god the invisible king-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！


s　not　the　case　　with　Christianity　is　one　of　the　many　contributory　aspects　that　lead　　one　to　the　conviction　that　it　was　not　Christianity　that　took　　possession　of　the　Roman　empire；　but　an　imperial　adventurer　who　took　　possession　of　an　all　too　complaisant　Christianity。　Reverting　now　from　these　generalisations　to　the　problem　of　the　　religious　from　which　they　arose；　it　will　have　become　evident　that　　the　essential　work　of　anyone　who　is　conversant　with　the　existing　　practice　and　literature　of　the　law　and　whose　natural　abilities　are　　forensic；　will　lie　in　the　direction　of　reconstructing　the　theory　and　　practice　of　the　law　in　harmony　with　modern　conceptions；　of　making　　that　theory　and　practice　clear　and　plain　to　ordinary　men；　of　　reforming　the　abuses　of　the　profession　by　working　for　the　separation　　of　bar　and　judiciary；　for　the　amalgamation　of　the　solicitors　and　the　　barristers；　and　the　like　needed　reforms。　　These　are　matters　that　　will　probably　only　be　properly　set　right　by　a　quickening　of　　conscience　among　lawyers　themselves。　　Of　no　class　of　men　is　the　help　　and　service　so　necessary　to　the　practical　establishment　of　God's　　kingdom；　as　of　men　learned　and　experienced　in　the　law。　　And　there　is　　no　reason　why　for　the　present　an　advocate　should　not　continue　to　　plead　in　the　courts；　provided　he　does　his　utmost　only　to　handle　　cases　in　which　he　believes　he　can　serve　the　right。　　Few　righteous　　cases　are　ill…served　by　a　frank　disposition　on　the　part　of　lawyer　　and　client　to　put　everything　before　the　court。　　Thereby　of　course　　there　arises　a　difficult　case　of　conscience。　　What　if　a　lawyer；　　believing　his　client　to　be　in　the　right；　discovers　him　to　be　in　the　　wrong？　　He　cannot　throw　up　the　case　unless　he　has　been　scandalously　　deceived；　because　so　he　would　betray　the　confidence　his　client　has　　put　in　him　to　〃see　him　through。〃　　He　has　a　right　to　〃give　himself　　away；〃　but　not　to　〃give　away〃　his　client　in　this　fashion。　　If　he　has　　a　chance　of　a　private　consultation　I　think　he　ought　to　do　his　best　　to　make　his　client　admit　the　truth　of　the　case　and　give　in；　but　　failing　this　he　has　no　right　to　be　virtuous　on　behalf　of　another。　　　No　man　may　play　God　to　another；　he　may　remonstrate；　but　that　is　the　　limit　of　his　right。　　He　must　respect　a　confidence；　even　if　it　is　　purely　implicit　and　involuntary。　　I　admit　that　here　the　barrister　is　　in　a　cleft　stick；　and　that　he　must　see　the　business　through　　according　to　the　confidence　his　client　has　put　in　himand　　afterwards　be　as　sorry　as　he　may　be　if　an　injustice　ensues。　　And　　also　I　would　suggest　a　lawyer　may　with　a　fairly　good　conscience　　defend　a　guilty　man　as　if　he　were　innocent；　to　save　him　from　　unjustly　heavy　penalties。　。　。　。　This　comparatively　full　discussion　of　the　barrister's　problem　has　　been　embarked　upon　because　it　does　bring　in；　in　a　very　typical　　fashion；　just　those　uncertainties　and　imperfections　that　abound　in　　real　life。　　Religious　conviction　gives　us　a　general　direction；　but　　it　stands　aside　from　many　of　these　entangled　struggles　in　the　jungle　　of　conscience。　　Practice　is　often　easier　than　a　rule。　　In　practice　a　　lawyer　will　know　far　more　accurately　than　a　hypothetical　case　can　　indicate；　how　far　he　is　bound　to　see　his　client　through；　and　how　far　　he　may　play　the　keeper　of　his　client's　conscience。　　And　nearly　every　　day　there　happens　instances　where　the　most　subtle　casuistry　will　　fail　and　the　finger　of　conscience　point　unhesitatingly。　　One　may　　have　worried　long　in　the　preparation　and　preliminaries　of　the　issue；　　one　may　bring　the　case　at　last　into　the　final　court　of　conscience　in　　an　apparently　hopeless　tangle。　　Then　suddenly　comes　decision。　The　procedure　of　that　silent；　lit；　and　empty　court　in　which　a　man　　states　his　case　to　God；　is　very　simple　and　perfect。　　The　excuses　and　　the　special　pleading　shrivel　and　vanish。　　In　a　little　while　the　case　　lies　bare　and　plain。

8。　THE　OATH　OF　ALLEGIANCE

The　question　of　oaths　of　allegiance；　acts　of　acquiescence　in　　existing　governments；　and　the　like；　is　one　that　arises　at　once　with　　the　acceptance　of　God　as　the　supreme　and　real　King　of　the　Earth。　　At　　the　worst　Caesar　is　a　usurper；　a　satrap　claiming　to　be　sovereign；　at　　the　best　he　is　provisional。　　Modern　casuistry　makes　no　great　trouble　　for　the　believing　public　official。　　The　chief　business　of　any　　believer　is　to　do　the　work　for　which　he　is　best　fitted；　and　since　　all　state　affairs　are　to　become　the　affairs　of　God's　kingdom　it　is　　of　primary　importance　that　they　should　come　into　the　hands　of　God's　　servants。　　It　is　scarcely　less　necessary　to　a　believing　man　with　　administrative　gifts　that　he　should　be　in　the　public　administration；　　than　that　he　should　breathe　and　eat。　　And　whatever　oath　or　the　like　　to　usurper　church　or　usurper　king　has　been　set　up　to　bar　access　to　　service；　is　an　oath　imposed　under　duress。　　If　it　cannot　be　avoided　　it　must　be　taken　rather　than　that　a　man　should　become　unserviceable。　　　All　such　oaths　are　unfair　and　foolish　things。　　They　exclude　no　　scoundrels；　they　are　appeals　to　superstition。　　Whenever　an　　opportunity　occurs　for　the　abolition　of　an　oath；　the　servant　of　God　　will　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　fin