the unseen world and other essays-第21章

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！


mly　established；　it　is　immediately　maintained　that　every　one　knew　them　before。　After　the　Copernican　astronomy　had　won　the　day；　it　was　tacitly　assumed　that　the　ancient　Hebrew　astronomy　was　Copernican；　and　the　Biblical　conception　of　the　universe　as　a　kind　of　three…story　house　was　ignored；　and　has　been；　except　by　scholars；　quite　forgotten。　When　the　geologic　evidence　of　the　earth's　immense　antiquity　could　no　longer　be　gainsaid；　it　was　suddenly　ascertained　that　the　Bible　had　from　the　outset　asserted　that　antiquity；　and　in　our　own　day　we　have　seen　an　elegant　popular　writer　perverting　the　testimony　of　the　rocks　and　distorting　the　Elohistic　cosmogony　of　the　Pentateuch；　until　the　twain　have　been　made　to　furnish　what　Bacon　long　ago　described　as　〃a　heretical　religion　and　a　false　philosophy。〃　Now　just　as　in　the　popular　thought　of　the　present　day　the　ancient　Elohist　is　accredited　with　a　knowledge　of　modern　geology　and　astronomy；　so　in　the　opinion　of　the　fourth　evangelist　and　his　contemporaries　the　doctrine　of　the　Logos…Christ　was　implicitly　contained　in　the　Old　Testament　and　in　the　early　traditions　concerning　Jesus；　and　needed　only　to　be　brought　into　prominence　by　a　fresh　interpretation。　Hence　arose　the　fourth　gospel；　which　was　no　more　a　conscious　violation　of　historic　data　than　Hugh　Miller's　imaginative　description　of　the　〃Mosaic　Vision　of　Creation。〃　Its　metaphysical　discourses　were　readily　accepted　as　equally　authentic　with　the　Sermon　on　the　Mount。　Its　Philonian　doctrines　were　imputed　to　Paul　and　the　apostles；　the　pseudo…Pauline　epistles　furnishing　the　needful　texts。　The　Ebioniteswho　were　simply　Judaizing　Christians；　holding　in　nearly　its　original　form　the　doctrine　of　Peter；　James；　and　Johnwere　ejected　from　the　Church　as　the　most　pernicious　of　heretics；　and　so　completely　was　their　historic　position　misunderstood　and　forgotten；　that；　in　order　to　account　for　their　existence；　it　became　necessary　to　invent　an　eponymous　heresiarch；　Ebion；　who　was　supposed　to　have　led　them　astray　from　the　true　faith！

The　Christology　of　the　fourth　gospel　is　substantially　the　same　as　that　which　was　held　in　the　next　two　centuries　by　Tertullian；　Clement　of　Alexandria；　Origen；　and　Arius。　When　the　doctrine　of　the　Trinity　was　first　announced　by　Sabellius　（A。　D。　250…260）；　it　was　formally　condemned　as　heretical；　the　Church　being　not　yet　quite　prepared　to　receive　it。　In　269　the　Council　of　Antioch　solemnly　declared　that　the　Son　was　NOT　consubstantial　with　the　Father；a　declaration　which；　within　sixty　years；　the　Council　of　Nikaia　was　destined　as　solemnly　to　contradict。　The　Trinitarian　Christology　struggled　long　for　acceptance；　and　did　not　finally　win　the　victory　until　the　end　of　the　fourth　century。　Yet　from　the　outset　its　ultimate　victory　was　hardly　doubtful。　The　peculiar　doctrines　of　the　fourth　gospel　could　retain　their　integrity　only　so　long　as　Gnostic　ideas　were　prevalent。　When　Gnosticism　declined　in　importance；　and　its　theories　faded　out　of　recollection；　its　peculiar　phraseology　received　of　necessity　a　new　interpretation。　The　doctrine　that　God　could　not　act　directly　upon　the　world　sank　gradually　into　oblivion　as　the　Church　grew　more　and　more　hostile　to　the　Neo…Platonic　philosophy。　And　when　this　theory　was　once　forgotten；　it　was　inevitable　that　the　Logos；　as　the　creator　of　the　world；　should　be　raised　to　an　equality　or　identity　with　God　himself。　In　the　view　of　the　fourth　evangelist；　the　Creator　was　necessarily　inferior　to　God；　in　the　view　of　later　ages；　the　Creator　could　be　none　other　than　God。　And　so　the　very　phrases　which　had　most　emphatically　asserted　the　subordination　of　the　Son　were　afterward　interpreted　as　asserting　his　absolute　divinity。　To　the　Gnostic　formula；　lumen　de　lumine；　was　added　the　Athanasian　scholium；　Deum　verum　de　Deo　vero；　and　the　Trinitarian　dogma　of　the　union　of　persons　in　a　single　Godhead　became　thus　the　only　available　logical　device　for　preserving　the　purity　of　monotheism。

　　　　February；　1870。



V。　A　WORD　ABOUT　MIRACLES。＇24＇

＇24＇　These　comments　on　Mr。　Henry　Rogers's　review　of　M。　Renan's　Les　Apotres；　contained　in　a　letter　to　Mr。　Lewes；　were　shortly　afterwards　published　by　him　in　the　Fortnightly　Review；　September　15；　1866；


It　is　the　lot　of　every　book　which　attempts　to　treat　the　origin　and　progress　of　Christianity　in　a　sober　and　scientific　spirit；　to　meet　with　unsparing　attacks。　Critics　in　plenty　are　always　to　be　found；　who；　possessed　with　the　idea　that　the　entire　significance　and　value　of　the　Christian　religion　are　demolished　unless　we　regard　it　as　a　sort　of　historical　monstrosity；　are　only　too　eager　to　subject　the　offending　work　to　a　scathing　scrutiny；　displaying　withal　a　modicum　of　righteous　indignation　at　the　unblushing　heresy　of　the　author；　not　unmixed　with　a　little　scornful　pity　at　his　inability　to　believe　very　preposterous　stories　upon　very　meagre　evidence。　〃Conservative〃　polemics　of　this　sort　have　doubtless　their　function。　They　serve　to　purge　scientific　literature　of　the　awkward　and　careless　statements　too　often　made　by　writers　not　sufficiently　instructed　or　cautious；　which　in　the　absence　of　hostile　criticism　might　get　accepted　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