Professor
James, in his lectures at Manchester,
treats the teaching of theBible as being now so utterly discredited and
out of date as to call for onlya brief, passing reference in a discussion purporting
to deal with "thepresent situation in philosophy." He says:
"I
shall leave cynical materialism entirely out of our discussion asnot
calling for treatment before this present audience, and I shallignore
old-fashioned dualistic theism for the same reason"(page
30).
It
is also important for our purpose to note the suddenness of the greatchange
which has taken place at our universities, whereby Christiandoctrine
has been relegated to a position of obscurity so profound that itcalls
for no consideration in a discussion of this sort. The lecturer, afterremarking
that he had been told by Hindu's that "the great obstacle to thespread
of Christianity in their country was the puerility of our dogma ofcreation,"
added: "Assuredly, most members of this audience are ready toside
with Hinduism in this matter." And then he
proceeded to say that"those of us who are sexagenarians"
have witnessed such changes as"make the thought of a past generation
seem as foreign to its successor asif it were the expression
of a different race of men. The theologicalmachinery
that spoke so livingly to our ancestors, with its finite age of theworld,
its creation out of nothing, its juridical morality and eschatology, itstreatment
of God as an external contriver, an intelligent and moralgovernor,
sounds as odd to most of us as if it were some outlandish savagereligion"
(page 29).
ITS
SIGNIFICANCE
Let
the reader not fail to grasp the significance of the statement. Forhundreds
of years the instruction imparted to the youths of England
andAmerica
has been grounded upon the Scriptures as the oracles of God;and,
in fact, the work of teaching has been carried on mainly by ministersof
the Word. The positions which England
and America
have gainedamong
the nations during those centuries is known to every one. God hasgreatly
blessed them with national prosperity and world-wide dominion.
But
now, we are told (and it is true), that within a single generation theframework
of our educational systems has been so changed that thelanguage
which expressed the abiding convictions of our ancestors soundsas
strange in the atmosphere of our great universities as the language of a"different
race of men," uttering the formulas of some "outlandish savagereligion."
Whether the change is for the better or for the worse is not, forthe
moment, in question. What we wish to impress upon our readers’minds
at this point is simply the fact that a tremendous change has takenplace,
with amazing suddenness, and in regard to matters that are of vitalimportance
to the whole world, and particularly to the English-speakingpeople.
EFFECT
UPON PLASTIC MINDS
The
effect upon the plastic minds of undergraduates of such words as thoselast
quoted can easily be imagined. They artfully convey the suggestion thatthese
young men are, in respect of their philosophical notions, vastlysuperior
to the men of light and learning of past generations, and that it isby
the repudiation of Christianity and its "lively oracles" that they
furnishconvincing
proof of their intellectual superiority. There are few mindsamong
men of the age here addressed, or of any age except they be firmlygrounded
and established in the truth — which could resist
the insidiousinfluence
of such an appeal to the innate vanity of men.
Such
being then the influences to which the students at our universities arenow
exposed, is there not urgent need of impressing upon Christian parents(there
are yet a few remaining) the warning of our text, and exhorting themto
beware lest their children be despoiled through philosophy and emptydeceit?
A
GREAT PERIL
What
does this sudden and stupendous change portend? Is not the veryexistence
of Christianized civilization (i.e., the social system which hasbeen
reared under the influence and protection of Christianity) imperiled byit?
Beyond all doubt it is. Nor is our reasonable apprehension in this regardin
any wise allayed by Professor James’
statements that the principalfactors of this change are "scientific
evolutionism" and "the rising tide ofsocial democratic
ideals." Great is the mischief already accomplished bythese
mighty agencies of evil, and we are as yet but at the beginning oftheir
destructive career.
One
more word Professor James speaks on this point:"An external
creator and his institutions may still be verballyconfessed
at Church in formulas that linger by their mere inertia,but
the life is out of them" (page 34).
And
with this agree the words of the risen Christ to the church in its Sardisstage,
"Thou
hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, andstrengthen
the things that remain that are ready to die"Revelation
3:1,2.
BUDDHA
OR CHRIST?
It
is now in order to inspect briefly that system of philosophy which, in itsseveral
forms, has crowded out of our universities the doctrine of Christ(and
which has incidentally made Him a liar). We have already stated thatthis
reigning system, now holding almost undisputed sway in "Christian"England
and America, is pantheism,
which has flourished for thousands ofyears as the philosophical religious cult
of India.
We have seen howProfessor James defers to the Hindu estimate of the Bible
doctrine ofcreation,
and sides with it. If the test of a doctrine is the way it is regardedby
the Hindu's, it is quite logical to go to them for the interpretation of theuniverse
which is to be taught at our schools and colleges.
The
philosophers of today have, therefore, nothing to offer to us that ourancestors
did not understand as well as they, and that they were not as freeto
choose as we are. Did our ancestors then prefer the worse thing to thebetter
when they chose, and founded great universities to preserve, thedoctrines
taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, rather than (as theymight
have done) the doctrines associated with the name of Buddha? Ourpresent-day
teachers of philosophy appear to say so. But if there remainsany
judgment at all in the twentieth-century man, he will remember, beforelightly
acquiescing in the removal of the ancient foundations, that whateverthere
may be of superiority in the social order of Christianized England andAmerica
over that of pantheistic India is due to the choice which ourforefathers
made when they accepted the teaching of the Gospel of Christ,and
to the fact that every subsequent generation until the present hasratified
and adhered firmly to that choice.
WHAT
BENEFIT?
What
benefit, then, can any sane man expect as the result of this suddenand
wholesale repudiation of teachings which are vital to Christianity, andthe
acceptance in their stead of the ancient doctrines of heathendom?
Surely
there never was a generation of men so unwise, so blinded by itsown
conceit, as this foolish generation, in thus casting away the guidanceof
that Book which has put England and America at the head of thenations,
and which has been the source of everything that is commendablein
so-called "civilized society," and in accepting in its place the
brutalizingand
degrading doctrines of pantheism.
In
whatever our eyes can rest upon with satisfaction in our past history orour
present institutions, our art, literature, ethics, standards of family lifeand
national life, etc., etc., we see the evidences of the influence of thoseteachings
which have now been discarded by the wise men of our day as"puerile"
in comparison with those of heathen philosophy. How long will itbe
before the righteous judgment of God overtakes the peoples who havethus
turned with contempt from the source of all their greatness?
The
warning, therefore, should be sounded out, not only to the young menand
women who are likely to be the dire? victims of the "higher
education"of the day, but to every dweller in civilized lands, to
Beware lest any manmake a prey of them through philosophy and vain
deceit. For the matter weare considering vitally affects the interests of
every civilized community.
NATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
From
the Bible and from secular history we learn that God deals not onlywith
individuals on the ground of privilege and responsibility, but withnations
also. Because of the extraordinary privileges granted to theIsraelites,
a heavier responsibility rested upon them than upon othernations,
and they were visited for their unfaithfulness with correspondingseverity.
And now we are living in that long stretch of centuries known as"the
times of the Gentiles," during which the natural branches of the olivetree
(Israel) are broken off, and the branches of the wild olive tree aregrafted
into their place; that is to say, the period wherein the Gentiles areoccupying
temporarily Israel’s place of special
privilege and responsibility.The diminishing of them has become the riches of
the Gentiles Romans11:11-25.
In
dealing with a nation God looks to its rulers or leaders as responsible forits
actions. The justice of this is specially evident in countries where thepeople
choose their own rulers and governors. In our day the people areall-powerful.
Rulers are chosen for the express purpose of executing thepopular
will. Likewise also the time has come when the people not onlyelect
their rulers, but also heap to themselves teachers, because they willnot
endure sound doctrine 2 Timothy 4:3,4. We may be sure, then,that
the persons we find in the professional chairs of our colleges are thereby
the mandate of the people, who have turned away their ears from thetruth
and give heed to fables which please their itching ears.
By
the very constitution of a democratic social order the teachers mustteach
what the people like to hear, or else give place to those who will.God
will surely judge the privileged nations for this. The change has beengreat
and sudden. The judgment will be swift and severe. Until our day,whatever
may have been the moral state of the masses of people ofEngland
and America, governments were established on the foundations ofChristian
doctrine; kings and other rulers were sworn to defend the faith;the
Bible was taught in the schools; and no one was regarded as fit for aposition
of public responsibility who was not a professed follower of JesusChrist.
As for the teachers in our schools and colleges, not one could havebeen
found who did not hold and teach as the unchanging truth of God thedoctrines
of Bible Christianity.
A
GREAT APOSTASY
Recognizing
these facts, which all must admit to be facts, however muchthey
may differ as to the significance of them, it follows that we are livingunder
the dark shadow of the greatest national apostasy that has ever takenplace.
During all the history of mankind there has never been such awholesale
turning away from the Source of national blessings, in order totake
up with the gods of the heathen.
SOLEMN
NONSENSE
We
have already stated that the regnant philosophy, i.e., pantheism, isexpounded
in our universities in two forms, known respectively as"monism"
and "pluralism." Professor James, although a vigorous critic ofmonism,
admits that the latter has almost complete possession of the field,and
that his own cult of "pluralism" has very few adherents. These twospecies
of pantheism are, however, alike in the essential matter that "bothidentify
human substance with divine substance." From a Christianstandpoint,
therefore, it is not very important to distinguish between them.
The
principal difference is that monism (or "absolutism") "thinks
that saidsubstance
becomes fully divine only in the form of totality, and is not itsreal
self in any form but the all-form"; whereas pluralism maintains"that
there may ultimately never be an all-form at all, that thesubstance
of reality may never get totally collected ......and that adistributive
form of reality, the each-form, is logically as acceptable,and
empirically as probable, as the all-form" (page 34)."For
monism the world is no collection, but one great all-inclusivefact,
outside of which there is nothing;" "And when the monism isidealistic,
this all-enveloping fact is represented as an absolute mindthat
makes the partial facts by thinking them, just as we makeobjects
in a dream by dreaming them, or personages in a story byimagining
them."
"The
world and the all-thinker thus co-penetrate and soak eachother
up without residuum." "The absolute makes us by thinkingus."
"The absolute and the world are one fact." "This is the fullpantheistic
scheme, the immanence of God in His creation, aconception sublime
from its tremendous unity."On the other hand, pluralism says that"reality
may exist in a distributive form in the shape not of an all,but
of a set of eaches." "There is this in favor of the eaches, thatthey
are at any rate real enough to have made themselves at leastappear
to every one, whereas the absolute has as yet appearedimmediately
to only a few mystics, and indeed to them veryambiguously"
(page 129).
I
have transcribed the foregoing specimens of this solemn nonsense inorder
that the reader may be informed of the choice which our greatuniversities
now set before the thousands of eager and receptive minds thatthrong
them in quest of knowledge. The rulers of these educationalinstitutions
virtually say to their students, You must accept a pantheisticconception
of the universe, but you may choose between a monisticuniverse
and a pluralistic universe between a universe which consists of asingle
ponderous "All," or one comprising an indefinite number ofmiscellaneous
"Eaches."
CONFLICTING
SCHOOLS
Whichever
of these "weak and beggarly" conceptions our young studentadopts,
he must be prepared to hear it assailed by the adherents of the rivalschool
and criticized as highly irrational and absurd; and for this his coursein
philosophy prepares him. Thus the advocates of monism declare thatpluralism
is "infected and undermined by self-contradiction." On the otherhand,
Professor James maintains that the "absolute" of the monist
"involvesfeatures
of irrationality peculiar to itself." He points out that, upon thetheory
of absolute idealism, the all-knower must know, and be alwaysdistinctly
conscious relation of every object in the whole universe, but alsoall
that the object is not as that a "table is not a chair, not a rhinoceros,
nota
logarithm, not a mile away from the door, not worth five hundred poundssterling,
not a thousand centuries old," etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam."Furthermore,
if it be a fact that certain ideas are silly, the absolute has tohave
already thought the silly ideas to establish them in silliness. Therubbish
in its mind would thus appear easily to outweigh in amount themore
desirable material. One would expect it fairly to burst with such anobesity,
plethora, and superfoetation of useless information" (page 128).And
how about things that are criminal, vicious, and impure? These are ofnecessity
just as much the thought-forms of the absolute as their opposites.
A
PHILOSOPHER’S VERDICT
Again,
after mentioning certain difficulties of the idealist theory, ProfessorJames
speaks disparagingly of"the oddity of inventing as a remedy for
the inconveniencesresulting from this situation a supernumerary conceptual
objectcalled
an ‘absolute,’
into which you pack the self-samecontradictions unreduced" (page
271).
Once
more we quote:"When
I read transcendentalist literature .....I get nothing but asort
of marking of time, champing of jaws, pawing of the ground,and
resettling into the same attitude, like a weary horse in a stallwith
an empty manger. It is but a turning over the same threadbarecategories,
bringing the same objections, and urging the sameanswers
and solutions, with never a new fact or new horizoncoming
into sight" (page 265).
This
is what a philosopher of the front ranks says of the ruling philosophyof
the day, whose speculations are being impressed upon the minds of ourbrightest
college students. One comment may be permitted, namely, that ifa
foolish absolute did not Create men by thinking them, certainly foolishmen
have created an absolute by thinking it; and it is difficult to conceivehow
they could have employed their minds more foolishly.
AN
IMPOSSIBLE TASK
This
is the situation brought about, now that Christianity has been politelybowed
out of our schools and seminaries in order to make room for theirrational
philosophy of Hinduism! Very pertinent in this connection arethe
words of the prophet:
"The
wise men are ashamed; they are dismayed and taken. Lo, theyhave
rejected the Word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them?"Jeremiah
8:9.
For
the occupation in which our philosophers are engaged is the impossibletask
of trying to establish an explanation of the visible universe after havingrejected
the true account thereof received from its Creator. The god of theruling
philosophy is one who is not permitted to speak or make himselfknown
in any way. Philosophy must needs put these restraints upon him forits
own protection; for, should he break through them, the occupation ofthe
philosopher would be gone. So he must remain in impenetrableobscurity,
speaking no word, and making no intelligible sign or motion, inorder
that philosophers may continue their congenial business of makingbad
guesses at what he is like.