the unseen world and other essays-第26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！


epted　by　the　unthinking　reader　along　with　the　truths　which　they　accompany。　Most　scientific　and　philosophical　works　have　their　defects；　and　it　is　fortunate　that　there　is　such　a　thing　as　dogmatic　ardour　in　the　world；　ever　sharpening　its　wits　to　the　utmost；　that　it　may　spy　each　lurking　inaccuracy　and　ruthlessly　drag　it　to　light。　But　this　useful　spirit　is　wont　to　lead　those　who　are　inspired　by　it　to　shoot　beyond　the　mark；　and　after　pointing　out　the　errors　of　others；　to　commit　fresh　mistakes　of　their　own。　In　the　skilful　criticism　of　M。　Renan's　work　on　the　Apostles；　in　No。　29　of　the　〃Fortnightly　Review〃　there　is　now　and　then　a　vulnerable　spot　through　which　a　controversial　shaft　may　perhaps　be　made　to　pierce。

It　may　be　true　that　Lord　Lyttelton's　tract　on　the　Conversion　of　St。　Paul；　as　Dr。　Johnson　and　Dr。　Rogers　have　said；　has　never　yet　been　refuted；　but　if　I　may　judge　from　my　own　recollection　of　the　work；　I　should　say　that　this　must　be　because　no　competent　writer　ever　thought　it　worth　his　pains　to　criticize　it。　Its　argument　contains　about　as　much　solid　consistency　as　a　distended　balloon；　and　collapses　as　readily　at　the　first　puncture。　It　attempts　to　prove；　first；　that　the　conversion　of　St。　Paul　cannot　be　made　intelligible　except　on　the　assumption　that　there　was　a　miracle　in　the　case；　and　secondly；　that　if　Paul　was　converted　by　a　miracle；　the　truth　of　Christianity　is　impregnable。　Now；　if　the　first　of　these　points　be　established；　the　demonstration　is　not　yet　complete；　for　the　second　point　must　be　proved　independently。　But　if　the　first　point　be　overthrown；　the　second　loses　its　prop；　and　falls　likewise。

Great　efforts　are　therefore　made　to　show　that　no　natural　influences　could　have　intervened　to　bring　about　a　change　in　the　feelings　of　Paul。　He　was　violent；　〃thorough；〃　unaffected　by　pity　or　remorse；　and　accordingly　he　could　not　have　been　so　completely　altered　as　he　was；　had　he　not　actually　beheld　the　risen　Christ：　such　is　the　argument　which　Mr。　Rogers　deems　so　conclusive。　I　do　not　know　that　from　any　of　Paul's　own　assertions　we　are　entitled　to　affirm　that　no　shade　of　remorse　had　ever　crossed　his　mind　previous　to　the　vision　near　Damascus。　But　waiving　this　point；　I　do　maintain　that；　granting　Paul's　feelings　to　have　been　as　Mr。　Rogers　thinks　they　were；　his　conversion　is　inexplicable；　even　on　the　hypothesis　of　a　miracle。　He　that　is　determined　not　to　believe；　will　not　believe；　though　one　should　rise　from　the　dead。　To　make　Paul　a　believer；　it　was　not　enough　that　he　should　meet　his　Lord　face　to　face　he　must　have　been　already　prepared　to　believe。　Otherwise　he　would　have　easily　found　means　of　explaining　the　miracle　from　his　own　point　of　view。　He　would　certainly　have　attributed　it　to　the　wiles　of　the　demon；　even　as　the　Pharisees　are　said　to　have　done　with　regard　to　the　miraculous　cures　performed　by　Jesus。　A　〃miraculous〃　occurrence　in　those　days　did　not　astonish　as　it　would　at　present。　〃Miracles〃　were　rather　the　order　of　the　day；　and　in　fact　were　lavished　with　such　extreme　bounty　on　all　hands；　that　their　convincing　power　was　very　slight。　Neither　side　ever　thought　of　disputing　the　reality　of　the　miracles　supposed　to　be　performed　on　the　other；　but　each　side　considered　the　miracles　of　its　antagonist　to　be　the　work　of　diabolic　agencies。　Such　being　the　case；　it　is　useless　to　suppose　that　Paul　could　have　distinguished　between　a　true　and　a　false　miracle；　or　that　a　real　miracle　could　of　itself　have　had　any　effect　in　inducing　him　to　depart　from　his　habitual　course　of　belief　and　action。　As　far　as　Paul's　mental　operations　were　concerned；　it　could　have　made　no　difference　whether　he　met　with　his　future　Master　in　person；　or　merely　encountered　him　in　a　vision。　The　sole　point　to　be　considered　is　whether　or　not　he　BELIEVED　in　the　Divine　character　and　authority　of　the　event　which　had　happened。　What　the　event　might　have　really　been　was　of　no　practical　consequence　to　him　or　to　any　one　else。　What　he　believed　it　to　be　was　of　the　first　importance。　And　since　he　did　believe　that　he　had　been　divinely　summoned　to　cease　persecuting；　and　commence　preaching　the　new　faith；　it　follows　that　his　state　of　mind　must　have　been　more　or　less　affected　by　circumstances　other　than　the　mere　vision。　Had　he　not　been　ripe　for　change；　neither　shadow　nor　substance　could　have　changed　him。

This　view　of　the　case　is　by　no　means　so　extravagant　as　Mr。　Rogers　would　have　us　suppose。　There　is　no　reason　for　believing　that　Paul's　character　was　essentially　different　afterwards　from　what　it　had　been　before。　The　very　fervour　which　caused　him；　as　a　Pharisee；　to　exclude　all　but　orthodox　Jews　from　the　hope　of　salvation；　would　lead　him；　as　a　Christian；　to　carry　the　Christian　idea　to　its　extreme　development；　and　admit　all　persons　whatever　to　the　privileges　of　the　Church。　The　same　zeal　for　the　truth　which　had　urged　him　to　persecute　the　Christians　unto　the　death　afterwards　led　him　to　spare　no　toil　and　shun　no　danger　which　might　bring　about　the　triumph　of　their　cause。　It　must　not　be　forgotten　that　the　persecutor　and　the　martyr　are　but　one　and　the　same　man　under　different　circumstances。　He　who　is　ready　to　die　for　his　own　faith　will　sometimes　think　it　fair　to　make　other　men　die　for　theirs。　Men　of　a　vehement　and　fiery　temperament；　moreover；such　as　Paul　always　was；never　change　their　opinions　slowly；　never　rest　in　philosophic　doubt；　never　take　a　middle　course。　If　they　leave　one　extreme　for　an　instant；　they　are　drawn　irresistibly　to　the　other；　and　usually　very　little　is　needed　to　work　the　change。　The　conversion　of　Omar　is　a　striking　instance　in　point；　and　has　been　cited　by　M。　Renan　himself。　The　character　of　Omar　bears　a　strong　likeness　to　that　of　Paul。　Previous　to　his　conversion；　he　was　a　conscientious　and　virulent　persecutor　of　Mohammedanism。＇25＇　After　his　conversion；　he　was　Mohammed's　most　efficient　disciple；　and　it　may　be　safely　asserted　that　for　disinterestedness　and　self…abnegation　he　was　not　inferior　to　the　Apostle　of　the　Gentiles。　The　change　in　his　case　was；　moreover；　quite　as　sudden　and　unexpected　as　it　was　with　Paul；　it　was　neither　more　nor　less　incomprehensible；　and　if　Paul's　conversion　needs　a　miracle　to　explain　it；　Omar's　must　need　one　likewise。　But　in　truth；　there　is　no　difficulty　in　the　case；　save　that　which　stupid　dogmatism　has　created。　The　conversions　of　Paul　and　Omar　are　paralleled　by　innumerable　events　which　occur　in　every　period　of　religious　or　political　excitement。　Far　from　being　extraordinary；　or　inexplicable　on　natural　grounds；　such　phenomena　are　just　what　might　occasionally　be　looked　for。

＇25＇　Saint…Hilaire：　Mahomet　et　le　Coran；　p。　109。


But；　says　Mr。　Rogers；　〃is　it　possible　for　a　moment　to　imagine　the　doting　and　dreaming　victim　of　hallucinations　（which　M。　Renan's　theory　represents　Paul）　to　be　the　man　whose　masculine　sense；　strong　logic；　practical　prudence；　and　high　administrative　talent　appear　in　the　achievements　of　his　life；　and　in　the　Epistles　he　has　left　behind　him？〃　M。　Renan's　theory　does　not；　however；　represent　Paul　as　the　〃victim　of　hallucinations　〃to　a　greater　degree　than　Mohammed。　The　latter；　as　every　one　knows；　laboured　during　much　of　his　life　under　almost　constant　〃hallucination〃；　yet　〃masculine　sense；　strong　logic；〃　etc。；　were　qualities　quite　as　conspicuous　in　him　as　in　St。　Paul。

Here；　as　throughout　his　essay；　Mr。　Rogers　shows　himself　totally　unable　to　comprehend　the　mental　condition　of　men　in　past　ages。　If　an　Apostle　has　a　dream　or　sees　a　vision；　and　interprets　it　according　to　the　ideas　of　his　time　and　country；　instead　of　according　to　the　ideas　of　scientific　England　in　the　nineteenth　century　Mr。　Rogers　thinks　he　must　needs　be　mad：　and　when　according　to　the　well…known　law　that　mental　excitement　is　contagious；＇26＇　several　persons　are　said　to　have　concurred　in　interpreting　some　phenomenon　supernaturally；　Mr。　Rogers　cannot　see　why　so　many　people　should　all　go　mad　at　once！　〃To　go　mad；〃　in　fact　is　his　favourite　designation　for　a　mental　act；　which　nearly　all　the　human　race　have　habitually　performed　in　all　ages；　the　act　of　mistaking　subjective　impressions　for　outward　realities。　The　disposition　to　regard　all　strange　phenomena　as　manifestations　of　supernatural　power　was　universally　prevalent　in　the　first　century　of　Christianity；　and　long　after。　Neither　greatness　of　intellect　nor　thoroughness　of　scepticism　gave　exemption。　Even　Julius　Caesar；　the　greatest　practical　genius　that　ever　lived；　was　somewhat　superstitious；　despite　his　atheism　and　his　Vigorous　common…sense。　It　is　too　often　argued　that　the　prevalence　of　scepticism　in　the　Roman　Empire　must　have　made　men　scrupulous　about　accepting　miracles。　By　no　means。　Nothing　but　physical　science　ever　drives　out　miracles：　mere　doctrinal　scepticism　is　powerless　to　do　it。　In　the　age　of　the　Apostles；　little　if　any　radical　distinction　was　drawn　between　a　miracle　and　an　ordinary　occurrence。　No　one　supposed　a　miracle　to　be　an　infraction　of　the　laws　of　nature；　for　no　one　had　a　clear　idea　that　there　were　such　things　as　laws　of　nature。　A　miracle　was　simply　an　extraordinary　act；　exhibiting　the　power　of　the　person　who　performed　it。　Blank；　indeed；　would　the　evangelists　have　looked；　had　any　one　told　them　what　an　enormous　theory　of　systematic　meddling　with　nature　was　destined　to　grow　out　of　their　beautiful　and　artless　narratives。

＇26＇　Hecker's　Epidemics　of　the　Midd