Modern Philosophy. 97 social system which has been reared under the influence and protection of Christianity) imperiled by it? Beyond all doubt it is. Nor is our reasonable apprehension in this regard in any wise allayed by Professor James’ statements that the principal factors of this change are “scientific evolutionism and the rising tide of social democratic ideals.” Great is the mischief already accomplished by these mighty agencies of evil, and we are as yet but at the beginning of their destructive career. One more word Professor James speaks on this point: “An external creator and his institutions may still be ver bally confessed 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 Sardis stage, “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things that re main that are ready to die” (Rev. 3:1 ,2). BUDDHA OR CHRIST? It is now in order to inspect briefly that system of philos ophy which, in its several forms, has crowded out of our uni versities the doctrine of Christ (and which has incidentally made Him a liar). We have already stated that this reign ing system, now holding almost undisputed sway in “Chris tian” England and America, is pantheism, which has flourished for thousands of years as the philosophical religious cult of India. We have seen how Professor James defers to the Hin doo estimate of the Bible doctrine of creation, and sides with it. If the test of a doctrine is the way it is regarded by the Hindoos, it is quite logical to go to them for the interpretation of the universe which is to be taught at our schools and col leges. The philosophers of today have, therefore, nothing to offer to us that our ancestors did not understand as well as they, and that they were not as free to choose as we are. Did our an cestors' then prefer the worse thing to the better when they
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker