god the invisible king-第14节

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ive　and　the　lamp　unlit　is　asleep　or　dead。　The　difference　between　the　unconverted　and　the　unbeliever　and　the　　servant　of　the　true　God　is　this；　it　is　that　the　latter　has　　experienced　a　complete　turning　away　from　self。　　This　only　difference　　is　all　the　difference　in　the　world。　　It　is　the　realisation　that　this　　goodness　that　I　thought　was　within　me　and　of　myself　and　upon　which　I　　rather　prided　myself；　is　without　me　and　above　myself；　and　infinitely　　greater　and　stronger　than　I。　　It　is　the　immortal　and　I　am　mortal。　　　It　is　invincible　and　steadfast　in　its　purpose；　and　I　am　weak　and　　insecure。　　It　is　no　longer　that　I；　out　of　my　inherent　and　remarkable　　goodness；　out　of　the　excellence　of　my　quality　and　the　benevolence　of　　my　heart；　give　a　considerable　amount　of　time　and　attention　to　the　　happiness　and　welfare　of　othersbecause　I　choose　to　do　so。　　On　the　　contrary　I　have　come　under　a　divine　imperative；　I　am　obeying　an　　irresistible　call；　I　am　a　humble　and　willing　servant　of　the　　righteousness　of　God。　　That　altruism　which　Professor　Metchnikoff　and　　Mr。　McCabe　would　have　us　regard　as　the　goal　and　refuge　of　a　broad　　and　free　intelligence；　is　really　the　first　simple　commandment　in　the　　religious　life。

4。　ANOTHER　RELIGIOUS　MATERIALIST

Now　here　is　a　passage　from　a　book；　〃Evolution　and　the　War；〃　by　　Professor　Metchnikoff's　translator；　Dr。　Chalmers　Mitchell；　which　　comes　even　closer　to　our　conception　of　God　as　an　immortal　being　　arising　out　of　man；　and　external　to　the　individual　man。　　He　has　been　　discussing　that　well…known　passage　of　Kant's：　〃Two　things　fill　my　　mind　with　ever…renewed　wonder　and　awe　the　more　often　and　deeper　I　　dwell　on　themthe　starry　vault　above　me；　and　the　moral　law　within　　me。〃　From　that　discussion；　Dr。　Chalmers　Mitchell　presently　comes　to　this　　most　definite　and　interesting　statement：

〃Writing　as　a　hard…shell　Darwinian　evolutionist；　a　lover　of　the　　scalpel　and　microscope；　and　of　patient；　empirical　observation；　as　　one　who　dislikes　all　forms　of　supernaturalism；　and　who　does　not　　shrink　from　the　implications　even　of　the　phrase　that　thought　is　a　　secretion　of　the　brain　as　bile　is　a　secretion　of　the　liver；　I　assert　　as　a　biological　fact　that　the　moral　law　is　as　real　and　as　external　　to　man　as　the　starry　vault。　　It　has　no　secure　seat　in　any　single　man　　or　in　any　single　nation。　　It　is　the　work　of　the　blood　and　tears　of　　long　generations　of　men。　　It　is　not　in　man；　inborn　or　innate；　but　is　　enshrined　in　his　traditions；　in　his　customs；　in　his　literature　and　　his　religion。　　Its　creation　and　sustenance　are　the　crowning　glory　of　　man；　and　his　consciousness　of　it　puts　him　in　a　high　place　above　the　　animal　world。　　Men　live　and　die；　nations　rise　and　fall；　but　the　　struggle　of　individual　lives　and　of　individual　nations　must　be　　measured　not　by　their　immediate　needs；　but　as　they　tend　to　the　　debasement　or　perfection　of　man's　great　achievement。〃

This　is　the　same　reality。　　This　is　the　same　Link　and　Captain　that　　this　book　asserts。　　It　seems　to　me　a　secondary　matter　whether　we　　call　Him　〃Man's　Great　Achievement〃　or　〃The　Son　of　Man〃　or　the　〃God　　of　Mankind〃　or　〃God。〃　　So　far　as　the　practical　and　moral　ends　of　　life　are　concerned；　it　does　not　matter　how　we　explain　or　refuse　to　　explain　His　presence　in　our　lives。　There　is　but　one　possible　gap　left　between　the　position　of　Dr。　　Chalmers　Mitchell　and　the　position　of　this　book。　　In　this　book　it　is　　asserted　that　GOD　RESPONDS；　that　he　GIVES　courage　and　the　power　of　　self…suppression　to　our　weakness。

5。　A　NOTE　ON　A　LECTURE　BY　PROFESSOR　GILBERT　MURRAY

Let　me　now　quote　and　discuss　a　very　beautiful　passage　from　a　lecture　　upon　Stoicism　by　Professor　Gilbert　Murray；　which　also　displays　the　　same　characteristic　of　an　involuntary　shaping　out　of　God　in　the　　forms　of　denial。　　It　is　a　passage　remarkable　for　its　conscientious　　and　resolute　Agnosticism。　　And　it　is　remarkable　too　for　its　　blindness　to　the　possibility　of　separating　quite　completely　the　idea　　of　the　Infinite　Being　from　the　idea　of　God。　　It　is　another　striking　　instance　of　that　obsession　of　modern　minds　by　merely　Christian　　theology　of　which　I　have　already　complained。　　Professor　Murray　has　　quoted　Mr。　Bevan's　phrase　for　God；　〃the　Friend　behind　phenomena；〃　　and　he　does　not　seem　to　realise　that　that　phrase　carries　with　it　no　　obligation　whatever　to　believe　that　this　Friend　is　in　control　of　the　　phenomena。　　He　assumes　that　he　is　supposed　to　be　in　control　as　if　it　　were　a　matter　of　course：

〃We　do　seem　to　find；〃　Professor　Murray　writes；　〃not　only　in　all　　religions；　but　in　practically　all　philosophies；　some　belief　that　man　　is　not　quite　alone　in　the　universe；　but　is　met　in　his　endeavours　　towards　the　good　by　some　external　help　or　sympathy。　　We　find　it　　everywhere　in　the　unsophisticated　man。　　We　find　it　in　the　unguarded　　self…revelations　of　the　most　severe　and　conscientious　Atheists。　　　Now；　the　Stoics；　like　many　other　schools　of　thought；　drew　an　　argument　from　this　consensus　of　all　mankind。　　It　was　not　an　absolute　　proof　of　the　existence　of　the　Gods　or　Providence；　but　it　was　a　　strong　indication。　　The　existence　of　a　common　instinctive　belief　in　　the　mind　of　man　gives　at　least　a　presumption　that　there　must　be　a　　good　cause　for　that　belief。　〃This　is　a　reasonable　position。　　There　must　be　some　such　cause。　　But　　it　does　not　follow　that　the　only　valid　cause　is　the　truth　of　the　　content　of　the　belief。　　I　cannot　help　suspecting　that　this　is　　precisely　one　of　those　points　on　which　Stoicism；　in　company　with　　almost　all　philosophy　up　to　the　present　time；　has　gone　astray　　through　not　sufficiently　realising　its　dependence　on　the　human　mind　　as　a　natural　biological　product。　　For　it　is　very　important　in　this　　matter　to　realise　that　the　so…called　belief　is　not　really　an　　intellectual　judgment　so　much　as　a　craving　of　the　whole　nature。　〃It　is　only　of　very　late　years　that　psychologists　have　begun　to　　realise　the　enormous　dominion　of　those　forces　in　man　of　which　he　is　　normally　unconscious。　　We　cannot　escape　as　easily　as　these　brave　men　　dreamed　from　the　grip　of　the　blind　powers　beneath　the　threshold。　　　Indeed；　as　I　see　philosophy　after　philosophy　falling　into　this　　unproven　belief　in　the　Friend　behind　phenomena；　as　I　find　that　I　　myself　cannot；　except　for　a　moment　and　by　an　effort；　refrain　from　　making　the　same　assumption；　it　seems　to　me　that　perhaps　here　too　we　　are　under　the　spell　of　a　very　old　ineradicable　instinct。　　We　are　　gregarious　animals；　our　ancestors　have　been　such　for　countless　ages。　　　We　cannot　help　looking　out　on　the　world　as　gregarious　animals　do；　we　　see　it　in　terms　of　humanity　and　of　fellowship。　　Students　of　animals　　under　domestication　have　shown　us　how　the　habits　of　a　gregarious　　creature；　taken　away　from　his　kind；　are　shaped　in　a　thousand　details　　by　reference　to　the　lost　pack　which　is　no　longer　therethe　pack　　which　a　dog　tries　to　smell　his　way　back　to　all　the　time　he　is　out　　walking；　the　pack　he　calls　to　for　help　when　danger　threatens。　　It　is　　a　strange　and　touching　thing；　this　eternal　hunger　of　the　gregarious　　animal　for　the　herd　of　friends　who　are　not　there。　　And　it　may　be；　it　　may　very　possibly　be；　that；　in　the　matter　of　this　Friend　behind　　phenomena　our　own　yearning　and　our　own　almost　ineradicable　　instinctive　conviction；　since　they　are　certainly　not　founded　on　　either　reason　or　observation；　are　in　origin　the　groping　of　a　lonely…　souled　gregarious　animal　to　find　its　herd　or　its　herd…leader　in　the　　great　spaces　between　the　stars。　〃At　any　rate；　it　is　a　belief　very　difficult　to　get　rid　of。〃

There　the　passage　and　the　lecture　end。　I　would　urge　that　here　again　is　an　inadvertent　witness　to　the　　reality　of　God。　Professor　Murray　writes　of　gregarious　animals　as　though　there　　existed　solitary　animals　that　are　not　gregarious；　pure　　individualists；　〃atheists〃　so　to　speak；　and　as　though　this　appeal　to　　a　life　beyond　one's　own　was　not　the　universal　disposition　of　living　　things。　　His　classical　training　disposes　him　to　a　realistic　　exaggeration　of　individual　difference。　　But　nearly　every　animal；　and　　certainly　every　mentally　considerable　animal；　begins　under　parental　　care；　in　a　nest　or　a　litter；　mates　to　breed；　and　is　associated　for　　much　of　its　life。　　Even　the　great　carnivores　do　not　go　alone　except　　when　they　are　old　and　have　done　with　the　most　of　life。　　Every　pack；　　every　herd；　begins　at　some　point　in　a　couple；　it　is　the　equivalent　　of　the　tiger's　litter　if　that　were　to　remain　undispersed。　　And　it　is　　within　the　memory　of　men　still　living　that　in　many　districts　the　　African　lion　has　with　a　change　of　game　and　conditions　lapsed　from　a　　〃solitary〃　to　a　gregarious；　that　is　to　say　a　prolonged　family　habit　　of　life。　Man　too；　if　in　his　ape…like　phase　he　resembled　the　other　higher　　apes；　is　an　animal　becoming　more　gregarious　and　not　less。　　He　has　　passed　within　the　historical　period　from　a　tribal　gregariousness　to　　a　nearly　cosmopolitan　tolerance。　　And　he　has　his　tribe　about　him。　　　He　is　not；　as　Professor　Murray　seems　to　suggest；　a　solitary　LOST　　gregarious　beast。　　Why　should　his　desire　for　God　be　regarded　as　the　　overflow　of　an　unsatisfied　gregarious　instinct；　when　he　has　home；　　town；　society；　companionship；　trade　union；　state；　INCREASINGLY　at　　hand　to　glut　it？　　Why　should　gregariousness　drive　a　man　to　God　　rather　than　to　the　third…class　carriage　and　the　publ