orthodoxy- 第20部分

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；　because　they



must　be　verbal。　　Thus　the　pantheist　is　forced　to　speak　of　God



in　all　things　as　if　he　were　in　a　box。　　Thus　the　evolutionist　has；



in　his　very　name；　the　idea　of　being　unrolled　like　a　carpet。　



All　terms；　religious　and　irreligious；　are　open　to　this　charge。　



The　only　question　is　whether　all　terms　are　useless；　or　whether　one　can；



with　such　a　phrase；　cover　a　distinct　IDEA　about　the　origin　of　things。　



I　think　one　can；　and　so　evidently　does　the　evolutionist；　or　he　would



not　talk　about　evolution。　　And　the　root　phrase　for　all　Christian



theism　was　this；　that　God　was　a　creator；　as　an　artist　is　a　creator。　



A　poet　is　so　separate　from　his　poem　that　he　himself　speaks　of　it



as　a　little　thing　he　has　〃thrown　off。〃　　Even　in　giving　it　forth　he



has　flung　it　away。　　This　principle　that　all　creation　and　procreation



is　a　breaking　off　is　at　least　as　consistent　through　the　cosmos　as　the



evolutionary　principle　that　all　growth　is　a　branching　out。　　A　woman



loses　a　child　even　in　having　a　child。　　All　creation　is　separation。　



Birth　is　as　solemn　a　parting　as　death。







　　　　　It　was　the　prime　philosophic　principle　of　Christianity　that



this　divorce　in　the　divine　act　of　making　（such　as　severs　the　poet



from　the　poem　or　the　mother　from　the　new…born　child）　was　the　true



description　of　the　act　whereby　the　absolute　energy　made　the　world。　



According　to　most　philosophers；　God　in　making　the　world　enslaved　it。　



According　to　Christianity；　in　making　it；　He　set　it　free。　



God　had　written；　not　so　much　a　poem；　but　rather　a　play；　a　play　he



had　planned　as　perfect；　but　which　had　necessarily　been　left　to　human



actors　and　stage…managers；　who　had　since　made　a　great　mess　of　it。　



I　will　discuss　the　truth　of　this　theorem　later。　　Here　I　have　only



to　point　out　with　what　a　startling　smoothness　it　passed　the　dilemma



we　have　discussed　in　this　chapter。　　In　this　way　at　least　one　could



be　both　happy　and　indignant　without　degrading　one's　self　to　be　either



a　pessimist　or　an　optimist。　　On　this　system　one　could　fight　all



the　forces　of　existence　without　deserting　the　flag　of　existence。　



One　could　be　at　peace　with　the　universe　and　yet　be　at　war　with



the　world。　　St。　George　could　still　fight　the　dragon；　however　big



the　monster　bulked　in　the　cosmos；　though　he　were　bigger　than　the



mighty　cities　or　bigger　than　the　everlasting　hills。　　If　he　were　as



big　as　the　world　he　could　yet　be　killed　in　the　name　of　the　world。　



St。　George　had　not　to　consider　any　obvious　odds　or　proportions　in



the　scale　of　things；　but　only　the　original　secret　of　their　design。　



He　can　shake　his　sword　at　the　dragon；　even　if　it　is　everything；



even　if　the　empty　heavens　over　his　head　are　only　the　huge　arch　of　its



open　jaws。







　　　　　And　then　followed　an　experience　impossible　to　describe。　



It　was　as　if　I　had　been　blundering　about　since　my　birth　with　two



huge　and　unmanageable　machines；　of　different　shapes　and　without



apparent　connectionthe　world　and　the　Christian　tradition。　



I　had　found　this　hole　in　the　world：　　the　fact　that　one　must



somehow　find　a　way　of　loving　the　world　without　trusting　it；



somehow　one　must　love　the　world　without　being　worldly。　　I　found　this



projecting　feature　of　Christian　theology；　like　a　sort　of　hard　spike；



the　dogmatic　insistence　that　God　was　personal；　and　had　made　a　world



separate　from　Himself。　　The　spike　of　dogma　fitted　exactly　into



the　hole　in　the　worldit　had　evidently　been　meant　to　go　there



and　then　the　strange　thing　began　to　happen。　　When　once　these　two



parts　of　the　two　machines　had　come　together；　one　after　another；



all　the　other　parts　fitted　and　fell　in　with　an　eerie　exactitude。　



I　could　hear　bolt　after　bolt　over　all　the　machinery　falling



into　its　place　with　a　kind　of　click　of　relief。　　Having　got　one