36
THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
state of mind is “religious,” or “irreligious,” or “moral,” or “philo-
sophical,” is only likely to arise when the state of mind is weakly
characterized, but in that case it will be hardly worthy of our study
at all. With states that can only by courtesy be called religious we
need have nothing to do, our only profitable business being with
what nobody can possibly feel tempted to call anything else. I said
in my former lecture that we learn most about a thing when we
view it under a microscope, as it were, or in its most exaggerated
form. This is as true of religious phenomena as of any other kind
of fact. The only cases likely to be profitable enough to repay our
attention will therefore be cases where the religious spirit is unmis-
takable and extreme. Its fainter manifestations we may tranquilly
pass by. Here, for example, is the total reaction upon life of Frederick
Locker Lampson, whose autobiography, entitled “Confidences,”
proves him to have been a most amiable man.
“I am so far resigned to my lot that I feel small pain at the thought of
having to part from what has been called the pleasant habit of existence,
the sweet fable of life. I would not care to live my wasted life over again,
and so to prolong my span. Strange to say, I have but little wish to be
younger. I submit with a chill at my heart. I humbly submit because it is
the Divine Will, and my appointed destiny. I dread the increase of infirm-
ities that will make me a burden to those around me, those dear to me. No!
let me slip away as quietly and comfortably as I can. Let the end come, if
peace come with it.
“I do not know that there is a great deal to be said for this world, or our
sojourn here upon it; but it has pleased God so to place us, and it must
please me also. I ask you, what is human life? Is not it a maimed happiness
— care and weariness, weariness and care, with the baseless expectation,
the strange cozenage of a brighter to-morrow? At best it is but a froward
child, that must be played with and humored, to keep it quiet till it falls
asleep, and then the care is over.”
1
This is a complex, a tender, a submissive, and a graceful state of
mind. For myself, I should have no objection to calling it on the
whole a religious state of mind, although I dare say that to many of
you it may seem too listless and half-hearted to merit so good a
name. But what matters it in the end whether we call such a state
of mind religious or not? It is too insignificant for our instruction in
1
Op. cit., pp. 314, 313.
CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE TOPIC
37
any case; and its very possessor wrote it down in terms which he
would not have used unless he had been thinking of more ener-
getically religious moods in others, with which he found himself
unable to compete. It is with these more energetic states that our
sole business lies, and we can perfectly well afford to let the minor
notes and the uncertain border go.
It was the extremer cases that I had in mind a little while ago
when I said that personal religion, even without theology or ritual,
would prove to embody some elements that morality pure and simple
does not contain. You may remember that I promised shortly to
point out what those elements were. In a general way I can now say
what I had in mind.
“I accept the universe” is reported to have been a favorite utter-
ance of our New England transcendentalist, Margaret Fuller; and
when some one repeated this phrase to Thomas Carlyle, his sardonic
comment is said to have been: “Gad! she’d better!” At bottom the
whole concern of both morality and religion is with the manner of
our acceptance of the universe. Do we accept it only in part and
grudgingly, or heartily and altogether? Shall our protests against
certain things in it be radical and unforgiving, or shall we think
that, even with evil, there are ways of living that must lead to
good? If we accept the whole, shall we do so as if stunned into
submission, — as Carlyle would have us — “Gad! we’d better!” —
or shall we do so with enthusiastic assent? Morality pure and simple
accepts the law of the whole which it finds reigning, so far as to
acknowledge and obey it, but it may obey it with the heaviest and
coldest heart, and never cease to feel it as a yoke. But for religion,
in its strong and fully developed manifestations, the service of the
highest never is felt as a yoke. Dull submission is left far behind,
and a mood of welcome, which may fill any place on the scale
between cheerful serenity and enthusiastic gladness, has taken its
place.
It makes a tremendous emotional and practical difference to one
whether one accept the universe in the drab discolored way of stoic
resignation to necessity, or with the passionate happiness of Chris-
tian saints. The difference is as great as that between passivity and
activity, as that between the defensive and the aggressive mood.
Gradual as are the steps by which an individual may grow from one
38
THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
state into the other, many as are the intermediate stages which dif-
ferent individuals represent, yet when you place the typical extremes
beside each other for comparison, you feel that two discontinuous
psychological universes confront you, and that in passing from one
to the other a “critical point” has been overcome.
If we compare stoic with Christian ejaculations we see much
more than a difference of doctrine; rather is it a difference of emo-
tional mood that parts them. When Marcus Aurelius reflects on
the eternal reason that has ordered things, there is a frosty chill
about his words which you rarely find in a Jewish, and never in a
Christian piece of religious writing. The universe is “accepted” by
all these writers; but how devoid of passion or exultation the spirit
of the Roman Emperor is! Compare his fine sentence: “If gods care
not for me or my children, here is a reason for it,” with Job’s cry:
“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!” and you immediately
see the difference I mean. The anima mundi, to whose disposal of his
own personal destiny the Stoic consents, is there to be respected
and submitted to, but the Christian God is there to be loved; and
the difference of emotional atmosphere is like that between an
arctic climate and the tropics, though the outcome in the way of
accepting actual conditions uncomplainingly may seem in abstract
terms to be much the same.
“It is a man’s duty,” says Marcus Aurelius, “to comfort himself and wait
for the natural dissolution, and not to be vexed, but to find refreshment
solely in these thoughts — first that nothing will happen to me which is
not conformable to the nature of the universe; and secondly that I need
do nothing contrary to the God and deity within me; for there is no man
who can compel me to transgress.
1
He is an abscess on the universe who
withdraws and separates himself from the reason of our common nature,
through being displeased with the things which happen. For the same
nature produces these, and has produced thee too. And so accept every-
thing which happens, even if it seem disagreeable, because it leads to this,
the health of the universe and to the prosperity and felicity of Zeus. For
he would not have brought on any man what he has brought, if it were not
useful for the whole. The integrity of the whole is mutilated if thou cuttest
off anything. And thou dost cut off, as far as it is in thy power, when thou
art dissatisfied, and in a manner triest to put anything out of the way.”
2
1
Book V., ch. x. (abridged).
2
Book V., ch. ix. (abridged).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |