god the invisible king-第18部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


seize　it；　but　where　the　oath　is　unavoidable　he　will　take　it。　The　service　of　God　is　not　to　achieve　a　delicate　consistency　of　　statement；　it　is　to　do　as　much　as　one　can　of　God's　work。

9。　THE　PRIEST　AND　THE　CREED

It　may　be　doubted　if　this　line　of　reasoning　regarding　the　official　　and　his　oath　can　be　extended　to　excuse　the　priest　or　pledged　　minister　of　religion　who　finds　that　faith　in　the　true　God　has　ousted　　his　formal　beliefs。　This　has　been　a　frequent　and　subtle　moral　problem　in　the　　intellectual　life　of　the　last　hundred　years。　　It　has　been　　increasingly　difficult　for　any　class　of　reading；　talking；　and　　discussing　people　such　as　are　the　bulk　of　the　priesthoods　of　the　　Christian　churches　to　escape　hearing　and　reading　the　accumulated　　criticism　of　the　Trinitarian　theology　and　of　the　popularly　accepted　　story　of　man's　fall　and　salvation。　　Some　have　no　doubt　defeated　this　　universal　and　insidious　critical　attack　entirely；　and　honestly　　established　themselves　in　a　right…down　acceptance　of　the　articles　　and　disciplines　to　which　they　have　subscribed　and　of　the　creeds　they　　profess　and　repeat。　　Some　have　recanted　and　abandoned　their　　positions　in　the　priesthood。　　But　a　great　number　have　neither　　resisted　the　bacillus　of　criticism　nor　left　the　churches　to　which　　they　are　attached。　　They　have　adopted　compromises；　they　have　　qualified　their　creeds　with　modifying　footnotes　of　essential　　repudiation；　they　have　decided　that　plain　statements　are　metaphors　　and　have　undercut；　transposed；　and　inverted　the　most　vital　points　of　　the　vulgarly　accepted　beliefs。　　One　may　find　within　the　Anglican　　communion；　Arians；　Unitarians；　Atheists；　disbelievers　in　　immortality；　attenuators　of　miracles；　there　is　scarcely　a　doubt　or　a　　cavil　that　has　not　found　a　lodgment　within　the　ample　charity　of　the　　English　Establishment。　　I　have　been　interested　to　hear　one　　distinguished　Canon　deplore　that　〃they〃　did　not　identify　the　Logos　　with　the　third　instead　of　the　second　Person　of　the　Trinity；　and　　another　distinguished　Catholic　apologist　declare　his　indifference　to　　the　〃historical　Jesus。〃　　Within　most　of　the　Christian　communions　one　　may　believe　anything　or　nothing；　provided　only　that　one　does　not　　call　too　public　an　attention　to　one's　eccentricity。　　The　late　Rev。　　Charles　Voysey；　for　example；　preached　plainly　in　his　church　at　　Healaugh　against　the　divinity　of　Christ；　unhindered。　　It　was　only　　when　he　published　his　sermons　under　the　provocative　title　of　〃The　　Sling　and　the　Stone；〃　and　caused　an　outcry　beyond　the　limits　of　his　　congregation；　that　he　was　indicted　and　deprived。　Now　the　reasons　why　these　men　do　not　leave　the　ministry　or　　priesthood　in　which　they　find　themselves　are　often　very　plausible。　　　It　is　probable　that　in　very　few　cases　is　the　retention　of　stipend　or　　incumbency　a　conscious　dishonesty。　　At　the　worst　it　is　mitigated　by　　thought　for　wife　or　child。　　It　has　only　been　during　very　exceptional　　phases　of　religious　development　and　controversy　that　beliefs　have　　been　really　sharp。　　A　creed；　like　a　coin；　it　may　be　argued；　loses　　little　in　practical　value　because　it　is　worn；　or　bears　the　image　of　　a　vanished　king。　　The　religious　life　is　a　reality　that　has　clothed　　itself　in　many　garments；　and　the　concern　of　the　priest　or　minister　　is　with　the　religious　life　and　not　with　the　poor　symbols　that　may　　indeed　pretend　to　express；　but　do　as　a　matter　of　fact　no　more　than　　indicate；　its　direction。　　It　is　quite　possible　to　maintain　that　the　　church　and　not　the　creed　is　the　real　and　valuable　instrument　of　　religion；　that　the　religious　life　is　sustained　not　by　its　　propositions　but　by　its　routines。　　Anyone　who　seeks　the　intimate　　discussion　of　spiritual　things　with　professional　divines；　will　find　　this　is　the　substance　of　the　case　for　the　ecclesiastical　sceptic。　　　His　church；　he　will　admit；　mumbles　its　statement　of　truth；　but　where　　else　is　truth？　　What　better　formulae　are　to　be　found　for　ineffable　　things？　　And　meanwhilehe　does　good。　That　may　be　a　valid　defence　before　a　man　finds　God。　　But　we　who　　profess　the　worship　and　fellowship　of　the　living　God　deny　that　　religion　is　a　matter　of　ineffable　things。　　The　way　of　God　is　plain　　and　simple　and　easy　to　understand。　Therewith　the　whole　position　of　the　conforming　sceptic　is　changed。　　　If　a　professional　religious　has　any　justification　at　all　for　his　　professionalism　it　is　surely　that　he　proclaims　the　nearness　and　　greatness　of　God。　　And　these　creeds　and　articles　and　orthodoxies　are　　not　proclamations　but　curtains；　they　are　a　darkening　and　confusion　　of　what　should　be　crystal　clear。　　What　compensatory　good　can　a　　priest　pretend　to　do　when　his　primary　business　is　the　truth　and　his　　method　a　lie？　　The　oaths　and　incidental　conformities　of　men　who　wish　　to　serve　God　in　the　state　are　on　a　different　footing　altogether　from　　the　falsehood　and　mischief　of　one　who　knows　the　true　God　and　yet　　recites　to　a　trustful　congregation；　foists　upon　a　trustful　　congregation；　a　misleading　and　ill…phrased　Levantine　creed。　Such　is　the　line　of　thought　which　will　impose　the　renunciation　of　　his　temporalities　and　a　complete　cessation　of　services　upon　every　　ordained　priest　and　minister　as　his　first　act　of　faith。　　Once　that　　he　has　truly　realised　God；　it　becomes　impossible　for　him　ever　to　　repeat　his　creed　again。　　His　course　seems　plain　and　clear。　　It　　becomes　him　to　stand　up　before　the　flock　he　has　led　in　error；　and　to　　proclaim　the　being　and　nature　of　the　one　true　God。　　He　must　be　　explicit　to　the　utmost　of　his　powers。　　Then　he　may　await　his　　expulsion。　　It　may　be　doubted　whether　it　is　sufficient　for　him　to　go　　away　silently；　making　false　excuses　or　none　at　all　for　his　retreat。　　　He　has　to　atone　for　the　implicit　acquiescences　of　his　conforming　　years。

10。　THE　UNIVERSALISM　OF　GOD

Are　any　sorts　of　people　shut　off　as　if　by　inherent　necessity　from　　God？　This　is；　so　to　speak；　one　of　the　standing　questions　of　theology；　it　　reappears　with　slight　changes　of　form　at　every　period　of　religious　　interest；　it　is　for　example　the　chief　issue　between　the　Arminian　and　　the　Calvinist。　　From　its　very　opening　proposition　modern　religion　　sweeps　past　and　far　ahead　of　the　old　Arminian　teachings　of　Wesleyans　　and　Methodists；　in　its　insistence　upon　the　entirely　finite　nature　of　　God。　　Arminians　seem　merely　to　have　insisted　that　God　has　　conditioned　himself；　and　by　his　own　free　act　left　men　free　to　accept　　or　reject　salvation。　　To　the　realist　type　of　mindhere　as　always　I　　use　〃realist〃　in　its　proper　sense　as　the　opposite　of　nominalistto　　the　old…fashioned；　over…exact　and　over…accentuating　type　of　mind；　　such　ways　of　thinking　seem　vague　and　unsatisfying。　　Just　as　it　　distresses　the　more　downright　kind　of　intelligence　with　a　feeling　of　　disloyalty　to　admit　that　God　is　not　Almighty；　so　it　troubles　the　　same　sort　of　intelligence　to　hear　that　there　is　no　clear　line　to　be　　drawn　between　the　saved　and　the　lost。　　Realists　like　an　exclusive　　flavour　in　their　faith。　　Moreover；　it　is　a　natural　weakness　of　　humanity　to　be　forced　into　extreme　positions　by　argument。　　It　is　　probable；　as　I　have　already　suggested；　that　the　absolute　attributes　　of　God　were　forced　upon　Christianity　under　the　stresses　of　　propaganda；　and　it　is　probable　that　the　theory　of　a　super…human　　obstinancy　beyond　salvation　arose　out　of　the　irritations　natural　to　　theological　debate。　　It　is　but　a　step　from　the　realisation　that　　there　are　people　absolutely　unable　or　absolutely　unwilling　to　see　　God　as　we　see　him；　to　the　conviction　that　they　are　therefore　shut　　off　from　God　by　an　invincible　soul　blindness。　It　is　very　easy　to　believe　that　other　people　are　essentially　damned。　Beyond　the　little　world　of　our　sympathies　and　comprehension　there　　are　those　who　seem　inaccessible　to　God　by　any　means　within　our　　experience。　　They　are　people　answering　to　the　〃hard…hearted；〃　to　the　　〃stiff…necked　generation〃　of　the　Hebrew　prophets。　　They　betray　and　　even　confess　to　standards　that　seem　hopelessly　base　to　us。　　They　　show　themselves　incapable　of　any　disinterested　enthusiasm　for　beauty　　or　truth　or　goodness。　　They　are　altogether　remote　from　intelligent　　sacrifice。　　To　every　test　they　betray　vileness　of　texture；　they　are　　mean；　cold；　wicked。　　There　are　people　who　seem　to　cheat　with　a　　private　self…approval；　who　are　ever　ready　to　do　harsh　and　cruel　　things；　whose　use　for　social　feeling　is　the　malignant　boycott；　and　　for　prosperity；　monopolisation　and　humiliating　display；　who　seize　　upon　religion　and　turn　it　into　persecution；　and　upon　beauty　to　　torment　it　on　the　altars　of　some　joyless　vice。　　We　cannot　do　with　　such　souls；　we　have　no　use　for　them；　and　it　is　very　easy　indeed　to　　step　from　that　persuasion　to　the　belief　that　God　has　no　use　for　　them。　And　besides　these　base　people　there　are　the　stupid　people　and　the　　people　with　minds　so　poor　in　texture　that　they　cannot　even　grasp　the　　few　broad　and　simple　ideas　that　seem　necessary　to　the　salvation　we　　experience；　who　lapse　helplessly　into　fetishistic　and　fearful　　conceptions　of　God；　and　are　apparently　quite　incapable　of　　distinguishing　between　what　is　practically　and　what　is　spiritually　　good。　It　is　an　easy　thing　to　conclude　that　the　only　way　to　God　is　our　way　　to　God；　that　he　is　the　privilege　of　a　finer　and　better　sort　to　which　　we　of　course　belong；　that　he　is　no　more　the　God　of　the　card…sharper　　or　the　pickpocket　or　the　〃smart〃　woman　or　the　loan…monger　or　the　　village　oaf　than　he　is　of　the　swine　in　the　sty。　　But　are　we　　justified　in　thus　limiting　God　to　the　measure　of　our　moral　and　　intellectual　understandings？　　Because　some　people　seem　to　me　　steadfastly　and　consistently　base　or　hopelessly　and　incurably　dull　　and　confused；　does　it　follow　that　there　are　not　phases；　albeit　I　　have　never　chanced　to　see　them；　of　exaltation　in　the　one　case　and　　illumination　in　the　other？　　And　may　I　not　be　a　little　restricting　my　　perception　of　Good？　　While　I　have　been　ready　enough　to　pronounce　　this　or　that　person　as　being；　so　far　as　I　was　concerned；　thoroughly　　damnable　or　utterly　dull；　I　find　a　curious　reluctance　to　admit　the　　general　proposition　which　is　necessary　for　these　instances。　　It　is　　possible　that　the　difference　between　Arminian　and　Calvinist　is　a　　difference　of　essential　intellectual　temperament　rather　than　of　　theoretical　conviction。　　I　am　temperamentally　Arminian　as　I　am　　temperamentally　Nominalist。　　I　fe