orthodoxy-第38节

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





use　any　weapon　against　it；　the　swords　that　cut　their　own　fingers；



and　the　firebrands　that　burn　their　own　homes。　　Men　who　begin　to　fight



the　Church　for　the　sake　of　freedom　and　humanity　end　by　flinging



away　freedom　and　humanity　if　only　they　may　fight　the　Church。　



This　is　no　exaggeration；　I　could　fill　a　book　with　the　instances　of　it。　



Mr。　Blatchford　set　out；　as　an　ordinary　Bible…smasher；　to　prove



that　Adam　was　guiltless　of　sin　against　God；　in　manoeuvring　so　as　to



maintain　this　he　admitted；　as　a　mere　side　issue；　that　all　the　tyrants；



from　Nero　to　King　Leopold；　were　guiltless　of　any　sin　against　humanity。　



I　know　a　man　who　has　such　a　passion　for　proving　that　he　will　have　no



personal　existence　after　death　that　he　falls　back　on　the　position



that　he　has　no　personal　existence　now。　　He　invokes　Buddhism　and　says



that　all　souls　fade　into　each　other；　in　order　to　prove　that　he



cannot　go　to　heaven　he　proves　that　he　cannot　go　to　Hartlepool。　



I　have　known　people　who　protested　against　religious　education　with



arguments　against　any　education；　saying　that　the　child's　mind　must



grow　freely　or　that　the　old　must　not　teach　the　young。　　I　have　known



people　who　showed　that　there　could　be　no　divine　judgment　by　showing



that　there　can　be　no　human　judgment；　even　for　practical　purposes。　



They　burned　their　own　corn　to　set　fire　to　the　church；　they　smashed



their　own　tools　to　smash　it；　any　stick　was　good　enough　to　beat　it　with；



though　it　were　the　last　stick　of　their　own　dismembered　furniture。　



We　do　not　admire；　we　hardly　excuse；　the　fanatic　who　wrecks　this



world　for　love　of　the　other。　　But　what　are　we　to　say　of　the　fanatic



who　wrecks　this　world　out　of　hatred　of　the　other？　　He　sacrifices



the　very　existence　of　humanity　to　the　non…existence　of　God。　



He　offers　his　victims　not　to　the　altar；　but　merely　to　assert



the　idleness　of　the　altar　and　the　emptiness　of　the　throne。　



He　is　ready　to　ruin　even　that　primary　ethic　by　which　all　things　live；



for　his　strange　and　eternal　vengeance　upon　some　one　who　never　lived



at　all。







　　　　　And　yet　the　thing　hangs　in　the　heavens　unhurt。　　Its　opponents



only　succeed　in　destroying　all　that　they　themselves　justly　hold　dear。　



They　do　not　destroy　orthodoxy；　they　only　destroy　political



and　common　courage　sense。　　They　do　not　prove　that　Adam　was　not



responsible　to　God；　how　could　they　prove　it？　　They　only　prove



（from　their　premises）　that　the　Czar　is　not　responsible　to　Russia。　



They　do　not　prove　that　Adam　should　not　have　been　punished　by　God；



they　only　prove　that　the　nearest　sweater　should　not　be　punished　by　men。　



With　their　oriental　doubts　about　personality　they　do　not　make　certain



that　we　shall　have　no　personal　life　hereafter；　they　only　make



certain　that　we　shall　not　have　a　very　jolly　or　complete　one　here。　



With　their　paralysing　hints　of　all　conclusions　coming　out　wrong



they　do　not　tear　the　book　of　the　Recording　Angel；　they　only　make



it　a　little　harder　to　keep　the　books　of　Marshall　&　Snelgrove。　



Not　only　is　the　faith　the　mother　of　all　worldly　energies；　but　its　foes



are　the　fathers　of　all　worldly　confusion。　　The　secularists　have　not



wrecked　divine　things；　but　the　secularists　have　wrecked　secular　things；



if　that　is　any　comfort　to　them。　　The　Titans　did　not　scale　heaven；



but　they　laid　waste　the　world。















IX　AUTHORITY　AND　THE　ADVENTURER











　　　　　The　last　chapter　has　been　concerned　with　the　contention　that



orthodoxy　is　not　only　（as　is　often　urged）　the　only　safe　guardian　of



morality　or　order；　but　is　also　the　only　logical　guardian　of　liberty；



innovation　and　advance。　　If　we　wish　to　pull　down　the　prosperous



oppressor　we　cannot　do　it　with　the　new　doctrine　of　human　perfectibility；



we　can　do　it　with　the　old　doctrine　of　Original　Sin。　　If　we　want



to　uproot　inherent　cruelties　or　lift　up　lost　populations　we　cannot



do　it　with　the　scientific　theory　that　matter　precedes　mind；　we　can



do　it　with　the　supernatural　theory　that　mind　precedes　matter。　



If　we　wish　specially　to　awaken　people　to　social　vigilance　and



tireless　pursuit　of　practise；　we　cannot　help　it　much　by　insisting



on　the　Immanent　God　and　the　Inner　Light：　　for　these　are　at　best



reasons　for　contentment；　we　can　help　it　much　by　insisting　on　the



transcendent　God　and　the　flying　and　escaping　gleam；　for　that　means



divine　discontent。　　If　we　wish　particularly　to　assert　the　idea



of　a　generous　balance　against　that　of　a　dreadful　autocracy　we



shall　instinctively　be　Trinitarian　rather　than　Unitarian。　　If　we



desire　European　civilization　to　be　a　raid　and　a　rescue；　we　shall



insist　rather　that　souls　are　in　real　peril　than　that　their　peril　is



ultimately　unreal。　　And　if　we　wish　to　exalt　the　outcast　and　the　crucified；



we　shall　rather　wish　to　think　that　a　veritable　God　was　crucified；



rather　than　a　mere　sage　or　hero。　　Above　all；　if　we　wish　to　protect



the　poor　we　shall　be　in　favour　of　fixed　rules　and　clear　dogmas。　



The　RULES　of　a　club　are　occasionally　in　favour　of　the　poor　member。　



The　drift　of　a　club　is　always　in　favour　of　the　rich　one。







　　　　　And　now　we　come　to　the　crucial　question　which　truly　concludes



the　whole　matter。　　A　reasonable　agnostic；　if　he　has　happened　to　agree



with　me　so　far；　may　justly　turn　round　and　say；　〃You　have　found



a　practical　philosophy　in　the　doctrine　of　the　Fall；　very　well。　



You　have　found　a　side　of　democracy　now　dangerously　neglected　wisely



asserted　in　Original　Sin；　all　right。　　You　have　found　a　truth　in



the　doctrine　of　hell；　I　congratulate　you。　　You　are　convinced　that



worshippers　of　a　personal　God　look　outwards　and　are　progressive；



I　congratulate　them。　　But　even　supposing　that　those　doctrines



do　include　those　truths；　why　cannot　you　take　the　truths　and　leave



the　doctrines？　　Granted　that　all　modern　society　is　trusting



the　rich　too　much　because　it　does　not　allow　for　human　weakness；



granted　that　orthodox　ages　have　had　a　great　advantage　because



（believing　in　the　Fall）　they　did　allow　for　human　weakness；　why　cannot



you　simply　allow　for　human　weakness　without　believing　in　the　Fall？　



If　you　have　discovered　that　the　idea　of　damnation　represents



a　healthy　idea　of　danger；　why　can　you　not　simply　take　the　idea



of　danger　and　leave　the　idea　of　damnation？　　If　you　see　clearly



the　kernel　of　common…sense　in　the　nut　of　Christian　orthodoxy；



why　cannot　you　simply　take　the　kernel　and　leave　the　nut？　



Why　cannot　you　（to　use　that　cant　phrase　of　the　newspapers　which　I；



as　a　highly　scholarly　agnostic；　am　a　little　ashamed　of　using）



why　cannot　you　simply　take　what　is　good　in　Christianity；　what　you　can



define　as　valuable；　what　you　can　comprehend；　and　leave　all　the　rest；



all　the　absolute　dogmas　that　are　in　their　nature　incomprehensible？〃　



This　is　the　real　question；　this　is　the　last　question；　and　it　is　a



pleasure　to　try　to　answer　it。







　　　　　The　first　answer　is　simply　to　say　that　I　am　a　rationalist。　



I　like　to　have　some　intellectual　justification　for　my　intuitions。　



If　I　am　treating　man　as　a　fallen　being　it　is　an　intellectual



convenience　to　me　to　believe　that　he　fell；　and　I　find；　for　some　odd



psychological　reason；　that　I　can　deal　better　with　a　man's　exercise



of　freewill　if　I　believe　that　he　has　got　it。　　But　I　am　in　this　matter



yet　more　definitely　a　rationalist。　　I　do　not　propose　to　turn　this



book　into　one　of　ordinary　Christian　apologetics；　I　should　be　glad



to　meet　at　any　other　time　the　enemies　of　Christianity　in　that　more



obvious　arena。　　Here　I　am　only　giving　an　account　of　my　own　growth



in　spiritual　certainty。　　But　I　may　pause　to　remark　that　the　more　I



saw　of　the　merely　abstract　arguments　against　the　Christian　cosmology



the　less　I　thought　of　them。　　I　mean　that　having　found　the　moral



atmosphere　of　the　Incarnation　to　be　common　sense；　I　then　looked



at　the　established　intellectual　arguments　against　the　Incarnation



and　found　them　to　be　common　nonsense。　　In　case　the　argument　should



be　thought　to　suffer　from　the　absence　of　the　ordinary　apologetic　I



will　here　very　briefly　summarise　my　own　arguments　and　conclusions



on　the　purely　objective　or　scientific　truth　of　the　matter。







　　　　　If　I　am　asked；　as　a　purely　intellectual　question；　why　I　believe



in　Christianity；　I　can　only　answer；　〃For　the　same　reason　that　an



intelligent　agnostic　disbelieves　in　Christianity。〃　　I　believe　in　it



quite　rationally　upon　the　evidence。　　But　the　evidence　in　my　case；



as　in　that　of　the　intelligent　agnostic；　is　not　really　in　this　or　that



alleged　demonstration；　it　is　in　an　enormous　accumulation　of　small



but　unanimous　facts。　　The　secularist　is　not　to　be　blame