lectures14+15- 第1部分

Lectures　XIV　and　XV







THE　VALUE　OF　SAINTLINESS







We　have　now　passed　in　review　the　more　important　of　the　phenomena



which　are　regarded　as　fruits　of　genuine　religion　and



characteristics　of　men　who　are　devout。　　Today　we　have　to　change



our　attitude　from　that　of　description　to　that　of　appreciation；　we



have　to　ask　whether　the　fruits　in　question　can　help　us　to　judge



the　absolute　value　of　what　religion　adds　to　human　life。　　Were　I



to　parody　Kant；　I　should　say　that　a　〃Critique　of　pure



Saintliness〃　must　be　our　theme。







If；　in　turning　to　this　theme；　we　could　descend　upon　our　subject



from　above　like　Catholic　theologians；　with　our　fixed　definitions



of　man　and　man's　perfection　and　our　positive　dogmas　about　God；　we



should　have　an　easy　time　of　it。　　Man's　perfection　would　be　the



fulfillment　of　his　end；　and　his　end　would　be　union　with　his



Maker。　　That　union　could　be　pursued　by　him　along　three　paths；



active；　purgative；　and　contemplative；　respectively；　and　progress



along　either　path　would　be　a　simple　matter　to　measure　by　the



application　of　a　limited　number　of　theological　and　moral



conceptions　and　definitions。　　The　absolute　significance　and　value



of　any　bit　of　religious　experience　we　might　hear　of　would　thus　be



given　almost　mathematically　into　our　hands。







If　convenience　were　everything；　we　ought　now　to　grieve　at　finding



ourselves　cut　off　from　so　admirably　convenient　a　method　as　this。　



But　we　did　cut　ourselves　off　from　it　deliberately　in　those



remarks　which　you　remember　we　made；　in　our　first　lecture；　about



the　empirical　method；　and　it　must　be　　confessed　that　after



that　act　of　renunciation　we　can　never　hope　for　clean…cut　and



scholastic　results。　　WE　cannot　divide　man　sharply　into　an　animal



and　a　rational　part。　　WE　cannot　distinguish　natural　from



supernatural　effects；　nor　among　the　latter　know　which　are　favors



of　God；　and　which　are　counterfeit　operations　of　the　demon。　　WE



have　merely　to　collect　things　together　without　any　special　a



priori　theological　system；　and　out　of　an　aggregate　of　piecemeal



judgments　as　to　the　value　of　this　and　that　experiencejudgments



in　which　our　general　philosophic　prejudices；　our　instincts；　and



our　common　sense　are　our　only　guidesdecide　that　ON　THE　WHOLE



one　type　of　religion　is　approved　by　its　fruits；　and　another　type



condemned。　　〃On　the　whole〃I　fear　we　shall　never　escape



complicity　with　that　qualification；　so　dear　to　your　practical



man；　so　repugnant　to　your　systematizer！







I　also　fear　that　as　I　make　this　frank　confession；　I　may　seem　to



some　of　you　to　throw　our　compass　overboard；　and　to　adopt　caprice



as　our　pilot。　　Skepticism　or　wayward　choice；　you　may　think；　can



be　the　only　results　of　such　a　formless　method　as　I　have　taken　up。



A　few　remarks　in　deprecation　of　such　an　opinion；　and　in　farther



explanation　of　the　empiricist　principles　which　I　profess；　may



therefore　appear　at　this　point　to　be　in　place。







Abstractly；　it　would　seem　illogical　to　try　to　measure　the　worth



of　a　religion's　fruits　in　merely　human　terms　of　value。　How　CAN



you　measure　their　worth　without　considering　whether　the　God



really　exists　who　is　supposed　to　inspire　them？　　If　he　really



exists；　then　all　the　conduct　instituted　by　men　to　meet　his　wants



must　necessarily　be　a　reasonable　fruit　of　his　religionit　would



be　unreasonable　only　in　case　he　did　not　exist。　　If；　for　instance；



you　were　to　condemn　a　religion　of　human　or　animal　sacrifices　by



virtue　of　your　subjective　sentiments；　and　if　all　the　while　a



deity　were　really　there　demanding　such　sacrifices；　you　would　be



making　a　theoretical　mistake　by　tacitly　assuming　that　the　deity



must　be　non…existent；　you　would　be　setting　up　a　theology　of　your



own　as　much　as　if　you　were　a　scholastic　philosopher。







To　this　extent；　to　the　extent　of　disbelieving　peremptorily　in



certain　types　of　deity；　I　frankly　confess　that　we　must　be



theologians。　　If　disbeliefs　can　be　said　to　constitute　a　theology；



then　the　prejudices；　instincts；　and　common　sense　which　I　chose　as



our　guides　make　theological　partisans　of　us　whenever　they　make



certain　beliefs　abhorrent。







But　such　common…sense　prejudices　and　instincts　are　themselves　the



fruit　of　an　empirical　evolution。　　Nothing　is　more　striking　than



the　secular　alteration　that　goes　on　in　the　moral　and　religious



tone　of　men；　as　their　insight　into　nature　and　their　social



arrangements　progressively　develop。　　After　an　interval　of　a　few



generations　the　mental　climate　proves　unfavorable　to　notions　of



the　deity　which　at　an　earlier　date　were　perfectly　satisfactory：　



the　older　gods　have　fallen　below　the　common　secular　level；　and



can　no　longer　be　believed　in。　　Today　a　deity　who　should　require



bleeding　sacrifices　to　placate　him　would　be　too　sanguinary　to　be



taken　seriously。　　Even　if　powerful　historical　credentials　were



put　forward　in　his　favor；　we　would　not　look　at　them。　　Once；　on



the　contrary；　his　cruel　appetites　were　of　themselves　credentials。







They　positively　recommended　him　to　men's　imaginations　in　ages



when　such　coarse　signs　of　power　were　respected　and　no　others



could　be　understood。　　Such　deities　then　were　worshiped　because



such　fruits　were　relished。







Doubtless　historic　accidents　always　played　some　later　part；　but



the　original　factor　in　fixing　the　figure　of　the　gods　must　always



have　been　psychological。　　The　deity　to　whom　the　prophets；　seers；



and　devotees　who　founded　the　particular　cult　bore　witness　was



worth　something　to　them　personally。　They　could　use　him。　　He



guided　their　imagination；　warranted　their　hopes；　and　controlled



their　willor　else　they　required　him　as　a　safeguard　against　the



demon　and　a　curber　of　other　people's　crimes。　　In　any　case；　they



chose　him　for　the　value　of　the　fruits　he　seemed　to　them　to　yield。







So　soon　as　the　fruits　began　to　seem　quite　worthless；　so　soon　as



they　conflicted　with　indispensable　human　ideals；　or　thwarted　too



extensively　other　values；　so　soon　as　they　appeared　childish；



contemptible；　or　immoral　when　reflected　on；　the　deity　grew



discredited；　and　was　erelong　neglected　and　forgotten。　　It　was　in



this　way　that　the　Greek　and　Roman　gods　ceased　to　be　believed　in



by　educated　pagans；　it　is　thus　that　we　ourselves　judge　of　the



Hindu；　Buddhist；　and　Mohammedan　theologies；　Protestants　have　so



dealt　with　the　Catholic　notions　of　deity；　and　liberal　Protestants



with　older　Protestant　notions；　it　is　thus　that　Chinamen　judge　of



us；　and　that　all　of　us　now　living　will　be　judged　by　our



descendants。　　When　we　cease　to　admire　or　approve　what　the



definition　of　a　deity　implies；　we　end　by　deeming　that　deity



incredible。







Few　historic　changes　are　more　curious　than　these　mutations　of



theological　opinion。　　The　monarchical　type　of　sovereignty　was；



for　example；　so　ineradicably　planted　in　the　mind　of　our　own



forefathers　that　a　dose　of　cruelty　and　arbitrariness　in　their



deity　seems　positively　to　have　been　required　by　their



imagination。　　They　called　the　cruelty　〃retributive　justice；〃　and



a　God　without　it　would　certainly　have　struck　them　as　not



〃sovereign〃　enough。　　But　today　we　abhor　the　very　notion　of



eternal　suffering　inflicted；　and　that　arbitrary　dealing…out　of



salvation　and　damnation　to　selected　individuals；　of　which



Jonathan　Edwards　could　persuade　himself　that　he　had　not　only　a



conviction；　but　a　〃delightful　conviction；〃　as　of　a　doctrine



〃exceeding　pleasant；　bright；　and　sweet；〃　appears　to　us；　if



sovereignly　anything；　sovereignly　irrational　and　mean。　　Not　only



the　cruelty；　but　the　paltriness　of　character　of　the　gods　believed



in　by　earlier　centuries　also　strikes　later　centuries　with



surprise。　　We　shall　see　examples　of　it　from　the　annals　of



Catholic　saintship　which　makes　us　rub　our　Protestant　eyes。　



Ritual　worship　in　general　appears　to　the　modern



transcendentalist；　as　well　as　to　the　ultra…puritanic　type　of



mind；　as　if　addressed　to　a　deity　of　an　almost　absurdly　childish



character；　taking　delight　in　toy…shop　furniture；　tapers　and



tinsel；　costume　and　mumbling　and　mummery；　and　finding　his　〃glory〃



incomprehensibly　enhanced　thereby：just　as　on　the　other　hand　the



formless　spaciousness　of　pantheism　appears　quite　empty　to



ritualistic　natures；　and　the　gaunt　theism　of　evangelical　sects



seems　intolerably　bald　and　chalky　and　bleak。







Luther；　says　Emerson；　would　have　cut　off　his　right　hand　rather



than　nail　his　theses　to　the　door　at　Wittenberg；　if　he　had



supposed　that　they　were　destined　to　lead　to　the　pale　negations　of



Boston　Unitarianism。







So　far；　then；　although　we　are　compelled；　whatever　may　be　our



pretensions　to　empiricism；　to　employ　some　sort　of　a　standard　of



theological　probability　of　our　own　whenever　we　assume　to　estimate



the　fruits　of　other　men's　religion；　yet　this　very　standard　has



been　begotten　out　of　the　drift　of　common　life。　　It　is　the　voice



of　human　experience　within　us；　judging　and　condemning　all　gods



that　stand　athwart　the　pathway　along　which　it　feels　itself　to　be



advancing。　　Experience；　if　we　take　it　in　the　largest　sense；　is



thus　the　parent　of　those　disbeliefs　which；　it　was　charged；　were



inconsistent　with　the　experiential　method。　　The　inconsistency；



you　see；　is　immaterial；　and　the　charge　may　be　neglected。







If　we　pass　from　disbeliefs　to　positive　beliefs；　it　seems　to　me



that　there　is　not　even　a　formal　inconsistency　to　be　laid　against



our　method。　　The　gods　we　stand　by　are　the　gods　we　need　an