7. GOD AND THE NURSERY-MAID

Closely related to the Heresy of God the Avenger, is that kind of

miniature God the Avenger, to whom the nursery-maid and the overtaxed

parent are so apt to appeal. You stab your children with such a God and

he poisons all their lives. For many of us the word “God” first came

into our lives to denote a wanton, irrational restraint, as Bogey,

as the All-Seeing and quite ungenerous Eye. God Bogey is a great

convenience to the nursery-maid who wants to leave Fear to mind her

charges and enforce her disciplines, while she goes off upon her own

aims. But indeed, the teaching of God Bogey is an outrage upon the soul

of a child scarcely less dreadful than an indecent assault. The reason

rebels and is crushed under this horrible and pursuing suggestion. Many

minds never rise again from their injury. They remain for the rest of

life spiritually crippled and debased, haunted by a fear, stained with a

persuasion of relentless cruelty in the ultimate cause of all things.

I, who write, was so set against God, thus rendered. He and his Hell

were the nightmare of my childhood; I hated him while I still believed

in him, and who could help but hate? I thought of him as a fantastic

monster, perpetually spying, perpetually listening, perpetually waiting

to condemn and to “strike me dead”; his flames as ready as a grill-room

fire. He was over me and about my feebleness and silliness and

forgetfulness as the sky and sea would be about a child drowning in

mid-Atlantic. When I was still only a child of thirteen, by the grace of

the true God in me, I flung this Lie out of my mind, and for many years,

until I came to see that God himself had done this thing for me, the

name of God meant nothing to me but the hideous scar in my heart where a

fearful demon had been.

I see about me to-day many dreadful moral and mental cripples with this

bogey God of the nursery-maid, with his black, insane revenges, still

living like a horrible parasite in their hearts in the place where God

should be. They are afraid, afraid, afraid; they dare not be kindly to

formal sinners, they dare not abandon a hundred foolish observances;

they dare not look at the causes of things. They are afraid of sunshine,

of nakedness, of health, of adventure, of science, lest that old

watching spider take offence. The voice of the true God whispers in

their hearts, echoes in speech and writing, but they avert themselves,

fear-driven. For the true God has no lash of fear. And how the

foul-minded bigot, with his ill-shaven face, his greasy skin, his thick,

gesticulating hands, his bellowings and threatenings, loves to reap this

harvest of fear the ignorant cunning of the nursery girl has sown

for him! How he loves the importance of denunciation, and, himself

a malignant cripple, to rally the company of these crippled souls to

persecute and destroy the happy children of God! . . .

Christian priestcraft turns a dreadful face to children. There is a real

wickedness of the priest that is different from other wickedness, and

that affects a reasonable mind just as cruelty and strange perversions

of instinct affect it. Let a former Archbishop of Canterbury speak

for me. This that follows is the account given by Archbishop Tait in a

debate in the Upper House of Convocation (July 3rd, 1877) of one of the

publications of a certain SOCIETY OF THE HOLY CROSS:

“I take this book, as its contents show, to be meant for the instruction

of very young children. I find, in one of the pages of it, the statement

that between the ages of six and six and a half years would be the

proper time for the inculcation of the teaching which is to be found in

the book. Now, six to six and a half is certainly a very tender age, and

to these children I find these statements addressed in the book:

“‘It is to the priest, and to the priest only, that the child must

acknowledge his sins, if he desires that God should forgive him.’

“I hope and trust the person, the three clergymen, or however many there

were, did not exactly realise what they were writing; that they did not

mean to say that a child was not to confess its sins to God direct; that

it was not to confess its sins, at the age of six, to its mother, or to

its father, but was only to have recourse to the priest. But the

words, to say the least of them, are rash. Then comes the very obvious

question:

“‘Do you know why? It is because God, when he was on earth, gave to

his priests, and to them alone, the Divine Power of forgiving men their

sins. It was to priests alone that Jesus said: “Receive ye the Holy

Ghost.” . . . Those who will not confess will not be cured. Sin is a

terrible sickness, and casts souls into hell.’

“That is addressed to a child six years of age.

“‘I have known,’ the book continues, ‘poor children who concealed their

sins in confession for years; they were very unhappy, were tormented

with remorse, and if they had died in that state they would certainly

have gone to the everlasting fires of hell.’” . . .

Now here is something against nature, something that I have seen time

after time in the faces and bearing of priests and heard in their

preaching. It is a distinct lust. Much nobility and devotion there are

among priests, saintly lives and kindly lives, lives of real worship,

lives no man may better; this that I write is not of all, perhaps not

of many priests. But there has been in all ages that have known

sacerdotalism this terrible type of the priest; priestcraft and priestly

power release an aggressive and narrow disposition to a recklessness of

suffering and a hatred of liberty that surely exceeds the badness of any

other sort of men.

God, the Invisible King · 第 31 / 77 题