god the invisible king-第2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！

　inspiration　of　　the　scriptures；　which　presently　swamped　thought　in　textual　　interpretation。　　That　swamping　came　very　early　in　the　development　of　　Christianity。　　The　writer　of　St。　John's　gospel　appears　still　to　be　　thinking　with　a　considerable　freedom；　but　Origen　is　already　　hopelessly　in　the　net　of　the　texts。　　The　writer　of　St。　John's　gospel　　was　a　free　man；　but　Origen　was　a　superstitious　man。　　He　was　　emasculated　mentally　as　well　as　bodily　through　his　bibliolatry。　　He　　quotes；　his　predecessor　thinks。　But　the　writer　throws　out　these　guesses　at　the　probable　intentions　　of　early　Christian　thought　in　passing。　　His　business　here　is　the　　definition　of　a　position。　　The　writer's　position　here　in　this　book　　is；　firstly；　complete　Agnosticism　in　the　matter　of　God　the　Creator；　　and　secondly；　entire　faith　in　the　matter　of　God　the　Redeemer。　　That；　　so　to　speak；　is　the　key　of　his　book。　　He　cannot　bring　the　two　ideas　　under　the　same　term　God。　　He　uses　the　word　God　therefore　for　the　God　　in　our　hearts　only；　and　he　uses　the　term　the　Veiled　Being　for　the　　ultimate　mysteries　of　the　universe；　and　he　declares　that　we　do　not　　know　and　perhaps　cannot　know　in　any　comprehensible　terms　the　　relation　of　the　Veiled　Being　to　that　living　reality　in　our　lives　who　　is；　in　his　terminology；　the　true　God。　　Speaking　from　the　point　of　　view　of　practical　religion；　he　is　restricting　and　defining　the　word　　God；　as　meaning　only　the　personal　God　of　mankind；　he　is　restricting　　it　so　as　to　exclude　all　cosmogony　and　ideas　of　providence　from　our　　religious　thought　and　leave　nothing　but　the　essentials　of　the　　religious　life。　Many　people；　whom　one　would　class　as　rather　liberal　Christians　of　an　　Arian　or　Arminian　complexion；　may　find　the　larger　part　of　this　book　　acceptable　to　them　if　they　will　read　〃the　Christ　God〃　where　the　　writer　has　written　〃God。〃　　They　will　then　differ　from　him　upon　　little　more　than　the　question　whether　there　is　an　essential　identity　　in　aim　and　quality　between　the　Christ　God　and　the　Veiled　Being；　who　　answer　to　their　Creator　God。　　This　the　orthodox　post　Nicaean　　Christians　assert；　and　many　pre…Nicaeans　and　many　heretics　（as　the　　Cathars）　contradicted　with　its　exact　contrary。　　The　Cathars；　　Paulicians；　Albigenses　and　so　on　held；　with　the　Manichaeans；　that　　the　God　of　Nature；　God　the　Father；　was　evil。　　The　Christ　God　was　his　　antagonist。　　This　was　the　idea　of　the　poet　Shelley。　　And　passing　　beyond　Christian　theology　altogether　a　clue　can　still　be　found　to　　many　problems　in　comparative　theology　in　this　distinction　between　　the　Being　of　Nature　（cf。　　Kant's　〃starry　vault　above〃）　and　the　God　　of　the　heart　（Kant's　〃moral　law　within〃）。　　The　idea　of　an　antagonism　　seems　to　have　been　cardinal　in　the　thought　of　the　Essenes　and　the　　Orphic　cult　and　in　the　Persian　dualism。　　So；　too；　Buddhism　seems　to　　be　〃antagonistic。〃　　On　the　other　hand；　the　Moslem　teaching　and　　modern　Judaism　seem　absolutely　to　combine　and　identify　the　two；　God　　the　creator　is　altogether　and　without　distinction　also　God　the　King　　of　Mankind。　　Christianity　stands　somewhere　between　such　complete　　identification　and　complete　antagonism。　　It　admits　a　difference　in　　attitude　between　Father　and　Son　in　its　distinction　between　the　Old　　Dispensation　（of　the　Old　Testament）　and　the　New。　　Every　possible　　change　is　rung　in　the　great　religions　of　the　world　between　　identification；　complete　separation；　equality；　and　disproportion　of　　these　Beings；　but　it　will　be　found　that　these　two　ideas　are；　so　to　　speak；　the　basal　elements　of　all　theology　in　the　world。　　The　writer　　is　chary　of　assertion　or　denial　in　these　matters。　　He　believes　that　　they　are　speculations　not　at　all　necessary　to　salvation。　　He　　believes　that　men　may　differ　profoundly　in　their　opinions　upon　these　　points　and　still　be　in　perfect　agreement　upon　the　essentials　of　　religion。　　The　reality　of　religion　he　believes　deals　wholly　and　　exclusively　with　the　God　of　the　Heart。　　He　declares　as　his　own　　opinion；　and　as　the　opinion　which　seems　most　expressive　of　modern　　thought；　that　there　is　no　reason　to　suppose　the　Veiled　Being　either　　benevolent　or　malignant　towards　men。　　But　if　the　reader　believes　　that　God　is　Almighty　and　in　every　way　Infinite　the　practical　outcome　　is　not　very　different。　　For　the　purposes　of　human　relationship　it　is　　impossible　to　deny　that　God　PRESENTS　HIMSELF　AS　FINITE；　as　　struggling　and　takingl；　　whether　the　God　in　our　hearts　is　the　Son　of　or　a　rebel　against　the　　Universe；　the　reality　of　religion；　the　fact　of　salvation；　is　still　　our　self…identification　with　God；　irrespective　of　consequences；　and　　the　achievement　of　his　kingdom；　in　our　hearts　and　in　the　world。　　　Whether　we　live　forever　or　die　tomorrow　does　not　affect　　righteousness。　　Many　people　seem　to　find　the　prospect　of　a　final　　personal　death　unendurable。　　This　impresses　me　as　egotism。　　I　have　　no　such　appetite　for　a　separate　immortality。　　God　is　my　immortality；　　what；　of　me；　is　identified　with　God；　is　God；　what　is　not　is　of　no　　more　permanent　value　than　the　snows　of　yester…year。　H。　G。　W。　Dunmow；　May；　1917。


GOD　THE　INVISIBLE　KING

CHAPTER　THE　FIRST　THE　COSMOGONY　OF　MODERN　RELIGION

1。　MODERN　RELIGION　HAS　NO　FOUNDER

Perhaps　all　religions；　unless　the　flaming　onset　of　Mohammedanism　be　　an　exception；　have　dawned　imperceptibly　upon　the　world。　　A　little　　while　ago　and　the　thing　was　not；　and　then　suddenly　it　has　been　found　　in　existence；　and　already　in　a　state　of　diffusion。　　People　have　　begun　to　hear　of　the　new　belief　first　here　and　then　there。　　It　is　　interesting；　for　example；　to　trace　how　Christianity　drifted　into　the　　consciousness　of　the　Roman　world。　　But　when　a　religion　has　been　　interrogated　it　has　always　had　hitherto　a　tale　of　beginnings；　the　　name　and　story　of　a　founder。　　The　renascent　religion　that　is　now　　taking　shape；　it　seems；　had　no　founder；　it　points　to　no　origins。　　It　　is　the　Truth；　its　believers　declare；　it　has　always　been　here；　it　has　　always　been　visible　to　those　who　had　eyes　to　see。　　It　is　perhaps　　plainer　than　it　was　and　to　more　peoplethat　is　all。　It　is　as　if　it　still　did　not　realise　its　own　difference。　　Many　of　　those　who　hold　it　still　think　of　it　as　if　it　were　a　kind　of　　Christianity。　　Some；　catching　at　a　phrase　of　Huxley's；　speak　of　it　　as　Christianity　without　Theology。　　They　do　not　know　the　creed　they　　are　carrying。　　It　has；　as　a　matter　of　fact；　a　very　fine　and　subtle　　theology；　flatly　opposed　to　any　belief　that　could；　except　by　great　　stretching　of　charity　and　the　imagination；　be　called　Christianity。　　　One　might　find；　perhaps；　a　parallelism　with　the　system　ascribed　to　　some　Gnostics；　but　that　is　far　more　probably　an　accidental　rather　　than　a　sympathetic　coincidence。　　Of　that　the　reader　shall　presently　　have　an　opportunity　of　judging。　This　indefiniteness　of　statement　and　relationship　is　probably　only　　the　opening　phase　of　the　new　faith。　　Christianity　also　began　with　an　　extreme　neglect　of　definition。　　It　was　not　at　first　anything　more　　than　a　sect　of　Judaism。　　It　was　only　after　three　centuries；　amidst　　the　uproar　and　emotions　of　the　council　of　Nicaea；　when　the　more　　enthusiastic　Trinitarians　stuffed　their　fingers　in　their　ears　in　　affected　horror　at　the　arguments　of　old　Arius；　that　the　cardinal　　mystery　of　the　Trinity　was　established　as　the　essential　fact　of　　Christianity。　　Throughout　those　three　centuries；　the　centuries　of　　its　greatest　achievements　and　noblest　martyrdoms；　Christianity　had　　not　defined　its　God。　　And　even　to…day　it　has　to　be　noted　that　a　　large　majority　of　those　who　possess　and　repeat　the　Christian　creeds　　have　come　into　the　practice　so　insensibly　from　unthinking　childhood；　　that　only　in　the　slightest　way　do　they　realise　the　nature　of　the　　statements　to　which　they　subscribe。　　They　will　speak　and　think　of　　both　Christ　and　God　in　ways　flatly　incompatible　with　the　doctrine　of　　the　Triune　deity　upon　which；　theoretically；　the　entire　fabric　of　all　　the　churches　rests。　　They　will　show　themselves　as　frankly　Arians　as　　though　that　damnable　heresy　had　not　been　washed　out　of　the　world　　forever　after　centuries　of　persecution　in　torrents　of　blood。　　But　　whatever　the　present　state　of　Christendom　in　these　matters　may　be；　　there　can　be　no　doubt　of　the　enormous　pains　taken　in　the　past　to　　give　Christian　beliefs　the　exactest；　least　ambiguous　statement　　possible。　　Christianity　knew　itself　clearly　for　what　it　was　in　its　　maturity；　whatever　the　indecisions　of　its　childhood　or　the　　confusions　of　its　decay。　　The　renascent　religion　that　one　finds　now；　　a　thing　active　and　sufficient　in　many　minds；　has　still　scarcely　come　　to　self…consciousness。　　But　it　is　so　coming；　and　this　present　book　　is　very　largely　an　attempt　to　state　the　shape　it　is　assuming　and　to　　compare　it　with　the　beliefs　and　imperatives　and　usages　of　the　　various　Christian；　pseudo…Christian；　philosophical；　and　agnostic　　cults　amidst　which　it　has　appeared。　The　writer's　sympathies　and　convictions　are　entirely　with　this　that　　he　speaks　of　as　renascent　or　modern　religion；　he　is　neither　atheist　　nor　Buddhist　nor　Mohammedan　nor　Christian。　　He　will　make　no　　pretence；　therefore；　to　impartiality　and　detachment。　　He　will　do　his　　best　to　be　as　fair　as　possible　and　as　candid　as　possible；　but　the　　reader　must　reckon　with　this　bias。　　He　has　found　this　faith　growing　　up　in　himself；　he　has　found　it；　or　something　very