New-York tribune., 1890-08-31
LUX MUNDI.
SOME CONCESSIONS OF THEoLoGIANs.


That this is remarkable book is proved by
che way in which it has been praised and assaiied
in England since it first appeared. 1t is in brief
an attempt, the part of twelve Anglican clergy
men, more or less identified with the High Church
party, to reconcile the dogmas OF Christianity
with the most approved conclusions OF modern
science. The subjects discussed are: Faith,
by the Rev. ii. s. Holland; 1.-The Christian
Doctrine of God by the Rev. Aubrey Moore;
The Problem of Pain, by the Rev. E. 5 Talbot;
The Incarnation in Relation TO Development. and
as the Basis of Dogma, by the Rev. j. X.
Illngworth and the Rev. Arthur Lyttelton "rhe
Holy Spirit and Inspiration" by the Rev. Charles
Gore "The Church. by the Rev. W. Lock;
"Sacraments." by the Rev. F. PaGet; Christi
anty and Politics." by the Rev. W. >. IL
Campion, and Christian Ethics by the Rev.
R. L. Ottley. The value of these essays docs
not lie much in the fact that they brilliant
md unanswcrablc, for some Of them neither,
,s it does in the fact that they all recognize the
Importance, and, indeed, the necessity, of setting
Christianity right with modern thought. There
are Bourbon theologans in the Anglican COM
muniOn-many of them in fact-whO prize
dogma Of the Church only the more highly be-
cause it contradicts scientific truth acknowl-
edged by everybody outside a lunatc asylum.
But these twelve clergymen. good Churchrcn
though they be, have desire to be numbered
with such Bourbons, feeling they DO that if
the Christian religion is to have any future at
all il must not allow its disciples to array it
against the continuous revelations of nature.
And ii they have not entirely succeeded in their
task, it is not 50 much due to any lack of earnest
ness ability on their part u the inherent
difficulty of the task N moy we'll he doubted, in
Decd if il is possible to harmonic the great body
nt hris nd bpl
High Church Episcopalians, with the conclusions
of modern science. For the two spheres are not
only entirely distinct, but they appeal to an ell
tirey different set Of intellectual and emotional
faculties. There is. of course, some room for COM
premise in certain matters of opinion, and Id lie
gard to certain alleged historical facts which are
not really essential TO the argument III favor OF
Christianity. Even here, however, the theolo-
gians have stoutly resisted the conclusions of
science as long possible as for instance, in the
case of the days OF creation and the whole suOJect
of Biblical chronology generally. They feel and
perhaps with good reason that i'll the popular
Christian consciousness the whole body OF concrete
Christianity is neXtricably bound together, and
that any attempt to separate what is essential from
what is nonessential will inevitably shake the faith
OF many.
Even in the domain of miracles the attempt TO
though with rather Indifferent success. In many
orthdox Christian pulpts NAV be heard ingeni-
ous natural explanations of Balaom ass speak
ing the standing still of the and moon at the
command of joshua the. swallowing of Jonah by
o whale or the translation OF Elijah. More and
more, every year, the newer, or, as some call
It, the higher criticism of the Bible making this
free handling of miracles possible Even the
miracles of the New Testament are found by many
Christian teachers to be natural occurrences, un-
consciously magnifed by the Jealous but un-
critical disciples of Jesus into supernatural events
But however far that process may be carried,
a point ust be reached at last when the Christian
believer and the scientist must part company.
For the Christian must not only believe that
miracles have taken place, unless he Jneeles with
the plain meaning of words but that they can
take place now if God wills that they shall take
place While the scientist virtually holds that
miracles cannot happen and in any case is bound
by his own principles and rules of evidence TO
exclude all the miracles of the Bible from serious
consideration, they are to him no more than
old wives tales So long, then, this impass
able gulf exists between religion and science, 1T
is of little avail to be told that the gulf Is not
really as wide as it was first thought to be.
II is enough to fnow that, whether wide or
narrow, it is impossible.
And when all is said and done that is tie con-
clusion at which the Lux Mundi" essaylsts ar
rive The tLeologian cannot adopt the point oil
view of the scientist without giving up nearly
ali that is fundamental to Christianity. And
on the other hand, the scientist cannot accept te
traditions and dogmas of the Church without
doing violence TO all the principles and rules OF
evidence which lie at the very foundation OF
science 1t is indeed true, as those essayls'S
point out, that much of what is called science
is mere scientific assumption, and scientific as
sumption has no more claim to cledehce thah
theoloeical ass imptiOn. Bat though this Is lhe
weak spot of science, it nevertheless makes trouoie
for religion. for as one of the essayists points
out the scientific frontiers which the theologiahs
are ever on the point Of fixing shift and change
md vanish as soon as they are for the moment
determined and the whole force OF Christian
apologetics is spent in aimless and barren border
warfare On the other hand, this is also In q
measure true of the defences Of theology, which
are not only shifted from generation to genera
ton, and even from decade 10 decade, but many
of which are finally abandoned as untenabe.
And it often happens that those VINO
are best entitled to speak for Christianity are
obliged TO silence the unwise and intemperate
defenders of Christianity before they can turn
their attention TO its assailants. Thus confused
and uncertain is the great battle between rellgoh
and science At times even the most falseelng
leaders can hardly make clear estimate OF the
results: and it is not therefore wonderful that
the blind partisans and followers on each SIDE
know almost nothing about what is really hap
pening. In the meanwhile, the camp followers
of both armies keep up strident shouting over
nothing in particular, and in that way still
further complicate the situation, especially as a
great many good but unthinking people in this
world are quite ready to take noise for atgu-
ment and assertion for performance.
But the vaporings of religious bigots on the
one hand and of scientific bigots on the other
hand need not be seriously considered. The ques-
ton that really interests the impartial seeker for
truth is this: What is TO be the final outcome
of the conflict? Is religion. in the present