god the invisible king-第2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！


ion　and　world　　unity　which　produced　Christianity；　was　a　persistent　but　unsuccessful　　attempt　to　get　these　two　different　ideas　of　God　into　one　focus。　　It　　was　an　attempt　to　make　the　God　of　Nature　accessible　and　the　God　of　　the　Heart　invincible；　to　bring　the　former　into　a　conception　of　love　　and　to　vest　the　latter　with　the　beauty　of　stars　and　flowers　and　the　　dignity　of　inexorable　justice。　　There　could　be　no　finer　metaphor　for　　such　a　correlation　than　Fatherhood　and　Sonship。　　But　the　trouble　is　　that　it　seems　impossible　to　most　people　to　continue　to　regard　the　　relations　of　the　Father　to　the　Son　as　being　simply　a　mystical　　metaphor。　　Presently　some　materialistic　bias　swings　them　in　a　moment　　of　intellectual　carelessness　back　to　the　idea　of　sexual　filiation。　And　it　may　further　be　suggested　that　the　extreme　aloofness　and　　inhumanity；　which　is　logically　necessary　in　the　idea　of　a　Creator　　God；　of　an　Infinite　God；　was　the　reason；　so　to　speak；　for　the　　invention　of　a　Holy　Spirit；　as　something　proceeding　from　him；　as　　something　bridging　the　great　gulf；　a　Comforter；　a　mediator　　descending　into　the　sphere　of　the　human　understanding。　　That；　and　　the　suggestive　influence　of　the　Egyptian　Trinity　that　was　then　being　　worshipped　at　the　Serapeum；　and　which　had　saturated　the　thought　of　　Alexandria　with　the　conception　of　a　trinity　in　unity；　are　probably　　the　realities　that　account　for　the　Third　Person　of　the　Christian　　Trinity。　　At　any　rate　the　present　writer　believes　that　the　　discussions　that　shaped　the　Christian　theology　we　know　were　　dominated　by　such　natural　and　fundamental　thoughts。　　These　　discussions　were；　of　course；　complicated　from　the　outset；　and　　particularly　were　they　complicated　by　the　identification　of　the　man　　Jesus　with　the　theological　Christ；　by　materialistic　expectations　of　　his　second　coming；　by　materialistic　inventions　about　his　　〃miraculous〃　begetting；　and　by　the　morbid　speculations　about　　virginity　and　the　like　that　arose　out　of　such　grossness。　　They　were　　still　further　complicated　by　the　idea　of　the　textual　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　on