god the invisible king-第17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！


ionally　there　will　be　someone　to　whom　the　self…examination　that　　follows　conversion　will　reveal　an　entirely　wrong　and　evil　way　of　　living。　　It　may　be　that　the　light　has　come　to　some　rich　idler　doing　　nothing　but　follow　a　pleasurable　routine。　　Or　to　someone　following　　some　highly　profitable　and　amusing；　but　socially　useless　or　socially　　mischievous　occupation。　　One　may　be　an　advocate　at　the　disposal　of　　any　man's　purpose；　or　an　actor　or　actress　ready　to　fall　in　with　any　　theatrical　enterprise。　　Or　a　woman　may　find　herself　a　prostitute　or　　a　pet　wife；　a　mere　kept　instrument　of　indulgence。　　These　are　lives　　of　prey；　these　are　lives　of　futility；　the　light　of　God　will　not　　tolerate　such　lives。　　Here　religion　can　bring　nothing　but　a　　severance　from　the　old　way　of　life　altogether；　a　break　and　a　　struggle　towards　use　and　service　and　dignity。　But　even　here　it　does　not　follow　that　because　a　life　has　been　wrong　　the　new　life　that　begins　must　be　far　as　the　poles　asunder　from　the　　old。　　Every　sort　of　experience　that　has　ever　come　to　a　human　being　　is　in　the　self　that　he　brings　to　God；　and　there　is　no　reason　why　a　　knowledge　of　evil　ways　should　not　determine　the　path　of　duty。　　No　　one　can　better　devise　protections　against　vices　than　those　who　have　　practised　them；　none　know　temptations　better　than　those　who　have　　fallen。　　If　a　man　has　followed　an　evil　trade；　it　becomes　him　to　use　　his　knowledge　of　the　tricks　of　that　trade　to　help　end　it。　　He　knows　　the　charities　it　may　claim　and　the　remedies　it　needs。　。　。　。　A　very　interesting　case　to　discuss　in　relation　to　this　question　of　　adjustment　is　that　of　the　barrister。　　A　practising　barrister　under　　contemporary　conditions　does　indeed　give　most　typically　the　　opportunity　for　examining　the　relation　of　an　ordinary　self…　respecting　wordly　life；　to　life　under　the　dispensation　of　God　　discovered。　　A　barrister　is　usually　a　man　of　some　energy　and　　ambition；　his　honour　is　moulded　by　the　traditions　of　an　ancient　and　　antiquated　profession；　instinctively　self…preserving　and　yet　with　a　　real　desire　for　consistency　and　respect。　　As　a　profession　it　has　　been　greedy　and　defensively　conservative；　but　it　has　never　been　　shameless　nor　has　it　ever　broken　faith　with　its　own　large　and　　selfish；　but　quite　definite；　propositions。　　It　has　never　for　　instance　had　the　shamelessness　of　such　a　traditionless　and　　undisciplined　class　as　the　early　factory　organisers。　　It　has　never　　had　the　dull　incoherent　wickedness　of　the　sort　of　men　who　exploit　　drunkenness　and　the　turf。　　It　offends　within　limits。　　Barristers　can　　be；　and　are；　disbarred。　　But　it　is　now　a　profession　extraordinarily　　out　of　date；　its　code　of　honour　derives　from　a　time　of　cruder　and　　lower　conceptions　of　human　relationship。　　It　apprehends　the　State　as　　a　mere　〃ring〃　kept　about　private　disputations；　it　has　not　begun　to　　move　towards　the　modern　conception　of　the　collective　enterprise　as　　the　determining　criterion　of　human　conduct。　　It　sees　its　business　as　　a　mere　play　upon　the　rules　of　a　game　between　man　and　man；　or　between　　men　and　men。　　They　haggle；　they　dispute；　they　inflict　and　suffer　　wrongs；　they　evade　dues；　and　are　liable　or　entitled　to　penalties　and　　compensations。　　The　primary　business　of　the　law　is　held　to　be　　decision　in　these　wrangles；　and　as　wrangling　is　subject　to　artistic　　elaboration；　the　business　of　the　barrister　is　the　business　of　a　　professional　wrangler；　he　is　a　bravo　in　wig　and　gown　who　fights　the　　duels　of　ordinary　men　because　they　are　incapable；　very　largely　on　　account　of　the　complexities　of　legal　procedure；　of　fighting　for　　themselves。　　His　business　is　never　to　explore　any　fundamental　right　　in　the　matter。　　His　business　is　to　say　all　that　can　be　said　for　his　　client；　and　to　conceal　or　minimise　whatever　can　be　said　against　his　　client。　　The　successful　promoted　advocate；　who　in　Britain　and　the　　United　States　of　America　is　the　judge；　and　whose　habits　and　　interests　all　incline　him　to　disregard　the　realities　of　the　case　in　　favour　of　the　points　in　the　forensic　game；　then　adjudicates　upon　the　　contest。　。　。　。　Now　this　condition　of　things　is　clearly　incompatible　with　the　modern　　conception　of　the　world　as　becoming　a　divine　kingdom。　　When　the　　world　is　openly　and　confessedly　the　kingdom　of　God；　the　law　court　　will　exist　only　to　adjust　the　differing　views　of　men　as　to　the　　manner　of　their　service　to　God；　the　only　right　of　action　one　man　　will　have　against　another　will　be　that　he　has　been　prevented　or　　hampered　or　distressed　by　the　other　in　serving　God。　　The　idea　of　the　　law　court　will　have　changed　entirely　from　a　place　of　dispute；　　exaction　and　vengeance；　to　a　place　of　adjustment。　　The　individual　or　　some　state　organisation　will　plead　ON　BEHALF　OF　THE　COMMON　GOOD　　either　against　some　state　official　or　state　regulation；　or　against　　the　actions　or　inaction　of　another　individual。　　This　is　the　only　　sort　of　legal　proceedings　compatible　with　the　broad　beliefs　of　the　　new　faith。　。　。　。　　Every　religion　that　becomes　ascendant；　in　so　far　　as　it　is　not　otherworldly；　must　necessarily　set　its　stamp　upon　the　　methods　and　administration　of　the　law。　　That　this　was　not　the　case　　with　Christianity　is　one　of　the　many　contributory　aspects　that　lead　　one　to　the　conviction　that　it　was　not　Christianity　that　took　　possession　of　the　Roman　empire；　but　an　imperial　adventurer　who　took　　possession　of　an　all　too　complaisant　Christianity。　Reverting　now　from　these　generalisations　to　the　problem　of　the　　religious　from　which　they　arose；　it　will　have　become　evident　that　　the　essential　work　of　anyone　who　is　conversant　with　the　existing　　practice　and　literature　of　the　law　and　whose　natural　abilities　are　　forensic；　will　lie　in　the　direction　of　reconstructing　the　theory　and　　practice　of　the　law　in　harmony　with　modern　conceptions；　of　making　　that　theory　and　practice　clear　and　plain　to　ordinary　men；　of　　reforming　the　abuses　of　the　profession　by　working　for　the　separation　　of　bar　and　judiciary；　for　the　amalgamation　of　the　solicitors　and　the　　barristers；　and　the　like　needed　reforms。　　These　are　matters　that　　will　probably　only　be　properly　set　right　by　a　quickening　of　　conscience　among　lawyers　themselves。　　Of　no　class　of　men　is　the　help　　and　service　so　necessary　to　the　practical　establishment　of　God's　　kingdom；　as　of　men　learned　and　experienced　in　the　law。　　And　there　is　　no　reason　why　for　the　present　an　advocate　should　not　continue　to　　plead　in　the　courts；　provided　he　does　his　utmost　only　to　handle　　cases　in　which　he　believes　he　can　serve　the　right。　　Few　righteous　　cases　are　ill…served　by　a　frank　disposition　on　the　part　of　lawyer　　and　client　to　put　everything　before　the　court。　　Thereby　of　course　　there　arises　a　difficult　case　of　conscience。　　What　if　a　lawyer；　　believing　his　client　to　be　in　the　right；　discovers　him　to　be　in　the　　wrong？　　He　cannot　throw　up　the　case　unless　he　has　been　scandalously　　deceived；　because　so　he　would　betray　the　confidence　his　client　has　　put　in　him　to　〃see　him　through。〃　　He　has　a　right　to　〃give　himself　　away；〃　but　not　to　〃give　away〃　his　client　in　this　fashion。　　If　he　has　　a　chance　of　a　private　consultation　I　think　he　ought　to　do　his　best　　to　make　his　client　admit　the　truth　of　the　case　and　give　in；　but　　failing　this　he　has　no　right　to　be　virtuous　on　behalf　of　another。　　　No　man　may　play　God　to　another；　he　may　remonstrate；　but　that　is　the　　limit　of　his　right。　　He　must　respect　a　confidence；　even　if　it　is　　purely　implicit　and　involuntary。　　I　admit　that　here　the　barrister　is　　in　a　cleft　stick；　and　that　he　must　see　the　business　through　　according　to　the　confidence　his　client　has　put　in　himand　　afterwards　be　as　sorry　as　he　may　be　if　an　injustice　ensues。　　And　　also　I　would　suggest　a　lawyer　may　with　a　fairly　good　conscience　　defend　a　guilty　man　as　if　he　were　innocent；　to　save　him　from　　unjustly　heavy　penalties。　。　。　。　This　comparatively　full　discussion　of　the　barrister's　problem　has　　been　embarked　upon　because　it　does　bring　in；　in　a　very　typical　　fashion；　just　those　uncertainties　and　imperfections　that　abound　in　　real　life。　　Religious　conviction　gives　us　a　general　direction；　but　　it　stands　aside　from　many　of　these　entangled　struggles　in　the　jungle　　of　conscience。　　Practice　is　often　easier　than　a　rule。　　In　practice　a　　lawyer　will　know　far　more　accurately　than　a　hypothetical　case　can　　indicate；　how　far　he　is　bound　to　see　his　client　through；　and　how　far　　he　may　play　the　keeper　of　his　client's　conscience。　　And　nearly　every　　day　there　happens　instances　where　the　most　subtle　casuistry　will　　fail　and　the　finger　of　conscience　point　unhesitatingly。　　One　may　　have　worried　long　in　the　preparation　and　preliminaries　of　the　issue；　　one　may　bring　the　case　at　last　into　the　final　court　of　conscience　in　　an　apparently　hopeless　tangle。　　Then　suddenly　comes　decision。　The　procedure　of　that　silent；　lit；　and　empty　court　in　which　a　man　　states　his　case　to　God；　is　very　simple　and　perfect。　　The　excuses　and　　the　special　pleading　shrivel　and　vanish。　　In　a　little　while　the　case　　lies　bare　and　plain。

8。　THE　OATH　OF　ALLEGIANCE

The　question　of　oaths　of　allegiance；　acts　of　acquiescence　in　　existing　governments；　and　the　like；　is　one　that　arises　at　once　with　　the　acceptance　of　God　as　the　supreme　and　real　King　of　the　Earth。　　At　　the　worst　Caesar　is　a　usurper；　a　satrap　claiming　to　be　sovereign；　at　　the　best　he　is　provisional。　　Modern　casuistry　makes　no　great　trouble　　for　the　believing　public　official。　　The　chief　business　of　any　　believer　is　to　do　the　work　for　which　he　is　best　fitted；　and　since　　all　state　affairs　are　to　become　the　affairs　of　God's　kingdom　it　is　　of　primary　importance　that　they　should　come　into　the　hands　of　God's　　servants。　　It　is　scarcely　less　necessary　to　a　believing　man　with　　administrative　gifts　that　he　should　be　in　the　public　administration；　　than　that　he　should　breathe　and　eat。　　And　whatever　oath　or　the　like　　to　usurper　church　or　usurper　king　has　been　set　up　to　bar　access　to　　service；　is　an　oath　imposed　under　duress。　　If　it　cannot　be　avoided　　it　must　be　taken　rather　than　that　a　man　should　become　unserviceable。　　　All　such　oaths　are　unfair　and　foolish　things。　　They　exclude　no　　scoundrels；　they　are　appeals　to　superstition。　　Whenever　an　　opportunity　occurs　for　the　abolition　of　an　oath；　the　servant　of　God　　will　seize　it；　but　where　the　oath　is　unavoidable　he　will　take　it。　The　service　of　God　is　not　to　achieve　a