the unseen world and other essays-第30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！


idei；　or　rule　of　faith。　This　rule　of　faith　is　not　drawn　from　the　writings　of　the　New　Testament。　It　existed　before　any　of　the　books　in　the　New　Testament　were　written。　It　sufficed　not　only　for　the　first　Christians　of　the　age　of　the　apostles；　but　for　their　descendants　during　four　centuries。　And　it　is；　therefore；　the　veritable　foundation　upon　which　the　Church　of　Christ　is　built；　a　foundation　not　based　upon　Scripture。〃　Thus；　by　a　master…stroke；　Lessing　secured　the　adherence　of　the　Catholics　constituting　a　majority　of　the　Aulic　Council　of　the　Empire。　Like　Paul　before　him；　he　divided　the　Sanhedrim。　So　that　Goetze；　foiled　in　his　attempts　at　using　violence；　and　disconcerted　by　the　patristic　learning　of　one　whom　he　had　taken　to　be　a　mere　connoisseur　in　art　and　writer　of　plays　for　the　theatre；　concluded　that　discretion　was　the　surest　kind　of　valour；　and　desisted　from　further　attacks。

Lessing's　triumph　came　opportunely；　for　already　the　ministry　of　Brunswick　had　not　only　confiscated　the　Fragments；　but　had　prohibited　him　from　publishing　anything　more　on　the　subject　without　first　obtaining　express　authority　to　do　so。　His　last　replies　to　Goetze　were　published　at　Hamburg；　and　as　he　held　himself　in　readiness　to　depart　from　Wolfenbuttel；　he　wrote　to　several　friends　that　he　had　conceived　the　design　of　a　drama；　with　which　he　would　tear　the　theologians　in　pieces　more　than　with　a　dozen　Fragments。　〃I　will　try　and　see；〃　said　he；　〃if　they　will　let　me　preach　in　peace　from　my　old　pulpit；　the　theatre。〃　In　this　way　originated　〃Nathan　the　Wise。〃　But　it　in　no　way　answered　to　the　expectations　either　of　Lessing's　friends　or　of　his　enemies。　Both　the　one　and　the　other　expected　to　see　the　controversy　with　Goetze　carried　on；　developed；　and　generalized　in　the　poem。　They　looked　for　a　satirical　comedy；　in　which　orthodoxy　should　be　held　up　for　scathing　ridicule；　or　at　least　for　a　direful　tragedy；　the　moral　of　which；　like　that　of　the　great　poem　of　Lucretius；　should　be

　　　　　　　　　　〃Tantum　religio　potuit　suadere　malorum。〃

Had　Lessing　produced　such　a　poem；　he　would　doubtless　have　gratified　his　free…thinking　friends　and　wreaked　due　literary　vengeance　upon　his　theological　persecutors。　He　would；　perhaps；　have　given　articulate　expression　to　the　radicalism　of　his　own　time；　and；　like　Voltaire；　might　have　constituted　himself　the　leader　of　the　age；　the　incarnation　of　its　most　conspicuous　tendencies。　But　Lessing　did　nothing　of　the　kind；　and　the　expectations　formed　of　him　by　friends　and　enemies　alike　show　how　little　he　was　understood　by　either。　〃Nathan　the　Wise〃　was；　as　we　shall　see；　in　the　eighteenth　century　an　entirely　new　phenomenon；　and　its　author　was　the　pioneer　of　a　quite　new　religious　philosophy。

Reimarus；　the　able　author　of　the　Fragments；　in　his　attack　upon　the　evidences　of　revealed　religion；　had　taken　the　same　ground　as　Voltaire　and　the　old　English　deists。　And　when　we　have　said　this；　we　have　sufficiently　defined　his　position；　for　the　tenets　of　the　deists　are　at　the　present　day　pretty　well　known；　and　are；　moreover；　of　very　little　vital　importance；　having　long　since　been　supplanted　by　a　more　just　and　comprehensive　philosophy。　Reimarus　accepted　neither　miracles　nor　revelation；　but　in　accordance　with　the　rudimentary　state　of　criticism　in　his　time；　he　admitted　the　historical　character　of　the　earliest　Christian　records；　and　was　thus　driven　to　the　conclusion　that　those　writings　must　have　been　fraudulently　composed。　How　such　a　set　of　impostors　as　the　apostles　must　on　this　hypothesis　have　been；　should　have　succeeded　in　inspiring　large　numbers　of　their　contemporaries　with　higher　and　grander　religious　notions　than　had　ever　before　been　conceived；　how　they　should　have　laid　the　foundations　of　a　theological　system　destined　to　hold　together　the　most　enlightened　and　progressive　portion　of　human　society　for　seventeen　or　eighteen　centuries；does　not　seem　to　have　entered　his　mind。　Against　such　attacks　as　this；　orthodoxy　was　comparatively　safe；　for　whatever　doubt　might　be　thrown　upon　some　of　its　leading　dogmas；　the　system　as　a　whole　was　more　consistent　and　rational　than　any　of　the　theories　which　were　endeavouring　to　supplant　it。　And　the　fact　that　nearly　all　the　great　thinkers　of　the　eighteenth　century　adopted　this　deistic　hypothesis；　shows；　more　than　anything　else；　the　crudeness　of　their　psychological　knowledge；　and　their　utter　lack　of　what　is　called　〃the　historical　sense。〃

Lessing　at　once　saw　the　weak　point　in　Reimarus's　argument；　but　his　method　of　disposing　of　it　differed　signally　from　that　adopted　by　his　orthodox　contemporaries。　The　more　advanced　German　theologians　of　that　day；　while　accepting　the　New　Testament　records　as　literally　historical；　were　disposed　to　rationalize　the　accounts　of　miracles　contained　in　them；　in　such　a　way　as　to　get　rid　of　any　presumed　infractions　of　the　laws　of　nature。　This　method　of　exegesis；　which　reached　its　perfection　in　Paulus；　is　too　well　known　to　need　describing。　Its　unsatisfactory　character　was　clearly　shown；　thirty　years　ago；　by　Strauss；　and　it　is　now　generally　abandoned；　though　some　traces　of　it　may　still　be　seen　in　the　recent　works　of　Renan。　Lessing　steadily　avoided　this　method　of　interpretation。　He　had　studied　Spinoza　to　some　purpose；　and　the　outlines　of　Biblical　criticism　laid　down　by　that　remarkable　thinker　Lessing　developed　into　a　system　wonderfully　like　that　now　adopted　by　the　Tubingen　school。　The　cardinal　results　which　Baur　has　reached　within　the　past　generation　were　nearly　all　hinted　at　by　Lessing；　in　his　commentaries　on　the　Fragments。　The　distinction　between　the　first　three；　or　synoptic　gospels；　and　the　fourth；　the　later　age　of　the　fourth；　and　the　method　of　composition　of　the　first　three；　from　earlier　documents　and　from　oral　tradition；　are　all　clearly　laid　down　by　him。　The　distinct　points　of　view　from　which　the　four　accounts　were　composed；　are　also　indicated；the　Judaizing　disposition　of　〃Matthew；〃　the　Pauline　sympathies　of　〃Luke；〃　the　compromising　or　Petrine　tendencies　of　〃Mark；〃　and　the　advanced　Hellenic　character　of　〃John。〃　Those　best　acquainted　with　the　results　of　modern　criticism　in　Germany　will　perhaps　be　most　surprised　at　finding　such　speculations　in　a　book　written　many　years　before　either　Strauss　or　Baur　were　born。

But　such　results；　as　might　have　been　expected；　did　not　satisfy　the　pastor　Goetze　or　the　public　which　sympathized　with　him。　The　valiant　pastor　unhesitatingly　declared　that　he　read　the　objections　which　Lessing　opposed　to　the　Fragmentist　with　more　horror　and　disgust　than　the　Fragments　themselves；　and　in　the　teeth　of　the　printed　comments　he　declared　that　the　editor　was　craftily　upholding　his　author　in　his　deistical　assault　upon　Christian　theology。　The　accusation　was　unjust；　because　untrue。　There　could　be　no　genuine　cooperation　between　a　mere　iconoclast　like　Reimarus；　and　a　constructive　critic　like　Lessing。　But　the　confusion　was　not　an　unnatural　one　on　Goetze's　part；　and　I　cannot　agree　with　M。　Fontanes　in　taking　it　as　convincing　proof　of　the　pastor's　wrong…headed　perversity。　It　appears　to　me　that　Goetze　interpreted　Lessing's　position　quite　as　accurately　as　M。　Fontanes。　The　latter　writer　thinks　that　Lessing　was　a　Christian　of　the　liberal　school　since　represented　by　Theodore　Parker　in　this　country　and　by　M。　Reville　in　France；　that　his　real　object　was　to　defend　and　strengthen　the　Christian　religion　by　relieving　it　of　those　peculiar　doctrines　which　to　the　freethinkers　of　his　time　were　a　stumbling…block　and　an　offence。　And；　in　spite　of　Lessing's　own　declarations；　he　endeavours　to　show　that　he　was　an　ordinary　theist；a　follower　of　Leibnitz　rather　than　of　Spinoza。　But　I　do　not　think　he　has　made　out　his　case。　Lessing's　own　confession　to　Jacobi　is　unequivocal　enough；　and　cannot　well　be　argued　away。　In　that　remarkable　conversation；　held　toward　the　close　of　his　life；　he　indicates　clearly　enough　that　his　faith　was　neither　that　of　the　ordinary　theist；　the　atheist；　nor　the　pantheist；　but　that　his　religious　theory　of　the　universe　was　identical　with　that　suggested　by　Spinoza；　adopted　by　Goethe；　and　recently　elaborated　in　the　first　part　of　the　〃First　Principles〃　of　Mr。　Herbert　Spencer。　Moreover；　while　Lessing　cannot　be　considered　an　antagonist　of　Christianity；　neither　did　he　assume　the　attitude　of　a　defender。　He　remained　outside　the　theological　arena；　looking　at　theological　questions　from　the　point　of　view　of　a　layman；　or　rather；　as　M。　Cherbuliez　has　happily　expressed　it；　of　a　Pagan。　His　mind　was　of　decidedly　antique　structure。　He　had　the　virtues　of　paganism：　its　sanity；　its　calmness；　and　its　probity；　but　of　the　tenderness　of　Christianity；　and　its　quenchless　aspirations　after　an　indefinable　ideal；　of　that　feeling　which　has　incarnated　itself　in　Gothic　cathedrals；　masses　and　oratorios；　he　exhibited　but　scanty　traces。　His　intellect　was　above　all　things　self…consistent　and　incorruptible。　He　had　that　imperial　good…sense　which　might　have　formed　the　ideal　alike　of　Horace　and　of　Epictetus。　No　clandestine　preference　for　certain　conclusions　could　make　his　reason　swerve　from　the　straight　paths　of　logic。　And　he　examined　and　rejected　the　conclusions　of　Reimarus　in　the　same　imperturbable　spirit　with　which　he　examined　and　rejected　the　current　theories　of　the　French　classic　drama。

Such　a　man　can　have　had　but　little　in　common　with　a　preacher　like　Theodore　Parker；