One must be either a disciple or a critic. Or, at least, when interpreting the thought of a great man the criterion of interpretation should be indicated. The trouble with M. Nédoncelle’s book is that although it is not a simple exposition—it is in its way an apology—although his personal sympathies are evident enough, his general position is left vague. He writes neither as a theologian nor a philosopher; and no appreciation of von Hügel can help us very much unless it is undertaken from both these points of view. As is stated in the Foreword, certain minor changes have been introduced in this English edition. That they were necessary is evident from the fact that in the French edition (p. 114) M. Nédoncelle stated that von Hügel’s ideas on the limitation of Christ's knowledge were not contrary to the Faith.

In England it is especially necessary to be accurate about von Hügel. His influence has been considerable in religious bodies external to the Church. In some ways this has been good; the massive fact of a transcendent religion has been brought home to them. But since the Baron, although achieving an ever fuller orthodoxy, never eliminated certain heterodox elements in his statement of religion, his life seems to offer an example of what a “liberal” Catholic of the future might be; that future when Rome shall be more “enlightened.” This attitude towards him appears to be common among the Anglican body, now so unhappily in the throes of modernism. It is an attitude which the Baron would have intemperately resented! He was fiercely proud of being an ultramontane Roman Catholic. M. Nedoncefle notes that at the time of the modernist crisis “he did all he could to steady Tyrrell and to dissuade him from joining the Anglican Church.”