Among the Dutch theologians the dominant tendency in the last century has been toward extreme radicalism. Scholten and Kuenen have represented advance thought in the Old Testa ment field, while Loman, Pierson, Naber, V61ter and Van Manen have been generally considered hypercritical in the discussion of New Testa ment questions. Steck has represented the latter school in Switzerland; while Godet has nobly upheld the traditions of orthodoxy in this land. Godet combines a French felicity of style with a German thoroughness of scholarship and adds to these a genuine spiritual fervor which makes his commentaries on Luke, John and Romans writable masterpieces of exegesis. It may" well be doubted if the century has produced more luminous and interesting contributions to this field.
France has furnished the brilliant and ver satile and radical Renan, and the morc profound and philosophical De Pressense; and it is mak ing its influence felt to-day through the writ ings of the new Symbolo-Fideistic school, Stap fer, Sabatier and Menegoz being the chief theological representatives. This school em phatically repudiates the infallibility of Pope or Church and just as emphatically renounces the infallibility of Scripture or the Christ recorded in Scripture. It believes that philosophy' can never deduce any religious truth from its prem ises, and so repudiates rationalism as a founda tion for faith. It believes in a Divine revelation through the immanent Spirit of God. It identi fies prayer and religion. All expression of re ligious impression must be through images or symbols. "All religious formulas are symbolic formulas; and Dogmatic itself is a great system of symbols° (Menegoz). The essence of the gospel is to be distinguished from what is merely contingent. Jesus is the perfect mani festation of God in man. Salvation is by faith and faith consists in repentance and heart-sur render to God. The advocates of this school confidently claim that the future belongs to them.
In Great Britain the century has furnished some masterly exegetical work. Cambridge University has easily taken the honors in this field. Dean Alford in his (Commentary on the Greek Testament) introduced the best results of German exegesis to English readers. Bishop Ellicott gave splendid examples of painstaking investigation of the Scriptural text. The great trio of later Cambridge scholars, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort, have reached the high water mark of English scholarship in their field. Bishop Lightfoot's commentaries upon the Pauline Epistles have been standard au thorities ever since their publication. Westcott did equally fine uork upon the writings of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hort was gen erally reputed to be the greatest scholar of the three, but his extreme modesty and his realiz ing sense of the yet unattained perfection pos sible in his work kept him from the publica tion of any but fragmentary treatises. His in fluence lives among his students and associates. Mayor on James and Second Peter and Jude, and Swete on Mark and the Apocalypse are worthy companions of the other Cambridge University commentaries. Professor Davidson of Edin burgh was the leading Hebrew scholar of Great Britain in the century, and his pupils, W. Rob ertson Smith and George Adam Smith and others, have done yeoman service in revolution izing and revitalizing the exegesis of the Old Testament. Sanday, Driver, Plummer, Beet, Findlay, Bruce and Dods have done excellent interpretative work. The 'International Critical Commentary' and the 'Expositor's Qreek Tes tament,' bid fair to continue the best traditions in English exegesis.
America has had a share in the exegetical labor of the century. Moses Stuart, J. A. Alex ander, Hackett, Hodge, Shedd, Harper, Mitch ell, Moore, Toy, Vincent and others have pro duced exegetical studies of acknowledged merit.
Albert Barnes, Henry Cowles, J. A. Broadus and D. D. Whedon have published series of helpful and devotional commentaries. Ezra Abbott, Edward Robinson, McGiffert, Mathews, Burton, Briggs, Bacon, Gilbert, Stevens, Allen and Smyth have done first-class service in special fields.
The Roman Catholic Church began the cen tury with two most worthy representatives of Biblical learning. Hug ably combated the rationalistic tendencies of his day and defended the traditional views of the origin of the New Testament writings. Herbst performed the same service for the Old Testament. During the greater part of the century, however, free in quiry has been more or less stifled by the au thority of "the usual exegesis of Scripture.° Scientific research has been systematically dis couraged and any tendency toward a new or modified interpretation of the Scriptural text and any originality of conclusions, such as may not be guaranteed by the authority of the Fathers and the Councils of the Church, have been frowned upon by those in the places of power. A better condition of affairs seems to be on the point of realization now. A growing body of students within the pale of the Church have felt the influence of the great onward movements in the Protestant world and are beginning to demand the privilege of free in quiry and the use of modern methods in exegesis. They point to the critical work in the writings of Origen and Jerome and Euse bius and other Christian scholars and saints as proof that scientific research is no novelty in the Catholic Church, and they claim the right to follow in the footsteps of these illustrious critics of antiquity. A measure of freedom would seem to be already granted them since Pope Pius X wrote to Bishop Le Camus, "We should not approve the attitude of those who in no way dare to depart from the usual exegesis of Scripture, even when, faith not being at stake, the real advancement of learn ing requires such departure. You follow a wise middle course, and by your example show that there is nothing to be feared for the sacred books from the true progress of the art of criticism, nay that a beneficial light may be derived from it, provided its use- be coupled with a wise and prudent discernment" (Dated 11 Jan. 1906). What this °wise and prudent discernment" may be is probably best illustrated in the decisions of the Biblical Commission ap pointed by Leo XIII, in its report upon the Pentateuch, published in the Revue Biblique and dated 27 June 1906. The report is presented in the form of questions and answers in cate chism style. They may be summarized as fol lows: May one assert that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but that it was made up largely of later elements? No. Must Moses then have written the whole of the Pentateuch with his own hand, or dictated it to secretaries? No. May Moses have committed the editing of it in whole or in part to secretaries and have permitted the publication of it under his name? Yes. May he have used sources, documents or oral traditions, borrowing sometimes the words, sometimes the sense? Yes. May the Pentateuch have undergone modifications, "additions made after Moses' death by an inspired author, glosses and parenthetical explanations, ancient words and phrases turned into more modern language, false readings to be attributed to errors of copyists, which criticism may examine and weigh according to its principles? Yes, the Church reserving judgment)) The rights of the newer criticism to a hearing and standing in the Church are clearly allowed in this report, while the Church reserves the right to judge to what extent the findings of the critics may be compatible with its authority and peace.