orthodoxy-第16章
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！
of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point； desolate
and pessimistic。 The early Christian martyrs talked of death
with a horrible happiness。 They blasphemed the beautiful duties
of the body： they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers。
All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism。 Yet there
is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of
the pessimist。
This was the first of the long train of enigmas with which
Christianity entered the discussion。 And there went with it a
peculiarity of which I shall have to speak more markedly； as a note
of all Christian notions； but which distinctly began in this one。
The Christian attitude to the martyr and the suicide was not what is
so often affirmed in modern morals。 It was not a matter of degree。
It was not that a line must be drawn somewhere； and that the
self…slayer in exaltation fell within the line； the self…slayer
in sadness just beyond it。 The Christian feeling evidently
was not merely that the suicide was carrying martyrdom too far。
The Christian feeling was furiously for one and furiously against
the other： these two things that looked so much alike were at
opposite ends of heaven and hell。 One man flung away his life；
he was so good that his dry bones could heal cities in pestilence。
Another man flung away life； he was so bad that his bones would
pollute his brethren's。 I am not saying this fierceness was right；
but why was it so fierce？
Here it was that I first found that my wandering feet were
in some beaten track。 Christianity had also felt this opposition
of the martyr to the suicide： had it perhaps felt it for the
same reason？ Had Christianity felt what I felt； but could not
（and cannot） expressthis need for a first loyalty to things；
and then for a ruinous reform of things？ Then I remembered
that it was actually the charge against Christianity that it
combined these two things which I was wildly trying to combine。
Christianity was accused； at one and the same time； of being
too optimistic about the universe and of being too pessimistic
about the world。 The coincidence made me suddenly stand still。
An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying
that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot
be held in another。 Some dogma； we are told； was credible
in the twelfth century； but is not credible in the twentieth。
You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed
on Mondays； but cannot be believed on Tuesdays。 You might as well
say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half…past three；
but not suitable to half…past four。 What a man can believe
depends upon his philosophy； not upon the clock or the century。
If a man believes in unalterable natural law； he cannot believe
in any miracle in any age。 If a man believes in a will behind law；
he can believe in any miracle in any age。 Suppose； for the sake
of argument； we are concerned with a case of thaumaturgic healing。
A materialist of the twelfth century could not believe it any more
than a materialist of the twentieth century。 But a Christian
Scientist of the twentieth century can believe it as much as a
Christian of the twelfth century。 It is simply a matter of a man's
theory of things。 Therefore in dealing with any historical answer；
the point is not whether it was given in our time； but whether it
was given in answer to our question。 And the more I thought about
when and how Christianity had come into the world； the more I felt
that it had actually come to answer this question。
It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay
quite indefensible compliments to Christianity。 They talk as if
there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came；
a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them。
They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it
was the first to preach simplicity or self…restraint； or inwardness
and sincerity。 They will think me very narrow （whatever that means）
if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it
was the first to preach Christianity。 Its peculiarity was that it
was peculiar； and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar；
but obvious ideals for all mankind。 Christianity was the answer
to a riddle； not the last truism uttered after a long talk。
Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone
this remark； that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma
（as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones）；
turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light。
Now； if I were to say that Christianity came into the world
specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light； that would
be an exaggeration。 But it would be very much nearer to the truth。
The last Stoics； like Marcus Aurelius； were exactly the people
who did believe in the Inner Light。 Their dignity； their weariness；
their sad external care for others； their incurable internal care
for themselves； were all due to the Inner Light； and existed only
by that dismal illumination。 Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists；
as such introspective moralists always do； upon small things done
or undone； it is because he has not hate or love enough to make
a moral revolution。 He gets up early in the morning； just as our
own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning；
because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games
of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land。
Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types。 He is an
unselfish egoist。 An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without
the excuse of passion。 Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment
the worst is what these people call the Inner Light。 Of all horrible
religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within。
Any one who knows any body knows how it would work； any one who knows
any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work。
That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately
to mean that Jones shall worship Jones。 Let Jones worship the sun
or moon； anything rather than the Inner Light； let Jones worship
cats or crocodiles； if he can find any in his street； but not
the god within。 Christianity came into the world firstly in order
to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards；
but to look outwards； to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm
a divine company and a divine captain。 The only fun of being
a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light；
but definitely recognized an outer light； fair as the sun； clear as
the moon； terrible as an army with banners。
All the same； it will be as well if Jones does not worship the sun
and moon。 If he does； there is a tendency for him to imitate them；
to say； that because the sun burns insects alive； he may burn
insects alive。 He thinks that because the sun gives people sun…stroke；
he may give his neighbour measles。 He thinks that because the moon
is said to drive men mad； he may drive his wife mad。 This ugly side
of mere external optimism had also shown itself in the ancient world。
About the time when the Stoic idealism had begun to show the
weaknesses of pessimism； the old nature worship of the ancients had
begun to show the enormous weaknesses of optimism。 Nature worship
is natural enough while the society is young； or； in other words；
Pantheism is all right as long as it is the worship of Pan。
But Nature has another side which experience and sin are not slow
in finding out； and it is no flippancy to say of the god Pan that he
soon showed the cloven hoof。 The only objection to Natural Religion
is that somehow it always becomes unnatural。 A man loves Nature
in the morning for her innocence and amiability； and at nightfall；
if he is loving her still； it is for her darkness and her cruelty。
He washes at dawn in clear water as did the Wise Man of the Stoics；
yet； somehow at the dark end of the day； he is bathing in hot
bull's blood； as did Julian the Apostate。 The mere pursuit of
health always leads to something unhealthy。 Physical nature must
not be made the direct object of obedience； it must be enjoyed；
not worshipped。 Stars and mountains must not be taken seriously。
If they are； we end where the pagan nature worship ended。
Because the earth is kind； we can imitate all her cruelties。
Because sexuality is sane； we can all go mad about sexuality。
Mere optimism had reached its insane and appropriate termination。
The theory that everything was good had become an orgy of everything
that was bad。
On the other side our idealist pessimists were represented
by the old remnant of the Stoics。 Marcus Aurelius and his friends
had really given up the idea of any god in the universe and looked
only to the god within。 They had no hope of any virtue in nature；
and hardly any hope of any virtue in society。 They had not enough
interest in the outer world really to wreck or revolutionise it。
They did not love the city enough to set fire to it。 Thus the
ancient world was exactly in our own desolate dilemma。 The only
people who really enjoyed this world were busy breaking it up；
and the virtuous people did not care enough about them to knock
them down。 In this dilemma （the same as ours） Christianity suddenly
stepped in and offered a singular answer； which the world eventually
accepted as THE answer。 It was the answer then； and I think it is
the answer now。
This answer was like the slash of a sword； it sundered；
it did not in any sense sentimentally unite。 Briefly； it divided
God from the cosmos。 That transcendence and distinctness of the
deity which some Christians now want to remove from Christianity；
was really the only reason why any one wanted to be a Christian。
It was the whole point of the Christian answer to the unhappy pessimist
and the still more unhappy optimist。 As I am here only concerned
with their particular problem； I shall indicate only briefly this
great metaphysical suggestion。 All descriptions of the creating
or sustaining principle in things must be metaphorical； beca
