problems connected with them, such as the growth of ecclesiastical power and the evolution of dogma.  For a few years the orthodox in France generally spoke of the new tendency as loisysme.  It was not till 1905 that Edouard Le Roy published his ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un dogme?’ which carried the discussion into the domain of pure philosophy, though the studies of Blondel and Laberthonniere in the psychology of religion may be said to involve a metaphysic closely resembling that of Le Roy.  Mr. Tyrrell’s able works have a very similar philosophical basis, which is also assumed by the group of Italian priests who have remonstrated with the Pope.[57] M. Loisy protests against the classification made in the papal Encyclical which connects biblical critics, metaphysicians, psychologists, and Church reformers, as if they were all partners in the same enterprise.  But in reality the same presuppositions, the same philosophical principles, are found in all the writers named; and the differences which may easily be detected in their writings are comparatively superficial.  The movement appears to be strongest in France, where the policy of the Vatican has been uniformly unfortunate of recent years, and has brought many humiliations upon French Catholics.  Italy has also been moved, though from slightly different causes.  In the protests from that country we find a tone of disgust at the constitution of the Roman hierarchy and the character of the papal entourage, about which Italians are in a position to know more than other Catholics.  Catholic Germany has been almost silent; and Mr. Tyrrell is the only Englishman whose name has come prominently forward.

It will be convenient to consider the position of the Modernists under three heads:  their attitude towards New Testament criticism, especially in relation to the life of Christ; their philosophy; and their position in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Modernists themselves desire, for the most part, that criticism rather than philosophy should be regarded as the starting-point of the movement.  ’So far from our philosophy dictating our critical method, it is the critical method that has of its own accord forced us to a very tentative and uncertain formulation of various philosophical conclusions....  This independence of our criticism is evident in many ways.’[58] The writers of this manifesto, and M. Loisy himself, appear not to perceive that their critical position rests on certain very important philosophical presuppositions; nor indeed is any criticism of religious origins possible without presuppositions which involve metaphysics.  The results of their critical studies, as bearing on the life of Christ, we shall proceed to summarise, departing as little as possible from the actual language of the writers, and giving references in all cases.  It must, however, be remembered that some of the group, such as Mr. Tyrrell, have not committed themselves to the more extreme critical views, while others, such as the Abbe Laberthonniere, the most brilliant and attractive writer of them all, hold a moderate position on the historical side.  It is perhaps significant that those who are specialists in biblical criticism are the most radical members of the school.