orthodoxy-第31部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





For　some　extraordinary　reason；　there　is　a　fixed　notion　that　it



is　more　liberal　to　disbelieve　in　miracles　than　to　believe



in　them。　　Why；　I　cannot　imagine；　nor　can　anybody　tell　me。　



For　some　inconceivable　cause　a　〃broad〃　or　〃liberal〃　clergyman　always



means　a　man　who　wishes　at　least　to　diminish　the　number　of　miracles；



it　never　means　a　man　who　wishes　to　increase　that　number。　　It　always



means　a　man　who　is　free　to　disbelieve　that　Christ　came　out　of　His　grave；



it　never　means　a　man　who　is　free　to　believe　that　his　own　aunt　came



out　of　her　grave。　　It　is　common　to　find　trouble　in　a　parish　because



the　parish　priest　cannot　admit　that　St。　Peter　walked　on　water；



yet　how　rarely　do　we　find　trouble　in　a　parish　because　the　clergyman



says　that　his　father　walked　on　the　Serpentine？　　And　this　is　not



because　（as　the　swift　secularist　debater　would　immediately　retort）



miracles　cannot　be　believed　in　our　experience。　　It　is　not　because



〃miracles　do　not　happen；〃　as　in　the　dogma　which　Matthew　Arnold　recited



with　simple　faith。　　More　supernatural　things　are　ALLEGED　to　have



happened　in　our　time　than　would　have　been　possible　eighty　years　ago。　



Men　of　science　believe　in　such　marvels　much　more　than　they　did：　



the　most　perplexing；　and　even　horrible；　prodigies　of　mind　and　spirit



are　always　being　unveiled　in　modern　psychology。　　Things　that　the　old



science　at　least　would　frankly　have　rejected　as　miracles　are　hourly



being　asserted　by　the　new　science。　　The　only　thing　which　is　still



old…fashioned　enough　to　reject　miracles　is　the　New　Theology。　



But　in　truth　this　notion　that　it　is　〃free〃　to　deny　miracles　has



nothing　to　do　with　the　evidence　for　or　against　them。　　It　is　a　lifeless



verbal　prejudice　of　which　the　original　life　and　beginning　was　not



in　the　freedom　of　thought；　but　simply　in　the　dogma　of　materialism。　



The　man　of　the　nineteenth　century　did　not　disbelieve　in　the



Resurrection　because　his　liberal　Christianity　allowed　him　to　doubt　it。　



He　disbelieved　in　it　because　his　very　strict　materialism　did　not　allow



him　to　believe　it。　　Tennyson；　a　very　typical　nineteenth　century　man；



uttered　one　of　the　instinctive　truisms　of　his　contemporaries　when　he



said　that　there　was　faith　in　their　honest　doubt。　　There　was　indeed。　



Those　words　have　a　profound　and　even　a　horrible　truth。　　In　their



doubt　of　miracles　there　was　a　faith　in　a　fixed　and　godless　fate；



a　deep　and　sincere　faith　in　the　incurable　routine　of　the　cosmos。　



The　doubts　of　the　agnostic　were　only　the　dogmas　of　the　monist。







　　　　　Of　the　fact　and　evidence　of　the　supernatural　I　will



speak　afterwards。　　Here　we　are　only　concerned　with　this　clear　point；



that　in　so　far　as　the　liberal　idea　of　freedom　can　be　said　to　be



on　either　side　in　the　discussion　about　miracles；　it　is　obviously



on　the　side　of　miracles。　　Reform　or　（in　the　only　tolerable　sense）



progress　means　simply　the　gradual　control　of　matter　by　mind。　



A　miracle　simply　means　the　swift　control　of　matter　by　mind。　　If　you



wish　to　feed　the　people；　you　may　think　that　feeding　them　miraculously



in　the　wilderness　is　impossiblebut　you　cannot　think　it　illiberal。　



If　you　really　want　poor　children　to　go　to　the　seaside；　you　cannot



think　it　illiberal　that　they　should　go　there　on　flying　dragons；



you　can　only　think　it　unlikely。　　A　holiday；　like　Liberalism；　only　means



the　liberty　of　man。　　A　miracle　only　means　the　liberty　of　God。　



You　may　conscientiously　deny　either　of　them；　but　you　cannot　call



your　denial　a　triumph　of　the　liberal　idea。　　The　Catholic　Church



believed　that　man　and　God　both　had　a　sort　of　spiritual　freedom。　



Calvinism　took　away　the　freedom　from　man；　but　left　it　to　God。　



Scientific　materialism　binds　the　Creator　Himself；　it　chains　up



God　as　the　Apocalypse　chained　the　devil。　　It　leaves　nothing　free



in　the　universe。　　And　those　who　assist　this　process　are　called　the



〃liberal　theologians。〃







　　　　　This；　as　I　say；　is　the　lightest　and　most　evident　case。　



The　assumption　that　there　is　something　in　the　doubt　of　miracles　akin



to　liberality　or　reform　is　literally　the　opposite　of　the　truth。　



If　a　man　cannot　believe　in　miracles　there　is　an　end　of　the　matter；



he　is　not　particularly　liberal；　but　he　is　perfectly　honourable



and　logical；　which　are　much　better　things。　　But　if　he　can　believe



in　miracles；　he　is　certainly　the　more　liberal　for　doing　so；



because　they　mean　first；　the　freedom　of　the　soul；　and　secondly；



its　control　over　the　tyranny　of　circumstance。　　Sometimes　this　truth



is　ignored　in　a　singularly　naive　way；　even　by　the　ablest　men。　



For　instance；　Mr。　Bernard　Shaw　speaks　with　hearty　old…fashioned



contempt　for　the　idea　of　miracles；　as　if　they　were　a　sort　of　breach



of　faith　on　the　part　of　nature：　　he　seems　strangely　unconscious



that　miracles　are　only　the　final　flowers　of　his　own　favourite　tree；



the　doctrine　of　the　omnipotence　of　will。　　Just　in　the　same　way　he　calls



the　desire　for　immortality　a　paltry　selfishness；　forgetting　that　he



has　just　called　the　desire　for　life　a　healthy　and　heroic　selfishness。　



How　can　it　be　noble　to　wish　to　make　one's　life　infinite　and　yet



mean　to　wish　to　make　it　immortal？　　No；　if　it　is　desirable　that　man



should　triumph　over　the　cruelty　of　nature　or　custom；　then　miracles



are　certainly　desirable；　we　will　discuss　afterwards　whether　they



are　possible。







　　　　　But　I　must　pass　on　to　the　larger　cases　of　this　curious　error；



the　notion　that　the　〃liberalising〃　of　religion　in　some　way　helps



the　liberation　of　the　world。　　The　second　example　of　it　can　be　found



in　the　question　of　pantheismor　rather　of　a　certain　modern　attitude



which　is　often　called　immanentism；　and　which　often　is　Buddhism。　



But　this　is　so　much　more　difficult　a　matter　that　I　must　approach　it



with　rather　more　preparation。







　　　　　The　things　said　most　confidently　by　advanced　persons　to



crowded　audiences　are　generally　those　quite　opposite　to　the　fact；



it　is　actually　our　truisms　that　are　untrue。　　Here　is　a　case。　



There　is　a　phrase　of　facile　liberality　uttered　again　and　again



at　ethical　societies　and　parliaments　of　religion：　　〃the　religions



of　the　earth　differ　in　rites　and　forms；　but　they　are　the　same　in



what　they　teach。〃　　It　is　false；　it　is　the　opposite　of　the　fact。　



The　religions　of　the　earth　do　not　greatly　differ　in　rites　and　forms；



they　do　greatly　differ　in　what　they　teach。　　It　is　as　if　a　man



were　to　say；　〃Do　not　be　misled　by　the　fact　that　the　CHURCH　TIMES



and　the　FREETHINKER　look　utterly　different；　that　one　is　painted



on　vellum　and　the　other　carved　on　marble；　that　one　is　triangular



and　the　other　hectagonal；　read　them　and　you　will　see　that　they　say



the　same　thing。〃　　The　truth　is；　of　course；　that　they　are　alike　in



everything　except　in　the　fact　that　they　don't　say　the　same　thing。　



An　atheist　stockbroker　in　Surbiton　looks　exactly　like　a　Swedenborgian



stockbroker　in　Wimbledon。　　You　may　walk　round　and　round　them



and　subject　them　to　the　most　personal　and　offensive　study　without



seeing　anything　Swedenborgian　in　the　hat　or　anything　particularly



godless　in　the　umbrella。　　It　is　exactly　in　their　souls　that　they



are　divided。　　So　the　truth　is　that　the　difficulty　of　all　the　creeds



of　the　earth　is　not　as　alleged　in　this　cheap　maxim：　　that　they　agree



in　meaning；　but　differ　in　machinery。　　It　is　exactly　the　opposite。　



They　agree　in　machinery；　almost　every　great　religion　on　earth　works



with　the　same　external　methods；　with　priests；　scriptures；　altars；



sworn　brotherhoods；　special　feasts。　　They　agree　in　the　mode



of　teaching；　what　they　differ　about　is　the　thing　to　be　taught。　



Pagan　optimists　and　Eastern　pessimists　would　both　have　temples；



just　as　Liberals　and　Tories　would　both　have　newspapers。　　Creeds　that



exist　to　destroy　each　other　both　have　scriptures；　just　as　armies



that　exist　to　destroy　each　other　both　have　guns。







　　　　　The　great　example　of　this　alleged　identity　of　all　human　religions



is　the　alleged　spiritual　identity　of　Buddhism　and　Christianity。　



Those　who　adopt　this　theory　generally　avoid　the　ethics　of　most



other　creeds；　except；　indeed；　Confucianism；　which　they　like



because　it　is　not　a　creed。　　But　they　are　cautious　in　their　praises



of　Mahommedanism；　generally　confining　themselves　to　imposing



its　morality　only　upon　the　refreshment　of　the　lower　classes。　



They　seldom　suggest　the　Mahommedan　view　of　marriage　（for　which



there　is　a　great　deal　to　be　said）；　and　towards　Thugs　and　fetish



worshippers　their　attitude　may　even　be　called　cold。　　But　in　the



case　of　the　great　religion　of　Gautama　they　feel　sincerely　a　similarity。







　　　　　Students　of　popular　science；　like　Mr。　Blatchford；　are　always



insisting　that　Christianity　and　Buddhism　are　very　much　alike；



especially　Buddhism。　　This　is　generally　believed；　and　I　believed



it　myself　until　I　read　a　book　giving　the　reasons　for　it。　



The　reasons　were　of　two　kinds：　　resemblances　that　meant　nothing



because　they　were　common　to　all　humanity；　and　resemblances　which



were　not　resemblances　at　all。　　The　author　solemnly　explained　that



the　two　creeds　were　alike　in　things　in　which　all　creeds　are　alike；



or　else　he　described　them　as　alike　in　some　point　in　which　they



are　quite　obviously　different。　　Thus；　as　a　case　of　the　first　class；



he　said　that　both　Christ　and　Buddha　were　called　by　the　divine　voice



coming　out　of　the　sky；　as　if　you　would　expect　the　divine　voice



to　come　out　of　the　coal…cellar。　Or；　again；　it　was　gravely　urged



that　these　two　Eastern　teachers；　by　a　singular　coincidence；　both　had



to　do　with　the　washing　of　feet。　　Yo