July 14, 1923] 



NA TURE 



47 



ance of the theory on " one's views of the Biblical 

 account of Creation and of the Christian religion." 

 Prof. Hopkins, on the other hand, is not a Christian 

 apologist, but plainly sympathises with the religious 

 syncretism which is not uncommon among American 

 intellectuals. He seeks to disclose and, we suggest, 

 sometimes exaggerates likenesses to be found in the 

 advanced religions of mankind. He uses a singularly 

 wide survey of the religious development of humanity 

 to indicate the sort of faith which may emerge from 

 the present clash of creeds and philosophies. He is 

 learned, urbane, and detached. 



Though the writers of the two books thus differ 

 widely, they represent parallel developments of a 

 characteristically modern movement. Throughout the 

 nineteenth century there was a continuous battle 

 between science and theology, or, to speak more 

 definitely, betw^een certain assumptions associated 

 with but not essential to the Christian faith and the 

 contradictory conclusions reached by modern investiga- 

 tion. Such a conflict was inevitable, for, as Prof. 

 Gilbert Murray has justly said, the progress of human 

 knowledge has been four times as rapid during the last 

 hundred years as during any century since the Christian 

 era began. The conflict, moreover, could have but 

 one end : it necessarily resulted in the victory of 

 " science." But, however complete the victory, the 

 fact and value of religion remain. So it was to be 

 expected that the victors themselves, once their 

 triumph was assured, would turn to formulate an 

 intellectual basis for religion. As the books before us 

 indicate, they are now making their contribution to 

 the restatement of theology ; and theologians, learning 

 from them, are using their own special knowledge for 

 the same purpose. 



It is well to insist that each type of specialist is 

 needed for the work. Just as theologians half a 

 century ago were contemptuous of the knowledge won 

 by men of science, so now the latter often fail to realise 

 that from the modern theologian there is much to be 

 learnt. For lack of a theological training, the man 

 of science who is a Christian is always in danger of 

 stumbling into some form of " popular orthodoxy " 

 which the theologian would repudiate. The scholar 

 or man of science, unfamiliar with Christian theology, 

 may easily make false generalisations from isolated 

 statements, and, not seeing the wood for the trees, 

 may lose sight of the essential features of the Christian 

 W eltanschauung. 



It is necessary to emphasise that Christianity is a 

 synthesis. It is built upon the Gospels and their 

 central Figure ; and, of course, behind His teaching 

 lay Jewish ethical nionotheism. But the classical 

 Creeds were developed by combining this basis with 



NO. 2802, VOL. 112] 



Greek philosophy and, especially, with ideas derived 

 from Plato. In particular, it is assumed that good- 

 ness, beauty, and wisdom are absolute values : that 

 they express the spiritual nature of the universe : that, 

 because they have eternal value, they have eternal 

 existence. The real world is thus the spiritual world, 

 where these values exist eternally ; and this world of 

 ours is but an imperfect copy of a perfect archetype. 

 Obviously the Gospel and this philosophico-religious 

 setting form a harmony. Modern Christian theologians 

 contend that this harmonious structure gains in 

 strength when into it the conclusions of modern science 

 are built. If, as we believe, they are right, changes 

 due to modern discovery will not harm the funda- 

 mentals of Christianity, though some types of cherished 

 picture-thinking will become obsolete. 



(i) We will not attempt to describe Prof. Lane's 

 " Evolution and Christian Faith." The main outlines 

 of his argument will be familiar to all who have given 

 some attention to the subject. As is common with 

 American authors, he pays more regard to works by his 

 own countrymen than to those of British thinkers. He 

 writes clearly and argues fairly ; and his book may be 

 commended to those who desire to give to the science- 

 student a clear perception of the inadequacy of material- 

 ism as a philosophy. He occasionally stumbles when 

 he ventures outside his own realm of biology. For 

 example, he says that Galileo, after 1632, " was thrown 

 into prison, [and] treated with all the severity which 

 his remorseless persecutors could devise, for the 

 remaining ten years of his life." He obviously derives 

 this statement from Draper's " Conflict between Re- 

 ligion and Science." It is inaccurate. In White's 

 " Warfare of Science with Theology " there is a more 

 exact account, with numerous references, of the per- 

 secution of Galileo. It was a deplorable business, but 

 not quite so bad as Prof. Lane suggests. 



To take another example, Prof. Lane, in writing of 

 the Genesis accounts of Creation, reveals that Biblical 

 scholarship is to him largely a terra incognita. He 

 assumes that Moses is the author of the two cosmogonies 

 of which fragments are preserved ; and somewhat 

 naively suggests that a modern " interpretation does 

 not in any way convict Moses of ignorance nor deceit." 

 Of course, the familiar first chapter of Genesis is a 

 product of Jewish speculation of the time of the exile ; 

 and, though the second account of Creation may be 

 some three centuries earlier, it comes from a document 

 which no unprejudiced scholar would assign to Moses 

 himself. 



Prof. Lane does not clearly state his view of the 

 nature of Biblical inspiration ; and one might read 

 his book without suspecting that he has any doubts 

 as to the substantial infallibility of Scripture. With 



