orthodoxy-第23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！









　　　　　Here　is　another　case　of　the　same　kind。　　I　felt　that　a　strong



case　against　Christianity　lay　in　the　charge　that　there　is　something



timid；　monkish；　and　unmanly　about　all　that　is　called　〃Christian；〃



especially　in　its　attitude　towards　resistance　and　fighting。　



The　great　sceptics　of　the　nineteenth　century　were　largely　virile。　



Bradlaugh　in　an　expansive　way；　Huxley；　in　a　reticent　way；



were　decidedly　men。　　In　comparison；　it　did　seem　tenable　that　there



was　something　weak　and　over　patient　about　Christian　counsels。　



The　Gospel　paradox　about　the　other　cheek；　the　fact　that　priests



never　fought；　a　hundred　things　made　plausible　the　accusation



that　Christianity　was　an　attempt　to　make　a　man　too　like　a　sheep。　



I　read　it　and　believed　it；　and　if　I　had　read　nothing　different；



I　should　have　gone　on　believing　it。　　But　I　read　something　very　different。　



I　turned　the　next　page　in　my　agnostic　manual；　and　my　brain　turned



up…side　down。　　Now　I　found　that　I　was　to　hate　Christianity　not　for



fighting　too　little；　but　for　fighting　too　much。　　Christianity；　it　seemed；



was　the　mother　of　wars。　　Christianity　had　deluged　the　world　with　blood。　



I　had　got　thoroughly　angry　with　the　Christian；　because　he　never



was　angry。　　And　now　I　was　told　to　be　angry　with　him　because　his



anger　had　been　the　most　huge　and　horrible　thing　in　human　history；



because　his　anger　had　soaked　the　earth　and　smoked　to　the　sun。　



The　very　people　who　reproached　Christianity　with　the　meekness　and



non…resistance　of　the　monasteries　were　the　very　people　who　reproached



it　also　with　the　violence　and　valour　of　the　Crusades。　　It　was　the



fault　of　poor　old　Christianity　（somehow　or　other）　both　that　Edward



the　Confessor　did　not　fight　and　that　Richard　Coeur　de　Leon　did。　



The　Quakers　（we　were　told）　were　the　only　characteristic　Christians；



and　yet　the　massacres　of　Cromwell　and　Alva　were　characteristic



Christian　crimes。　　What　could　it　all　mean？　　What　was　this　Christianity



which　always　forbade　war　and　always　produced　wars？　　What　could



be　the　nature　of　the　thing　which　one　could　abuse　first　because　it



would　not　fight；　and　second　because　it　was　always　fighting？　



In　what　world　of　riddles　was　born　this　monstrous　murder　and　this



monstrous　meekness？　　The　shape　of　Christianity　grew　a　queerer　shape



every　instant。







　　　　　I　take　a　third　case；　the　strangest　of　all；　because　it　involves



the　one　real　objection　to　the　faith。　　The　one　real　objection　to　the



Christian　religion　is　simply　that　it　is　one　religion。　　The　world　is



a　big　place；　full　of　very　different　kinds　of　people。　　Christianity　（it



may　reasonably　be　said）　is　one　thing　confined　to　one　kind　of　people；



it　began　in　Palestine；　it　has　practically　stopped　with　Europe。　



I　was　duly　impressed　with　this　argument　in　my　youth；　and　I　was　much



drawn　towards　the　doctrine　often　preached　in　Ethical　Societies



I　mean　the　doctrine　that　there　is　one　great　unconscious　church　of



all　humanity　founded　on　the　omnipresence　of　the　human　conscience。　



Creeds；　it　was　said；　divided　men；　but　at　least　morals　united　them。　



The　soul　might　seek　the　strangest　and　most　remote　lands　and　ages



and　still　find　essential　ethical　common　sense。　　It　might　find



Confucius　under　Eastern　trees；　and　he　would　be　writing　〃Thou



shalt　not　steal。〃　　It　might　decipher　the　darkest　hieroglyphic　on



the　most　primeval　desert；　and　the　meaning　when　deciphered　would



be　〃Little　boys　should　tell　the　truth。〃　　I　believed　this　doctrine



of　the　brotherhood　of　all　men　in　the　possession　of　a　moral　sense；



and　I　believe　it　stillwith　other　things。　　And　I　was　thoroughly



annoyed　with　Christianity　for　suggesting　（as　I　supposed）



that　whole　ages　and　empires　of　men　had　utterly　escaped　this　light



of　justice　and　reason。　　But　then　I　found　an　astonishing　thing。　



I　found　that　the　very　people　who　said　that　mankind　was　one　church



from　Plato　to　Emerson　were　the　very　people　who　said　that　morality



had　changed　altogether；　and　that　what　was　right　in　one　age　was　wrong



in　another。　　If　I　asked；　say；　for　an　altar；　I　was　told　that　we



needed　none；　for　men　our　brothers　gave　us　clear　oracles　and　one　creed



in　their　universal　customs　and　ideals。　　But　if　I　mildly　pointed



out　that　one　of　men's　universal　customs　was　to　have　an　altar；



then　my　agnostic　teachers　turned　clean　round　and　told　me　that　men



had　always　been　in　darkness　and　the　superstitions　of　savages。　



I　found　it　was　their　daily　taunt　against　Christianity　that　it　was



the　light　of　one　people　and　had　left　all　others　to　die　in　the　dark。　



But　I　also　found　that　it　was　their　special　boast　for　themselves



that　science　and　progress　were　the　discovery　of　one　people；



and　that　all　other　peoples　had　died　in　the　dark。　　Their　chief　insult



to　Christianity　was　actually　their　chief　compliment　to　themselves；



and　there　seemed　to　be　a　strange　unfairness　about　all　their　relative



insistence　on　the　two　things。　　When　considering　some　pagan　or　agnostic；



we　were　to　remember　that　all　men　had　one　religion；　when　considering



some　mystic　or　spiritualist；　we　were　only　to　consider　what　absurd



religions　some　men　had。　　We　could　trust　the　ethics　of　Epictetus；



because　ethics　had　never　changed。　　We　must　not　trust　the　ethics



of　Bossuet；　because　ethics　had　changed。　　They　changed　in　two



hundred　years；　but　not　in　two　thousand。







　　　　　This　began　to　be　alarming。　　It　looked　not　so　much　as　if



Christianity　was　bad　enough　to　include　any　vices；　but　rather



as　if　any　stick　was　good　enough　to　beat　Christianity　with。　



What　again　could　this　astonishing　thing　be　like　which　people



were　so　anxious　to　contradict；　that　in　doing　so　they　did　not　mind



contradicting　themselves？　　I　saw　the　same　thing　on　every　side。　



I　can　give　no　further　space　to　this　discussion　of　it　in　detail；



but　lest　any　one　supposes　that　I　have　unfairly　selected　three



accidental　cases　I　will　run　briefly　through　a　few　others。　



Thus；　certain　sceptics　wrote　that　the　great　crime　of　Christianity



had　been　its　attack　on　the　family；　it　had　dragged　women　to　the



loneliness　and　contemplation　of　the　cloister；　away　from　their　homes



and　their　children。　　But；　then；　other　sceptics　（slightly　more　advanced）



said　that　the　great　crime　of　Christianity　was　forcing　the　family



and　marriage　upon　us；　that　it　doomed　women　to　the　drudgery　of　their



homes　and　children；　and　forbade　them　loneliness　and　contemplation。　



The　charge　was　actually　reversed。　　Or；　again；　certain　phrases　in　the



Epistles　or　the　marriage　service；　were　said　by　the　anti…Christians



to　show　contempt　for　woman's　intellect。　　But　I　found　that　the



anti…Christians　themselves　had　a　contempt　for　woman's　intellect；



for　it　was　their　great　sneer　at　the　Church　on　the　Continent　that



〃only　women〃　went　to　it。　　Or　again；　Christianity　was　reproached



with　its　naked　and　hungry　habits；　with　its　sackcloth　and　dried　peas。　



But　the　next　minute　Christianity　was　being　reproached　with　its　pomp



and　its　ritualism；　its　shrines　of　porphyry　and　its　robes　of　gold。　



It　was　abused　for　being　too　plain　and　for　being　too　coloured。　



Again　Christianity　had　always　been　accused　of　restraining　sexuality



too　much；　when　Bradlaugh　the　Malthusian　discovered　that　it　restrained



it　too　little。　　It　is　often　accused　in　the　same　breath　of　prim



respectability　and　of　religious　extravagance。　　Between　the　covers



of　the　same　atheistic　pamphlet　I　have　found　the　faith　rebuked



for　its　disunion；　〃One　thinks　one　thing；　and　one　another；〃



and　rebuked　also　for　its　union；　〃It　is　difference　of　opinion



that　prevents　the　world　from　going　to　the　dogs。〃　　In　the　same



conversation　a　free…thinker；　a　friend　of　mine；　blamed　Christianity



for　despising　Jews；　and　then　despised　it　himself　for　being　Jewish。







　　　　　I　wished　to　be　quite　fair　then；　and　I　wish　to　be　quite　fair　now；



and　I　did　not　conclude　that　the　attack　on　Christianity　was　all　wrong。　



I　only　concluded　that　if　Christianity　was　wrong；　it　was　very



wrong　indeed。　　Such　hostile　horrors　might　be　combined　in　one　thing；



but　that　thing　must　be　very　strange　and　solitary。　　There　are　men



who　are　misers；　and　also　spendthrifts；　but　they　are　rare。　　There　are



men　sensual　and　also　ascetic；　but　they　are　rare。　　But　if　this　mass



of　mad　contradictions　really　existed；　quakerish　and　bloodthirsty；



too　gorgeous　and　too　thread…bare；　austere；　yet　pandering　preposterously



to　the　lust　of　the　eye；　the　enemy　of　women　and　their　foolish　refuge；



a　solemn　pessimist　and　a　silly　optimist；　if　this　evil　existed；



then　there　was　in　this　evil　something　quite　supreme　and　unique。　



For　I　found　in　my　rationalist　teachers　no　explanation　of　s