CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE TOPIC
39
Compare now this mood with that of the old Christian author of
the Theologia Germanica: —
“Where men are enlightened with the true light, they renounce all
desire and choice, and commit and commend themselves and all things to
the eternal Goodness, so that every enlightened man could say: ‘I would
fain be to the Eternal Goodness what his own hand is to a man.’ Such
men are in a state of freedom, because they have lost the fear of pain or
hell, and the hope of reward or heaven, and are living in pure submission
to the eternal Goodness, in the perfect freedom of fervent love. When a
man truly perceiveth and considereth himself, who and what he is, and
findeth himself utterly vile and wicked and unworthy, he falleth into such
a deep abasement that it seemeth to him reasonable that all creatures in
heaven and earth should rise up against him. And therefore he will not
and dare not desire any consolation and release; but he is willing to be
unconsoled and unreleased; and he doth not grieve over his sufferings, for
they are right in his eyes, and he hath nothing to say against them. This
is what is meant by true repentance for sin; and he who in this present
time entereth into this hell, none may console him. Now God hath not
forsaken a man in this hell, but He is laying his hand upon him, that the
man may not desire nor regard anything but the eternal Good only. And
then, when the man neither careth for nor desireth anything but the
eternal Good alone, and seeketh not himself nor his own things, but the
honour of God only, he is made a partaker of all manner of joy, bliss,
peace, rest, and consolation, and so the man is henceforth in the kingdom
of heaven. This hell and this heaven are two good safe ways for a man,
and happy is he who truly findeth them.”
1
How much more active and positive the impulse of the Christian
writer to accept his place in the universe is! Marcus Aurelius agrees
to the scheme — the German theologian agrees
with it. He literally
abounds in agreement, he runs out to embrace the divine decrees.
Occasionally, it is true, the Stoic rises to something like a Chris-
tian warmth of sentiment, as in the often quoted passage of Marcus
Aurelius: —
“Everything harmonizes with me which is harmonious to thee, O
Universe. Nothing for me is too early nor too late, which is in due time
for thee. Everything is fruit to me which thy seasons bring, O Nature: from
thee are all things, in thee are all things, to thee all things return. The poet
says, Dear City of Cecrops; and wilt thou not say, Dear City of Zeus?”
2
1
Chaps. x., xi. (abridged): Winkworth’s translation.
2
Book IV., § 23.
40THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
But compare even as devout a passage as this with a genuine
Christian outpouring, and it seems a little cold. Turn, for instance,
to the Imitation of Christ: —
“Lord, thou knowest what is best; let this or that be according as thou
wilt. Give what thou wilt, so much as thou wilt, when thou wilt. Do with
me as thou knowest best, and as shall be most to thine honour. Place me
where thou wilt, and freely work thy will with me in all things. . . . When
could it be evil when thou wert near? I had rather be poor for thy sake
than rich without thee. I choose rather to be a pilgrim upon the earth
with thee, than without thee to possess heaven. Where thou art, there is
heaven; and where thou art not, behold there death and hell.”
1
It is a good rule in physiology, when we are studying the meaning
of an organ, to ask after its most peculiar and characteristic sort of
performance, and to seek its office in that one of its functions which
no other organ can possibly exert. Surely the same maxim holds good
in our present quest. The essence of religious experiences, the thing
by which we finally must judge them, must be that element or quality
in them which we can meet nowhere else. And such a quality will
be of course most prominent and easy to notice in those religious
experiences which are most one-sided, exaggerated, and intense.
Now when we compare these intenser experiences with the experi-
ences of tamer minds, so cool and reasonable that we are tempted to
call them philosophical rather than religious, we find a character
that is perfectly distinct. That character, it seems to me, should be
regarded as the practically important differentia of religion for our
purpose; and just what it is can easily be brought out by comparing
the mind of an abstractly conceived Christian with that of a moralist
similarly conceived.
A life is manly, stoical, moral, or philosophical, we say, in pro-
portion as it is less swayed by paltry personal considerations and
more by objective ends that call for energy, even though that energy
bring personal loss and pain. This is the good side of war, in so far
as it calls for “volunteers.” And for morality life is a war, and the
service of the highest is a sort of cosmic patriotism which also calls
1
Benham’s translation: Book III., chaps. xv., lix. Compare Mary Moody Emerson: “Let
me be a blot on this fair world, the obscurest, the loneliest sufferer, with one proviso, — that
I know it is His agency. I will love Him though He shed frost and darkness on every way of
mine.” R. W. E
MERSON
: Lectures and Biographical Sketches, p. 188.