orthodoxy-第32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！





is　Christianity。　　Only　the　Christian　Church　can　offer　any　rational



objection　to　a　complete　confidence　in　the　rich。　　For　she　has　maintained



from　the　beginning　that　the　danger　was　not　in　man's　environment；



but　in　man。　　Further；　she　has　maintained　that　if　we　come　to　talk　of　a



dangerous　environment；　the　most　dangerous　environment　of　all　is　the



commodious　environment。　　I　know　that　the　most　modern　manufacture　has



been　really　occupied　in　trying　to　produce　an　abnormally　large　needle。　



I　know　that　the　most　recent　biologists　have　been　chiefly　anxious



to　discover　a　very　small　camel。　　But　if　we　diminish　the　camel



to　his　smallest；　or　open　the　eye　of　the　needle　to　its　largestif；



in　short；　we　assume　the　words　of　Christ　to　have　meant　the　very　least



that　they　could　mean；　His　words　must　at　the　very　least　mean　this



that　rich　men　are　not　very　likely　to　be　morally　trustworthy。　



Christianity　even　when　watered　down　is　hot　enough　to　boil　all　modern



society　to　rags。　　The　mere　minimum　of　the　Church　would　be　a　deadly



ultimatum　to　the　world。　　For　the　whole　modern　world　is　absolutely



based　on　the　assumption；　not　that　the　rich　are　necessary　（which　is



tenable）；　but　that　the　rich　are　trustworthy；　which　（for　a　Christian）



is　not　tenable。　　You　will　hear　everlastingly；　in　all　discussions



about　newspapers；　companies；　aristocracies；　or　party　politics；



this　argument　that　the　rich　man　cannot　be　bribed。　　The　fact　is；



of　course；　that　the　rich　man　is　bribed；　he　has　been　bribed　already。　



That　is　why　he　is　a　rich　man。　　The　whole　case　for　Christianity　is　that



a　man　who　is　dependent　upon　the　luxuries　of　this　life　is　a　corrupt　man；



spiritually　corrupt；　politically　corrupt；　financially　corrupt。　



There　is　one　thing　that　Christ　and　all　the　Christian　saints



have　said　with　a　sort　of　savage　monotony。　　They　have　said　simply



that　to　be　rich　is　to　be　in　peculiar　danger　of　moral　wreck。　



It　is　not　demonstrably　un…Christian　to　kill　the　rich　as　violators



of　definable　justice。　　It　is　not　demonstrably　un…Christian　to　crown



the　rich　as　convenient　rulers　of　society。　　It　is　not　certainly



un…Christian　to　rebel　against　the　rich　or　to　submit　to　the　rich。　



But　it　is　quite　certainly　un…Christian　to　trust　the　rich；　to　regard



the　rich　as　more　morally　safe　than　the　poor。　　A　Christian　may



consistently　say；　〃I　respect　that　man's　rank；　although　he　takes　bribes。〃　



But　a　Christian　cannot　say；　as　all　modern　men　are　saying　at　lunch



and　breakfast；　〃a　man　of　that　rank　would　not　take　bribes。〃　



For　it　is　a　part　of　Christian　dogma　that　any　man　in　any　rank　may



take　bribes。　　It　is　a　part　of　Christian　dogma；　it　also　happens　by



a　curious　coincidence　that　it　is　a　part　of　obvious　human　history。　



When　people　say　that　a　man　〃in　that　position〃　would　be　incorruptible；



there　is　no　need　to　bring　Christianity　into　the　discussion。　　Was　Lord



Bacon　a　bootblack？　　Was　the　Duke　of　Marlborough　a　crossing　sweeper？　



In　the　best　Utopia；　I　must　be　prepared　for　the　moral　fall　of　any　man



in　any　position　at　any　moment；　especially　for　my　fall　from　my　position



at　this　moment。







　　　　　Much　vague　and　sentimental　journalism　has　been　poured　out



to　the　effect　that　Christianity　is　akin　to　democracy；　and　most



of　it　is　scarcely　strong　or　clear　enough　to　refute　the　fact　that



the　two　things　have　often　quarrelled。　　The　real　ground　upon　which



Christianity　and　democracy　are　one　is　very　much　deeper。　　The　one



specially　and　peculiarly　un…Christian　idea　is　the　idea　of　Carlyle



the　idea　that　the　man　should　rule　who　feels　that　he　can　rule。　



Whatever　else　is　Christian；　this　is　heathen。　　If　our　faith　comments



on　government　at　all；　its　comment　must　be　thisthat　the　man　should



rule　who　does　NOT　think　that　he　can　rule。　　Carlyle's　hero　may　say；



〃I　will　be　king〃；　but　the　Christian　saint　must　say　〃Nolo　episcopari。〃　



If　the　great　paradox　of　Christianity　means　anything；　it　means　this



that　we　must　take　the　crown　in　our　hands；　and　go　hunting　in　dry



places　and　dark　corners　of　the　earth　until　we　find　the　one　man



who　feels　himself　unfit　to　wear　it。　　Carlyle　was　quite　wrong；



we　have　not　got　to　crown　the　exceptional　man　who　knows　he　can　rule。　



Rather　we　must　crown　the　much　more　exceptional　man　who　knows　he



can't。







　　　　　Now；　this　is　one　of　the　two　or　three　vital　defences　of



working　democracy。　　The　mere　machinery　of　voting　is　not　democracy；



though　at　present　it　is　not　easy　to　effect　any　simpler　democratic　method。　



But　even　the　machinery　of　voting　is　profoundly　Christian　in　this



practical　sensethat　it　is　an　attempt　to　get　at　the　opinion　of　those



who　would　be　too　modest　to　offer　it。　　It　is　a　mystical　adventure；



it　is　specially　trusting　those　who　do　not　trust　themselves。　



That　enigma　is　strictly　peculiar　to　Christendom。　　There　is　nothing



really　humble　about　the　abnegation　of　the　Buddhist；　the　mild　Hindoo



is　mild；　but　he　is　not　meek。　　But　there　is　something　psychologically



Christian　about　the　idea　of　seeking　for　the　opinion　of　the　obscure



rather　than　taking　the　obvious　course　of　accepting　the　opinion



of　the　prominent。　　To　say　that　voting　is　particularly　Christian　may



seem　somewhat　curious。　　To　say　that　canvassing　is　Christian　may　seem



quite　crazy。　　But　canvassing　is　very　Christian　in　its　primary　idea。　



It　is　encouraging　the　humble；　it　is　saying　to　the　modest　man；



〃Friend；　go　up　higher。〃　　Or　if　there　is　some　slight　defect



in　canvassing；　that　is　in　its　perfect　and　rounded　piety；　it　is　only



because　it　may　possibly　neglect　to　encourage　the　modesty　of　the　canvasser。







　　　　　Aristocracy　is　not　an　institution：　　aristocracy　is　a　sin；



generally　a　very　venial　one。　　It　is　merely　the　drift　or　slide



of　men　into　a　sort　of　natural　pomposity　and　praise　of　the　powerful；



which　is　the　most　easy　and　obvious　affair　in　the　world。







　　　　　It　is　one　of　the　hundred　answers　to　the　fugitive　perversion



of　modern　〃force〃　that　the　promptest　and　boldest　agencies　are



also　the　most　fragile　or　full　of　sensibility。　　The　swiftest　things



are　the　softest　things。　　A　bird　is　active；　because　a　bird　is　soft。　



A　stone　is　helpless；　because　a　stone　is　hard。　　The　stone　must



by　its　own　nature　go　downwards；　because　hardness　is　weakness。　



The　bird　can　of　its　nature　go　upwards；　because　fragility　is　force。　



In　perfect　force　there　is　a　kind　of　frivolity；　an　airiness　that　can



maintain　itself　in　the　air。　　Modern　investigators　of　miraculous



history　have　solemnly　admitted　that　a　characteristic　of　the　great



saints　is　their　power　of　〃levitation。〃　　They　might　go　further；



a　characteristic　of　the　great　saints　is　their　power　of　levity。　



Angels　can　fly　because　they　can　take　themselves　lightly。　



This　has　been　always　the　instinct　of　Christendom；　and　especially



the　instinct　of　Christian　art。　　Remember　how　Fra　Angelico　represented



all　his　angels；　not　only　as　birds；　but　almost　as　butterflies。　



Remember　how　the　most　earnest　mediaeval　art　was　full　of　light



and　fluttering　draperies；　of　quick　and　capering　feet。　　It　was



the　one　thing　that　the　modern　Pre…raphaelites　could　not　imitate



in　the　real　Pre…raphaelites。　Burne…Jones　could　never　recover



the　deep　levity　of　the　Middle　Ages。　　In　the　old　Christian　pictures



the　sky　over　every　figure　is　like　a　blue　or　gold　parachute。　



Every　figure　seems　ready　to　fly　up　and　float　about　in　the　heavens。　



The　tattered　cloak　of　the　beggar　will　bear　him　up　like　the　rayed



plumes　of　the　angels。　　But　the　kings　in　their　heavy　gold　and　the　proud



in　their　robes　of　purple　will　all　of　their　nature　sink　downwards；



for　pride　cannot　rise　to　levity　or　levitation。　　Pride　is　the　downward



drag　of　all　things　into　an　easy　solemnity。　　One　〃settles　down〃



into　a　sort　of　selfish　seriousness；　but　one　has　to　rise　to　a　gay



self…forgetfulness。　A　man　〃falls〃　into　a　brown　study；　he　reaches　up



at　a　blue　sky。　　Seriousness　is　not　a　virtue。　　It　would　be　a　heresy；



but　a　much　more　sensible　heresy；　to　say　that　seriousness　is　a　vice。　



It　is　really　a　natural　trend　or　lapse　into　taking　one's　self　gravely；



because　it　is　the　easiest　thing　to　do。　　It　is　much　easier　to



write　a　good　TIMES　leading　article　than　a　good　joke　in　PUNCH。　



For　solemnity　flows　out　of　men　naturally；　but　laughter　is　a　leap。　



It　is　easy　to　be　heavy：　　hard　to　be　light。　　Satan　fell　by　the　force　of



gravity。







　　　　　Now；　it　is　the　peculiar　honour　of　Europe　since　it　has　been　Christian



that　while　it　has　had　aristocracy　it　has　always　at　the　back　of　its　heart



treated　aristocracy　as　a　weaknessgenerally　as　a　weakness　that　must



be　allowed　for。　　If　any　one　wishes　to　appreciate　this　point；　let　him



go　ou