V.

The sceptic has been referred to here as a member of a wonderful

triumvirate, and, leaving now the field of historical illustration, we

must return to that characterization. The other members of the

triumvirate were the loyal defender of the formal law and the great

spiritual leader. All three were said to be parties to the real life of

the spirit, and the sceptic seemed to have a co-ordinate part with the

others in this life. But was I not conceding too much? Certainly there

are many who will wish to protest. Yet I was only making the doubter and

the believer face each other squarely and honestly. _Both_ are parties

to any reform. No leader or true reformer ever can neglect or betray the

contentions of either. In the organizations of society professional

conditions may hold the two characters apart, but vitally they always

belong together. If truly we must believe in what we doubt, how can

there fail to be between them, not indeed a shallow and sentimental

sympathy, but a deep, heroic sympathy that is always superior to the

differences of the disrupted life, of a professionally organized

society, without betraying them?

At once opponents and companions--this is the truth about the doubter

and the believer. Consider how taken alone neither would be quite

justified, while together both are justified. Perfect approval or, for

that matter, perfect disapproval, can belong to neither singly, not to

you or me in our doubting, even though we fully confess, nor yet to him

who hides his doubts in an outward show that [p.274] almost deceives him

as well as others. Of course in all matters as well as in this of

intellectual honesty, the conceit of individual righteousness or

individual possession is a very strong one, but it is "easier for a

camel to go through a needle's eye" than for a man who is anything or

has anything to himself alone, to enter into any kingdom. Is not life

everywhere a movement and a struggle? And who is there, rich or poor,

law-abiding or lawless, righteous or unrighteous, faithful or

treacherous, believing or doubting, who can stand aloof, or who needs to

stand aloof, and say to himself: "I personally, within my own nature,

have no part in the struggle; for good or for ill, I am just what I am,

and with him that is against me I have and can have no dealings"? The

doubter, then, and the believer may have to look askance at each other;

the looking askance may be quite appropriate to the conflict in which

each has and must feel his social rôle, but, at most and worst, they are

only jealous lovers. They may be given, and profitably given, as much to

quarrelling as to gentleness, but they love still, and, to borrow part

of a line from a familiar college song, their battling love affords just

one more view of that which "makes the world go 'round"--instead of off

at some tangent.

Should some one awake to new views come to me and ask which I would have

him do, break away from his traditions and all that they involve or hold

to them, I could only say, in the first place, that, whichever way he

turned, he would have some, though only some, justification, for he

could not be either right or wrong exclusively; in the second place,

that his decision [p.275] not only must be made, and made strongly, one

way or the other, but must also be his, not mine; and in the third

place, that no decision should ever be an absolutely final settlement.

Decisions are only means to action, and as such they can settle nothing

finally. They are not even protocols of peace, often being, on the

contrary, merely signals for firing at closer range. Sometimes I know

they seem even like real treaties, providing the terms of a permanent

harmony, and they appear to determine just where the parties to them

really stand. But, after all, they do but bring the conflict home,

making it domestic or personal instead of settling it. So once more to

my inquirer I may say only this: Choose; fight; fight fair; fight with

yourself as well as with your enemy; with your belief, not merely with

his dogma; or with your doubt, not merely with his dishonesty. So

fighting you and he will truly be at once opponents and companions.

The will to doubt · 第 43 / 48 题