that these opinions are or are becoming-a mere parody of the truth.

Most of the prejudice against Modernism is due to the fact that English liberal theologians are described by a label which a Roman Catholic movement brought into disrepute nearly twenty years ago. English liberal divines did not elect to call themselves Modernists. The term was applied to them by opponents and they are making it honourable. Between English Modernism and the now discredited Roman Modernism there is a deep cleavage. Roman Modernists took Newman's doctrine of development and combined it with a pragmatist philosophy. The Catholic Church, they contended, exists and is useful. They allowed that its development had carried it far from Jesus and His Gospel. They did not scruple to affirm that science and criticism had rendered many of its dogmas intellectually incredible. But, though reason might reject the Catholic system, the will could accept the Catholic Church for its faith-value.' The Roman Modernists were rightly crushed by Pius X; but they not unfairly claimed to have pushed to its logical conclusions the orthodox scepticism of Newman. Acton, writing to Gladstone in 1896 before the movement was well under weigh, criticised Newman with severe insight:

I may say (to a pupil): read Newman; he is by far the best writer the Church of Rome has had in England since the Reformation. And the pupil will come back and say: But do you think his arguments sound, or his religion Catholic? I shall have to say: No; if you work it out, it is a school of Infidelity.'

English Modernists shew no sympathy with the Catholic Modernists, whose scepticism they are popularly supposed to share. No one has more trenchantly criticised their philosophy and their extravagant critical conclusions than Dr. Inge. His article entitled Roman Catholic Modernism,' in the first series of Outspoken Essays,' is a masterpiece of incisive analysis; and, in its repudiations, fairly represents the standpoint of English Modernist theologians. The Dean has recently given a positive statement of his faith in the fine Confessio Fidei' with which the second series of 'Outspoken Essays' opens. It may be commended

Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton.' Vol. 1. 1917 (p. 227).

to those who doubt whether Modernism can evolve a coherent system of belief and also to those who allege that it has broken with the best traditions in Christian thought. Another presentation of constructive Modernism is contained in Dr. Rashdall's 'Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology.' The scope of this powerful work is wider than its title suggests; and, though the author belongs to the advanced school of critical scholars, his sympathy with the greatest Christian teachers of the past is repeatedly disclosed.

It must not be supposed that English Modernist divines belong to a single school of thought. They differ substantially from one another as regards their metaphysical position: as to the way in which they think of the relation between God and the world, and, in particular, between God and man. In some there is a tendency to push Divine immanence to the verge of pantheism. 'In us God lives and moves and has His being' is a much criticised sentence of Professor Bethune-Baker. But, for the most part, it is felt that such conceptions, though a convenient basis for the theology of the Incarnation, endanger ethical monotheism. During the Middle Ages Christian Platonism was at times combined with mysticism to produce a sort of modified pantheism; but in the teaching of Christ there is so firm a distinction between God and man that it is unlikely that the balance between immanence and transcendence will be upset in modern Christian speculation.

English Modernists, however, though sundered metaphysically, are at one in their attitude towards modern knowledge. They hold that it is not for theologians to challenge the conclusions reached by experts working at scientific or literary problems. When men of science agree as to the picture which they give of the evolution of the universe and of man upon this earth, their conclusions must be accepted. Similarly, when among scholars there is general agreement as to the date and origin of the various books of the Bible, their views must be accepted. Men of science and scholars thus provide new postulates on which the re-statement of Christian belief must be founded. Herein is the essential principle of English Modernism.

But this principle is slowly winning general acceptance. 'We ' are all Modernists now.' And because the extent and significance of the new orientation are not generally recognised, we propose to

consider, in some detail, tendencies which are now shewing themselves alike among Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.

The attitude of conservative but active-minded Evangelicals towards re-statement of belief is well indicated in a recent book by Dr. Knox, published under the title' By What Authority?' Dr. Knox, after a distinguished career at Oxford, became a forceful administrator, and for some seventeen years was in charge of the important see of Manchester. During that time he was rightly regarded as one of the chief representatives of the Evangelical party on the Episcopal Bench; and it has never been suggested that he was in any way tainted by Modernism. Yet the book, which is the fruit of his freedom in retirement, will surprise and please younger Evangelicals by the concessions which it makes. As we shall see, Dr. Knox gives a qualified approval of Modernist postulates which many will have expected him to denounce. He does not deny the evolutionary scheme of the universe which modern science sets before us; and he is prepared to make a partial use of the methods of literary criticism of the Scriptures, though he attempts by means of them to maintain a conservative position.

·

་

Dr. Knox repudiates the endeavour, still sometimes made, to demonstrate that the Bible contains nothing contrary to the teaching of modern astronomy. All these attempts (he says) to square Biblical with Copernican astronomy are untrue to plain 'history.' Having made such an admission he naturally feels that we have no occasion to put ancient beliefs into conflict with 'modern science.' He says handsomely that Darwin's Origin of Species was an epoch-making book, both theologically as well as scientifically.' It is disappointing that the Bishop should somewhat later express the view that it is premature, probably, ' at this stage, and certainly no part of the design of this book to effect a reconciliation between Genesis and Darwinism.' The obvious rejoinder is that Darwin's book was published over sixty years ago; and that the Bishop should be familiar with the work of English divines who, since that time, have made evolution an integral part of Christian theology. Dr. Knox makes suggestions towards' reconciliation'; but they are not wholly satisfactory. It is safe to say that those who follow him will end by going further along the road which he has taken.

་

Similarly, with regard to Biblical criticism, the Bishop cries

'Halt ! ' at a stage where younger Evangelicals deem it impossible to rest. One curious parenthesis, 'taking into account only the ' critics who have not allowed their criticism to affect the New 'Testament,' suggests that he is unwilling to apply to the New Testament methods useful in investigating the Old. In point of fact he uses the New Testament as if generally accepted critical conclusions were non-existent, and even inclines to the opinion that the so-called Second Epistle of Peter was written by the Apostle. But he gives a very fair summary of 'some critical 'findings on the Old Testament.' He accepts the literary analysis of the Pentateuch so far as to allow that in it two different documents have been combined. The Pentateuch is a composite ' work, a blending of materials.' Further, Dr. Knox teaches that the Captivity and Exile were the occasion for the collection and editing of records, most of which,' however,' are of the antiquity 'which tradition assigns to them.' The Bishop attempts by argument to defend his belief in the antiquity of the books ascribed to Moses; and thereby shews that he realises that Biblical criticism is a science and not a mere impertinence. Many will sympathise with his complaint that

'Theology can only be estimated fairly by those who have a considerable acquaintance with metaphysics, psychology, archæology, comparative religion, laws of literary criticism, and sometimes Greek, Latin and Hebrew.'

But the fact that he can make such a complaint shews that he is not unaware of the varied developments of human knowledge which have made reconstruction of belief a necessity. He is, we suggest, at fault in that he refuses to accept, or even to consider, critical conclusions which the foremost scholars of the world are practically unanimous in reaching. Scholarship, he says somewhat impatiently, has almost become a new form of sacerdotalism.' Modern theologians, we must admit, quote with a certain pontifical serenity the assured results of modern ' criticism.' But securus judicat orbis terrarum. The scholar is the expert to whose authority the theologian must yield. The scholar has now behind him a century of investigations, as elaborate, patient and acute as any undertaken in modern times. His authority is that of human reason, vigilant and finely trained. He sits in the court of final appeal; and Dr. Knox, having accepted his laws, must abide by his decision.

VOL. 237.

NO. 483.

E

Dr. Knox's attitude towards miracles is the most surprising indication of the changed standpoint of even conservative evangelicals.

'Miracles are apparent disturbances of (natural) order. The strength with which time and observation enforce on us the idea of order makes belief in disturbance as difficult to us as it was easy to those who had not our experience behind them. We are even justified in saying that, if we knew all, we should find that there had been no disturbance.'

He urges, quite soundly, that miracles are events' significant of 'Divine purpose or meaning.' Evidence for them 'must submit ' to all the ordinary rules of evidence.' 'Those who insist that 'the miracles of the Bible must be believed, because the Bible is the Word of God, simply dispense with evidence in the ordinary 'sense of the term.' When Dr. Knox examines the historical evidence for certain Old Testament miracles his critical views affect his judgment. With regard to the miracles recorded in the book of Daniel he admits that

'The evidence is greatly weakened, or even disappears, if the book was written centuries later than (the time of the reputed author) to encourage the Jews under the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes.'

He then adds the unexpected statement: The difficulty is to 'find critics on either side whose bias as to the date of the book 'is beyond suspicion ' The statement is unexpected, for it can be confidently affirmed that no impartial judge, reading the evidence as marshalled, say, in Driver's 'Commentary,' would refuse to accept the later date. Dr. Knox, however, explicitly recognises that we cannot always take miracles of the Old Testament at their face-value.

'It is more than possible that some events recorded as miracles in the Bible would, if we knew all the facts, fall under the head of so-called Providential occurrences. It is not unbelievers, but devout Bible students who have suggested explanations of several of the plagues of Egypt and of the crossing of the Red Sea.'

When it is remembered that Dr. Knox ranks as a conservative Evangelical of the older generation, and that he writes with due sense of responsibility as a Bishop to whom many look for guidance, the significance of his remarkable concessions to moderate Modernism will be realised.