god the invisible king-第1部分

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！


God　The　Invisible　King
by　H。　G。　Wells　　＇Herbert　George　Wells＇


CONTENTS

PREFACE
1。　　THE　COSMOGONY　OF　MODERN　RELIGION
2。　　HERESIES；　OR　THE　THINGS　THAT　GOD　IS　NOT
3。　　THE　LIKENESS　OF　GOD
4。　　THE　RELIGION　OF　ATHEISTS
5。　　THE　INVISIBLE　KING
6。　　MODERN　IDEAS　OF　SIN　AND　DAMNATION
7。　　THE　IDEA　OF　A　CHURCH
THE　ENVOY


PREFACE

This　book　sets　out　as　forcibly　and　exactly　as　possible　the　religious　　belief　of　the　writer。　　That　belief　is　not　orthodox　Christianity；　it　　is　not；　indeed；　Christianity　at　all；　its　core　nevertheless　is　a　　profound　belief　in　a　personal　and　intimate　God。　　There　is　nothing　in　　its　statements　that　need　shock　or　offend　anyone　who　is　prepared　for　　the　expression　of　a　faith　different　from　and　perhaps　in　several　　particulars　opposed　to　his　own。　　The　writer　will　be　found　to　be　　sympathetic　with　all　sincere　religious　feeling。　　Nevertheless　it　is　　well　to　prepare　the　prospective　reader　for　statements　that　may　jar　　harshly　against　deeply　rooted　mental　habits。　　It　is　well　to　warn　him　　at　the　outset　that　the　departure　from　accepted　beliefs　is　here　no　　vague　scepticism；　but　a　quite　sharply　defined　objection　to　dogmas　　very　widely　revered。　　Let　the　writer　state　the　most　probable　　occasion　of　trouble　forthwith。　　An　issue　upon　which　this　book　will　　be　found　particularly　uncompromising　is　the　dogma　of　the　Trinity。　　　The　writer　is　of　opinion　that　the　Council　of　Nicaea；　which　forcibly　　crystallised　the　controversies　of　two　centuries　and　formulated　the　　creed　upon　which　all　the　existing　Christian　churches　are　based；　was　　one　of　the　most　disastrous　and　one　of　the　least　venerable　of　all　　religious　gatherings；　and　he　holds　that　the　Alexandrine　speculations　　which　were　then　conclusively　imposed　upon　Christianity　merit　only　　disrespectful　attention　at　the　present　time。　　There　you　have　a　chief　　possibility　of　offence。　　He　is　quite　unable　to　pretend　any　awe　for　　what　he　considers　the　spiritual　monstrosities　established　by　that　　undignified　gathering。　　He　makes　no　attempt　to　be　obscure　or　　propitiatory　in　this　connection。　　He　criticises　the　creeds　　explicitly　and　frankly；　because　he　believes　it　is　particularly　　necessary　to　clear　them　out　of　the　way　of　those　who　are　seeking　　religious　consolation　at　this　present　time　of　exceptional　religious　　need。　　He　does　little　to　conceal　his　indignation　at　the　role　played　　by　these　dogmas　in　obscuring；　perverting；　and　preventing　the　　religious　life　of　mankind。　　After　this　warning　such　readers　from　　among　the　various　Christian　churches　and　sects　as　are　accessible　to　　storms　of　theological　fear　or　passion　to　whom　the　Trinity　is　an　　ineffable　mystery　and　the　name　of　God　almost　unspeakably　awful；　read　　on　at　their　own　risk。　　This　is　a　religious　book　written　by　a　　believer；　but　so　far　as　their　beliefs　and　religion　go　it　may　seem　to　　them　more　sceptical　and　more　antagonistic　than　blank　atheism。　　That　　the　writer　cannot　tell。　　He　is　not　simply　denying　their　God。　　He　is　　declaring　that　there　is　a　living　God；　different　altogether　from　that　　Triune　God　and　nearer　to　the　heart　of　man。　　The　spirit　of　this　book　　is　like　that　of　a　missionary　who　would　only　too　gladly　overthrow　and　　smash　some　Polynesian　divinity　of　shark's　teeth　and　painted　wood　and　　mother…of…pearl。　　To　the　writer　such　elaborations　as　〃begotten　of　　the　Father　before　all　worlds〃　are　no　better　than　intellectual　　shark's　teeth　and　oyster　shells。　　His　purpose；　like　the　purpose　of　　that　missionary；　is　not　primarily　to　shock　and　insult；　but　he　is　　zealous　to　liberate；　and　he　is　impatient　with　a　reverence　that　　stands　between　man　and　God。　　He　gives　this　fair　warning　and　proceeds　　with　his　matter。　His　matter　is　modern　religion　as　he　sees　it。　　It　is　only　　incidentally　and　because　it　is　unavoidable　that　he　attacks　doctrinal　　Christianity。　In　a　previous　book；　〃First　and　Last　Things〃　（Constable　and　Co。）；　he　　has　stated　his　convictions　upon　certain　general　ideas　of　life　and　　thought　as　clearly　as　he　could。　　All　of　philosophy；　all　of　　metaphysics　that　is；　seems　to　him　to　be　a　discussion　of　the　　relations　of　class　and　individual。　　The　antagonism　of　the　Nominalist　　and　the　Realist；　the　opposition　of　the　One　and　the　Many；　the　　contrast　of　the　Ideal　and　the　Actual；　all　these　oppositions　express　　a　certain　structural　and　essential　duality　in　the　activity　of　the　　human　mind。　　From　an　imperfect　recognition　of　that　duality　ensue　　great　masses　of　misconception。　　That　was　the　substance　of　〃First　and　　Last　Things。〃　　In　this　present　book　there　is　no　further　attack　on　　philosophical　or　metaphysical　questions。　　Here　we　work　at　a　less　　fundamental　level　and　deal　with　religious　feeling　and　religious　　ideas。　　But　just　as　the　writer　was　inclined　to　attribute　a　whole　　world　of　disputation　and　inexactitudes　to　confused　thinking　about　　the　exact　value　of　classes　and　terms；　so　here　he　is　disposed　to　　think　that　interminable　controversies　and　conflicts　arise　out　of　a　　confusion　of　intention　due　to　a　double　meaning　of　the　word　〃God〃；　　that　the　word　〃God〃　conveys　not　one　idea　or　set　of　ideas；　but　　several　essentially　different　ideas；　incompatible　one　with　another；　　and　falling　mainly　into　one　or　other　of　two　divergent　groups；　and　　that　people　slip　carelessly　from　one　to　the　other　of　these　groups　of　　ideas　and　so　get　into　ultimately　inextricable　confusions。　The　writer　believes　that　the　centuries　of　fluid　religious　thought　　that　preceded　the　violent　ultimate　crystallisation　of　Nicaea；　was　　essentially　a　struggleobscured；　of　course；　by　many　complexities　to　reconcile　and　get　into　a　relationship　these　two　separate　main　　series　of　God…ideas。　Putting　the　leading　id　a　part　against　evil。　The　writer　believes　that　these　dogmas　of　relationship　are　not　merely　　extraneous　to　religion；　but　an　impediment　to　religion。　　His　aim　in　　this　book　is　to　give　a　statement　of　religion　which　is　no　longer　　entangled　in　such　speculations　and　disputes。

Let　him　add　only　one　other　note　of　explanation　in　this　preface；　and　　that　is　to　remark　that　except　for　one　incidental　passage　（in　Chapter　　IV。；　1）；　nowhere　does　he　discuss　the　question　of　personal　　immortality。　　＇It　is　discussed　in　〃First　and　Last　Things；〃　Book　IV；　　4。＇　　He　omits　this　question　because　he　does　not　consider　that　it　has　　any　more　bearing　upon　the　essentials　of　religion；　than　have　the　　theories　we　may　hold　about　the　relation　of　God　and　the　moral　law　to　　the　starry　universe。　　The　latter　is　a　question　for　the　theologian；　　the　former　for　the　psychologist。　　Whether　we　are　mortal　　or　immortaea　of　this　book　very　roughly；　these　two　　antagonistic　typical　conceptions　of　God　may　be　best　contrasted　by　　speaking　of　one　of　them　as　God…as…Nature　or　the　Creator；　and　of　the　　other　as　God…as…Christ　or　the　Redeemer。　　One　is　the　great　Outward　　God；　the　other　is　the　Inmost　God。　　The　first　idea　was　perhaps　　developed　most　highly　and　completely　in　the　God　of　Spinoza。　　It　is　a　　conception　of　God　tending　to　pantheism；　to　an　idea　of　a　　comprehensive　God　as　ruling　with　justice　rather　than　affection；　to　a　　conception　of　aloofness　and　awestriking　worshipfulness。　　The　second　　idea；　which　is　opposed　to　this　idea　of　an　absolute　God；　is　the　God　　of　the　human　heart。　　The　writer　would　suggest　that　the　great　outline　　of　the　theological　struggles　of　that　phase　of　civilisation　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　te