72 



SYDNEY T. KLEIN ON THE INVISIBLE IS THE REAL. 



a negation of good- No doubt it may be urged that darkness is 

 not an entity like light ; and that when it is illuminated it is 

 non existent. But such is not the case with regard to evil which 

 IS an actual entity as much as good, and alas by no means 

 disappears when the light shines, but is often in direct and bitter 

 conflict with it. The treating of sin as an illusion is a fatal error 

 that is denied throughout the whole of Scripture. 



Mr. W. E. Leslie said: — Mr. Kleins paper has a destructive 

 and a constructive aspect. From the standpoint of idealism his 

 destructive criticism appears conclusive. In his constructive con- 

 tribution — a Pantheistic Mysticism — he attempts to escape from 

 the results of his destructive work, not by argument, but by simply 

 uttering the words "Intuition," "Introspection,'' "Inner" and 

 "Inwardly"' as though they were potent magic formulae. How 

 does he determine the boundary between " inner"' and " outer," and 

 why does he attribute to the area of consciousness lying on one side 

 of the line a validity lacking in that on the other side ? 



I suggest that Mr. Klein's work is vitiated by an inability 

 (characteristic of oriental thinkers) to distinguish between analogy 

 and argument, metaphor and reality. Thus in this paper he 

 regards the physical universe as a shadow cast upon our senses, and 

 at the same time speaks of these senses as themselves a shadow 

 upon " the plane of our consciousness.'" But is not this a shadow 

 upon a shadow — an illusion on the part of an illusion ? Again evil 

 is described as an illusion ; but such an illusion would itself be 

 evil, and require explanation. The solution is purely verbal, 

 the problem is unsolved. 



The Rt-v. J. J. B. Coles said : Has not the lecturer in his inter- 

 esting paper confounded the Divine life in the Christian with the 

 ordinary spirit of the Natural Man 1 



Mr. Klein quotes from Gen. i. 31. but this must he taken in 

 connection with Gen. vi., 5. 



" Know thyself "' (by introspection) was the foundation principle 

 of all ancient philosophies, whereas Christianity pointed to Christ, 

 His sufferings and His glories and not to self -occupation and 

 introspection. 



Mr. H. O. Wellee remarked of the paper that its Philosophy 

 is non-Christian — a mixture of Buddhism and Christian Science ; 

 it does not bring us " into direct touch with the latest advances " 

 in knowledge and especially it most certainly does not in the 

 smallest degree "combat the unbelief now prevalent."' In a paper 

 subsequently submitted he wrote ' ' I will content myself with 

 suggesting that the primai-y test of any system of philosophical 

 speculation advanced before such a society as ours is that the 

 incarnation, the life, and the death of our Lord Jesus Christ 

 should be stated in terms of it."' 



Now, in the author's system we are asked to accept " this curious 



