the unseen world and other essays-第27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！


stined　to　grow　out　of　their　beautiful　and　artless　narratives。

＇26＇　Hecker's　Epidemics　of　the　Middle　Ages；　pp。　87…152。


The　incapacity　to　appreciate　this　frame　of　mind　renders　the　current　arguments　in　behalf　of　miracles　utterly　worthless。　From　the　fact　that　Celsus　and　others　never　denied　the　reality　of　the　Christian　miracles；　it　is　commonly　inferred　that　those　miracles　must　have　actually　happened。　The　same　argument　would；　however；　equally　apply　to　the　miracles　of　Apollonius　and　Simon　Magus；　for　the　Christians　never　denied　the　reality　of　these。　What　these　facts　really　prove　is　that　the　state　of　human　intelligence　was　as　I　have　just　described　it：　and　the　inference　to　be　drawn　from　them　is　that　no　miraculous　account　emanating　from　an　author　of　such　a　period　is　worthy　of　serious　attention。　When　Mr。　Rogers　supposes　that　if　the　miracles　had　not　really　happened　they　would　have　been　challenged；　he　is　assuming　that　a　state　of　mind　existed　in　which　it　was　possible　for　miracles　to　be　challenged；　and　thus　commits　an　anachronism　as　monstrous　as　if　he　had　attributed　the　knowledge　of　some　modern　invention；　such　as　steamboats；　to　those　early　ages。

Mr。　Rogers　seems　to　complain　of　M。　Renan　for　〃quietly　assuming〃　that　miracles　are　invariably　to　be　rejected。　Certainly　a　historian　of　the　present　day　who　should　not　make　such　an　assumption　would　betray　his　lack　of　the　proper　qualifications　for　his　profession。　It　is　not　considered　necessary　for　every　writer　to　begin　his　work　by　setting　out　to　prove　the　first　principles　of　historical　criticism。　They　are　taken　for　granted。　And；　as　M。　Renan　justly　says；　a　miracle　is　one　of　those　things　which　must　be　disbelieved　until　it　is　proved。　The　onus　probandi　lies　on　the　assertor　of　a　fact　which　conflicts　with　universal　experience。　Nevertheless；　the　great　number　of　intelligent　persons　who；　even　now；　from　dogmatic　reasons；　accept　the　New　Testament　miracles；　forbids　that　they　should　be　passed　over　in　silence　like　similar　phenomena　elsewhere　narrated。　But；　in　the　present　state　of　historical　science；　the　arguing　against　miracles　is；　as　Colet　remarked　of　his　friend　Erasmus's　warfare　against　the　Thomists　and　Scotists　of　Cambridge；　〃a　contest　more　necessary　than　glorious　or　difficult。〃　To　be　satisfactorily　established；　a　miracle　needs　at　least　to　be　recorded　by　an　eyewitness；　and　the　mental　attainments　of　the　witness　need　to　be　thoroughly　known　besides。　Unless　he　has　a　clear　conception　of　the　difference　between　the　natural　and　the　unnatural　order　of　events；　his　testimony；　however　unimpeachable　on　the　score　of　honesty；　is　still　worthless。　To　say　that　this　condition　was　fulfilled　by　those　who　described　the　New　Testament　miracles；　would　be　absurd。　And　in　the　face　of　what　German　criticism　has　done　for　the　early　Christian　documents；　it　would　be　an　excess　of　temerity　to　assert　that　any　one　of　the　supernatural　accounts　contained　in　them　rests　on　contemporary　authority。　Of　all　history；　the　miraculous　part　should　be　attested　by　the　strongest　testimony；　whereas　it　is　invariably　attested　by　the　weakest。　And　the　paucity　of　miracles　wherever　we　have　contemporary　records；　as　in　the　case　of　primitive　Islamism；　is　a　most　significant　fact。

In　attempting　to　defend　his　principle　of　never　accepting　a　miracle；　M。　Renan　has　indeed　got　into　a　sorry　plight；　and　Mr。　Rogers；　in　controverting　him；　has　not　greatly　helped　the　matter。　By　stirring　M。　Renan's　bemuddled　pool；　Mr。　Rogers　has　only　bemuddled　it　the　more。　Neither　of　these　excellent　writers　seems　to　suspect　that　transmutation　of　species；　the　geologic　development　of　the　earth；　and　other　like　phenomena　do　not　present　features　conflicting　with　ordinary　experience。　Sir　Charles　Lyell　and　Mr。　Darwin　would　be　greatly　astonished　to　be　told　that　their　theories　of　inorganic　and　organic　evolution　involved　any　agencies　not　known　to　exist　in　the　present　course　of　nature。　The　great　achievement　of　these　writers　has　been　to　show　that　all　past　changes　of　the　earth　and　its　inhabitants　are　to　be　explained　as　resulting　from　the　continuous　action　of　causes　like　those　now　in　operation；　and　that　throughout　there　has　been　nothing　even　faintly　resembling　a　miracle。　M。　Renan　may　feel　perfectly　safe　in　extending　his　principle　back　to　the　beginning　of　things；　and　Mr。　Rogers's　argument；　even　if　valid　against　M。　Renan；　does　not　help　his　own　case　in　the　least。

On　some　points；　indeed；　M。　Renan　has　laid　himself　open　to　severe　criticism；　and　on　other　points　he　has　furnished　good　handles　for　his　orthodox　opponents。　His　views　in　regard　to　the　authorship　of　the　Fourth　Gospel　and　the　Acts　are　not　likely　to　be　endorsed　by　many　scholars；　and　his　revival　of　the　rationalistic　absurdities　of　Paulus　merits　in　most　instances　all　that　Mr。　Rogers　has　said　about　it。　As　was　said　at　the　outset；　orthodox　criticisms　upon　heterodox　books　are　always　welcome。　They　do　excellent　service。　And　with　the　feeling　which　impels　their　authors　to　defend　their　favourite　dogmas　with　every　available　weapon　of　controversy　I　for　one　can　heartily　sympathize。　Their　zeal　in　upholding　what　they　consider　the　truth　is　greatly　to　be　respected　and　admired。　But　so　much　cannot　always　be　said　for　the　mode　of　argumentation　they　adopt；　which　too　often　justifies　M。　Renan's　description；　when　he　says；　〃Raisonnements　triomphants　sur　des　choses　que　l'adversaire　n'a　pas　dites；　cris　de　victoire　sur　des　erreurs　qu'il　n'a　pas　commises；　rien　ne　parait　deloyal　a　celui　qui　croft　tenir　en　main　les　interets　de　la　verite　absolue。〃

　　　　　August；　1866。



VI。　DRAPER　ON　SCIENCE　AND　RELIGION。＇27＇

＇27＇　History　of　the　Conflict　between　Religion　and　Science。　by　John　William　Draper；　M。　D。；　LL。　D。　Fourth　edition。　New　York：　D。　Appleton　&　Co。　1875。　12mo；　pp。　xxii。；　373。　（International　Scientific　Series；　XII。）


Some　twelve　years　ago；　Dr。　Draper　published　a　bulky　volume　entitled　〃A　History　of　the　Intellectual　Development　of　Europe；〃　in　which　his　professed　purpose　was　to　show　that　nations　or　races　pass　through　certain　definable　epochs　of　development；　analogous　to　the　periods　of　infancy；　childhood；　youth；　manhood；　and　old　age　in　individuals。　But　while　announced　with　due　formality；　the　carrying　out　of　the　argument　was　left　for　the　most　part　to　the　headings　and　running…titles　of　the　several　chapters；　while　in　the　text　the　author　peacefully　meandered　along　down　the　stream　of　time；　giving　us　a　succession　of　pleasant　though　somewhat　threadbare　anecdotes；　as　well　as　a　superabundance　of　detached　and　fragmentary　opinions　on　divers　historical　events；　having　apparently　quite　forgotten　that　he　had　started　with　a　thesis　to　prove。　In　the　arrangement　of　his　〃running　heads；〃　some　points　were　sufficiently　curious　to　require　a　word　of　explanation；　as；　for　example；　when　the　early　ages　of　Christianity　were　at　one　time　labelled　as　an　epoch　of　progress　and　at　another　time　as　an　epoch　of　decrepitude。　But　the　argument　and　the　contents　never　got　so　far　en　rapport　with　each　other　as　to　clear　up　such　points　as　this。　On　the　contrary；　each　kept　on　the　even　tenour　of　its　way　without　much　regard　to　the　other。　From　the　titles　of　the　chapters　one　was　led　to　expect　some　comprehensive　theory　of　European　civilization　continuously　expounded。　But　the　text　merely　showed　a　great　quantity　of　superficial　and　second…hand　information；　serving　to　illustrate　the　mental　idiosyncrasies　of　the　author。　Among　these　idiosyncrasies　might　be　noted　a　very　inadequate　understanding　of　the　part　played　by　Rome　in　the　work　of　civilization；　a　singular　lack　of　appreciation　of　the　political　and　philosophical　achievements　of　Greece　under　Athenian　leadership；　a　strong　hostility　to　the　Catholic　Church；　a　curious　disposition　to　overrate　semi…barbarous。　or　abortive　civilizations；　such　as　those　of　the　old　Asiatic　and　native　American　communities；　at　the　expense　of　Europe；　and；　above　all；　an　undiscriminating　admiration　for　everything；　great　or　small；　that　has　ever　worn　the　garb　of　Islam　or　been　associated　with　the　career　of　the　Saracens。　The　discovery　that　in　some　respects　the　Mussulmans　of　the　Middle　Ages　were　more　highly　cultivated　than　their　Christian　contemporaries；　has　made　such　an　impression　on　Dr。　Draper's　mind　that　it　seems　to　be　as　hard　for　him　to　get　rid　of　it　as　it　was　for　Mr。　Dick　to　keep　the　execution　of　Charles　I。　out　of　his　〃Memorial。〃　Even　in　an　essay　on　the　〃Civil　Policy　of　America；〃　the　turbaned　sage　figures　quite　prominently；　and　it　is　needless　to　add　that　he　reappears；　as　large　as　life；　when　the　subject　of　discussion　is　the　attitude　of　science　toward　religion。

Speaking　briefly　with　regard　to　this　matter；　we　may　freely　admit　that　the　work　done　by　the　Arabs；　in　scientific　inquiry　as　well　as　in　the　making　of　events；　was　very　considerable。　It　was　a　work；　too；　the　value　of　which　is　not　commonly　appreciated　in　the　accounts　of　European　history　written　for　the　general　reader；　and　we　have　no　disposition　to　find　fault　with　Dr。　Draper　for　describing　it　with　enthusiasm。　The　philosophers　of　Bagdad　and　Cordova　did　excellent　service　in　keeping　alive　the　traditions　of　Greek　physical　inquiry　at　a　time　when　Christian　thinkers　were　too　exclusively　occupied　with　transcendental　speculations　in　theology　and　logic。　In　some　departments；　as　in　chemistry　and　astronomy；　they　made　original　discoveries　of　considerable　value；　and　if　we　turn　from　abstract　knowledge