatorius the books of these individuals, but positive action to stem the tide has been taken. The Biblical Commission has given two findings — one, already noticed in this magazine, dealing with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the other maintaining the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel, and its historical character. It is asserted that the present Pope secured these judgments, so satisfactory to believers everywhere, by a process we might describe as packing the jury, the expert members appointed by Leo XIII. being swamped by ignorant reactionaries. Be that as it may, the Modernists have considered that the Commission has been pressed into service against them. The in no wise uncertain sound which the trumpet has given forth is indeed disconcerting, not only to those in the front rank of that movement, but to such moderate critics as Dr. Barry, whose little hook, "The Tradition of Scripture," one learns with surprise, received the imprimatur of none less than the Archbishop of Westminster. Somewhat ruthless in its antagonism to all but an ultra-conservative standpoint towards the Bible, the reigning power must appear to such to be. In comparison with scholars beyond her pale, these Romanist higher critics have for the most part been contented with but a short flight into the airy realms of "speculative" theology. And even Loisy himself, who cannot be described as moderate,* has kept up the appearance of being most conciliatory towards, what our own critics do not hesitate to sneer at as, Bibliolatry. He lays it down as an axiom, and constantly emphasises that "the critical method of dealing with scripture does not mean forgetting the supernatural character of the sacred books." But regardless of, and quite ungrateful for, all such concessions, the Vatican will tolerate no half measures. In this respect at least Rome shows more real insight as to essentials than others who are deceived by similarly hollow professions. Thus if the mild tone on the one side is in contrast to much of the criticism we are accustomed to, the uncompromising stand on the other just as greatly differs from that which those who guide and control Protestant thought adopt.
{*In the light of what can be learnt of his two latest publications. "Simple Reflections on the Encyclical" and "The Synoptic Gospels," there can be no claim for Loisy being of moderate views. Judging from some of the theories advanced in the latter especially, he fully merits the title lately given him — "A new Renan."}
And a similar intolerance is shown all round to so-called liberal tendencies of whatever kind. Eminent Romanist laymen, both in France and Germany, who thought to relieve the tension the one petitioning their bishops, the other appealing direct in extremely modest fashion for a reform of the Index fared but ill, being, in the rebuke administered, accused of impertinence and conspiracy respectively. In Italy such things as the literary and social movement identified with the name of Romolo Murri proved troublesome thorns in the side of the new Pope. Upon its intellectual side the danger was considered greatest no doubt, the open letter of the group of priests to Pius X. being serious enough. In the one department advocating reform of the Church's attitude towards democracy it is no less revolutionary in the other by its avowed conviction of the reality of "the revolution which has been wrought in our conception both of the nature of truth, and of the methods necessary to its establishment." This remarkable manifesto of Liberal Catholicism was no doubt a direct reply to the Papal Allocution of April, 1907. On that occasion the Pope called upon the bishops to co-operate with him in driving out those who were "rebels, who dreamed of the renewal of dogma by a return to the pure gospel apart from the authority of the church and of theology."
Then came another decree of the Holy Office, the Syllabus, of which the last twelve articles in particular were directly aimed against Modernism. Take, as a sample of the gravity of what is in dispute, Article 64 "It is an error to say that the progress of the sciences requires a change in the Christian doctrinal conceptions of God, of creation, of revelation, of the Word incarnate, and of the redemption." But the climax was reached when the Encyclical of September, 1907, appeared, which definitely pronounces Modernism to be dangerous in philosophy, faith, theology, history, criticism, and reform, and thence draws the conclusion that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy, and must logically lead to atheism. There is no call upon us to consider the remedial measures which the final section of that deliverance enumerates, but its analysis of the Liberal Catholic position is most decidedly noteworthy. The issue is clearly between "the extrinsic conception of authority," as M. Paul Sabatier has called it, and that new conception of truth as "not communicated directly and from the outside by God to men," but as a kind of internal inspiration not to be bound by any dogmatic expression.
So much for Liberal Catholicism itself, but to see it in its true perspective we must be reminded of its relation to a larger field. Recent times, as all are aware, have witnessed a new and most important departure in the theological world. Among other contributions, the nineteenth century has given us Biblical literary science, otherwise known as higher or historical criticism. And this it is which furnishes the most important item of the Modernist programme, on its intellectual side at least. Now this new "science" (!) has raised a question of intense interest and moment to believers everywhere, and to trace its workings is a matter of first importance. The claim of the literary method of studying the scriptures to be a recognised and legitimate science, though but of yesterday, is already conceded in full by not a few Protestant scholars and theologians. There are as yet but few results, as far as (what they will call) established conclusions are concerned; but of what so-called conclusions there are, much parade has been made. There are many professing Christians, however, still far from concurring in any conclusions, who yet profess to believe the methods of this science legitimate and harmless, and deprecate a firm stand as to the real inspiration of the scriptures as being either obscurant or over-suspicious of new light. But simple believers, to whom the Bible is indeed the word of God, have all along distrusted the entire scheme, method and conclusions alike. Not only so, but they emphatically deny not only its harmlessness but also its legitimacy.
Further, its remarkable development has impressed many of them with the thought that the movement is in reality a great and grave crisis in the closing days of the church's testimony, if not indeed a most impressive precursor of the predicted apostasy. Consider how revolutionary the whole system is. In the comparatively short time it has been with us, it is no exaggeration to say, that it has succeeded in a great measure in transforming the standpoint of modern theology towards the Bible. The age-long strife between truth and error has now entered on an entirely new phase. Christendom has witnessed in the past many lapses from the faith, and departure from the truth has since early times been characteristic of the mass; but that which is now in progress is properly speaking neither lapse nor departure, but surrender of the divinely-appointed standard of truth. Doubtless surrender is not what is at present demanded; re-adjustment is all that is asked. But the re-adjustment is likely to affect, and in many cases has affected "our conception of the nature of the truth" as well as of "the methods necessary to its establishment."
1908 141 Precisely here is the point on which attention will, perhaps, very strongly be concentrated not so much the question whether the inerrancy of the Scriptures is necessary for their revelation of the truth but the very necessity of a standard at all, such as the Scriptures are thought to provide. For adherents of Biblical literary science, enamoured of their new discovery, while claiming, many of them, that it makes the Bible for them a new book, do not perchance perceive that in their chosen course they are fast drifting on to another momentous question what the truth is whether a divinely given, fixed, guaranteed "faith once for all delivered unto the saints," or a matter of flux and change, of humanly acquired discovery, requiring, as time goes on, that "re-statement of Christian doctrine" which so many today even are agitating for! The statement of the Encyclical as to "logically leading to atheism" may in this become a prediction justified by event. Without a doubt serious consideration confirms the thought that such is the shore towards which the current sets, although what we see now be no more than a loosening off from the moorings. This ought not to be dismissed as unduly pessimistic. It must not be imagined that a limited area is all that has come under the disintegrating influence of "higher criticism." Every branch of Western Christendom has been affected by it, and by what is probably the majority of representative teachers throughout Protestantism the only real alternative to it, the true and divine inspiration of the Scriptures, is no longer honestly contended for. That it should make its appearance in the Roman Catholic Church is not at all surprising; but its alarming progress in a few years within such a conservative body is remarkable, and testifies to the attractiveness and power of infidelity over those who surrender to the mere intellectualism of our times.
The intolerant attitude of the Vatican towards it is not surprising either. The Roman Catholic faith stands for a conception of things with which the new spirit can have nothing in common. The one recognises authority, the other the rejection of it. The nature of the authority in question can be taken into account later, but the present point is that Rome is based upon the recognition of an authoritative standard of truth, upon dogma, to use a common phrase. A famous statement of Harnack "Dogmatic Christianity, in the strict sense of the word, is Catholic" — would be just as true were the first and last terms transposed. Newman, the convert to Rome, became such, no doubt, because dominated by the thought that external authority was absolutely essential, and assuming that an infallible church provided it. "Dogma was the fundamental principle of my religion. I could enter into no other sort of religion." There is this in common then between Latin Christianity and true Christianity, that in each, truth is conceived to be absolute and unchangeable, capable of being presented in complete and perfect objective form. Wherein they differ is that true believers find this objective testimony presented to their faith in the divinely inspired Scriptures, which are perfect and sufficient in themselves, through the Holy Spirit's power, to reveal God's mind and will; whereas Rome teaches that in addition to the Bible the magisterium, or teaching authority of the church is needed, not only to interpret the Scriptures, assuming them to be obscure, but also to authenticate them to us, denying their authority, apart from the sanction of "the pillar and ground of the truth."
{*The shelter of the great name of Newman is sought by the Modernist and the Pope's supporter alike. But the claim of the English Modernist of the affinity of their system to Newman's development theory is well answered by Father Gerard. "There is nothing in common between logical development of dogma from a dogmatic depositum fidei which Newman upheld, and the evolution of the whole system of dogma from the mere religious sense which the Encyclical condemns."}
Rome is right then in its conception of the truth as being a definite, guaranteed objective testimony, a "depositum fidei" as it has been called; wrong, essentially wrong, in claiming for the voice of the church the share in that agency which she does. The authority it calls for allegiance to is a usurped authority. This seems to be a fundamental principle in this "Mystery, Babylon the Great" that truths are more refused than rejected, less denied than perverted. Orthodox, yet infidel she is, paradoxical as it may seem. Rome, it has often been remarked, is comparatively free from heterodoxy as to the great facts of Christianity, the Atonement, Trinity, Incarnation, etc. Yet in the case of every one of these truths their applicability to the human soul is annulled through her adulterations. So as to the truth itself, both the need of a divinely given standard, and the inspiration of the Scriptures, she holds and is ready to contend for; but to what account does she turn their admission when made? What rebuke does she bestow on her own children who forsake them? They are "rebels" who aim at the discovery of the truth "apart from the authority of the church and of theology!"
And this it is necessary to be reminded of in the ensuing controversy. There is much to admire, perchance, in the conduct of a Pope, who has the courage to so expose and denounce the infidelity as to Scripture in the ranks of his own communion; and at first sight much to gratify the believer in the publication of the decisions of the Biblical commission already alluded to, and in such steps as his authorisation of a revision of the Vulgate. But, rooted in the system itself, there is infidelity of another complexion, with which such action, praiseworthy in itself, is still quite in keeping. Essentially, Rome is a system of error, and no true friend or guardian of the truth at any time. Her antagonism to it has been long and marked, and from the testimony of scripture itself will end only' when she herself does. There must be no mistake. Whether the present firm attitude of the Vatican is a genuine stand for the truth as conceived by one who is faithful to what he knows of it, or the more likely reiteration of the apostate system's claim for the implicit obedience of her subjects in presence of a rival system of error, one thing is clear — that Rome at the bottom can never be anything but an enemy of God's truth. The apostasy in which Christendom ends, and to which events hasten, has ample room and accommodation for both elements — the haughty claim to be the sole and infallible depositary of the truth, and the infidelity that denies such a thing as divinely revealed truth altogether. Incompatible as their different pretensions are, this they have in common, that they both exalt themselves against God and His infallible word. We know also that the system that now rejects and casts forth the incipient "atheism" appearing in her midst will one day be repaid in full by the same "atheism" fully developed, for "the ten horns shall hate the whore, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire" (Rev. 17:16).
Critical indeed are our times. It is not so long since one remarked that "one of the worst signs of the present day, and which is observable everywhere, is that deliverance from superstition and error is not now by means of positive truth," but that "liberalism is simply destructive," and who stated his belief that "the manifest conflict of the near future would be between superstition and infidelity," that "the opposition to Popery will be infidel not protestant." In truth they pretty well divide the camp.
Happy the believer who, through the grace of God is "without the camp," and, possessed of that which neither enjoys, has the blessed assurance of possessing God's own truth in God's own word at once a direct and abiding communication. This it is alone to which the believer must stand, in the face of opposition as in the midst of declension. Both are present in that controversy to which attention has been drawn. Were it a mere wrangle over the political relations, or even the theological status of the Romish church, it might be left unnoticed. But the nature of the case makes it of serious interest to every child of God, as a striking instance of what is abroad, and as a solemn feature of the character which antagonism to the truth of God is now rapidly assuming. The truth of God we must hold fast. Theology may drift; creeds and confessions no longer suffice to hold mere profession to ancient anchorage grounds; a tide of questioning criticism may flow around, submerging shores even the most secluded from ordinary currents, its dissolving and disintegrating influence permeating every system of doctrine man has framed; and thus many, concerning the faith, make shipwreck. But, holding fast the precious word, admitting its claims, accepting its light, obeying its directions, we have abundant assurance of its reliability and unchangeableness. J.T.