It is a nice question whether the use of God’s name is not misleading when it is applied by modernists to ideas so remote from the God men have worshiped. Plainly the modernist churchman does not believe in the God of Genesis who walked in the garden in the cool of the evening and called to Adam and his wife who had hidden themselves behind a tree; nor in the God of Exodus who appeared to Moses and Aaron and seventy of the Elders of Israel, standing with his feet upon a paved walk as if it were a sapphire stone; nor even in the God of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah who in his compassion for the sheep who have gone astray, having turned everyone to his own way, laid on the Man of Sorrows the iniquity of us all. This, as Kirsopp Lake says, is the God of most, if not all, the writings in the Bible. Yet “however much our inherited sentiments may shrink from the admission, the scientists are to-day almost unanimous in saying that the universe as they see it contains no evidence of the existence [p028] of any anthropomorphic God whatever. The experimentalist (_i.e._, modernist) wholly agrees that this is so. Nevertheless he refuses as a rule, and I think rightly—to abandon the use of the word ‘God.’” In justification of this refusal to abandon the word ‘God,’ although he has abandoned the accepted meaning of the word, Dr. Lake appeals to a tradition which reaches back at least to Origen who, as a Christian neo-platonist, used the word ‘God’ to mean, not the King and Father of creation, but the sum of all ideal values. It was this redefinition of the word ‘God,’ he says, which “made Christianity possible for the educated man of the third century.” It is this same redefinition which still makes Christianity possible for educated churchmen like Dr. Lake and Dean Inge.