orthodoxy-第33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！





if　anything；　rather　increases　the　violence。　　We　cannot　even　explain



it　by　calling　such　a　being　insane；　for　insanity　is　usually　along　one



consistent　channel。　　The　maniac　is　generally　a　monomaniac。　　Here　we



must　remember　the　difficult　definition　of　Christianity　already　given；



Christianity　is　a　superhuman　paradox　whereby　two　opposite　passions



may　blaze　beside　each　other。　　The　one　explanation　of　the　Gospel



language　that　does　explain　it；　is　that　it　is　the　survey　of　one



who　from　some　supernatural　height　beholds　some　more　startling　synthesis。







　　　　　I　take　in　order　the　next　instance　offered：　　the　idea　that



Christianity　belongs　to　the　Dark　Ages。　　Here　I　did　not　satisfy　myself



with　reading　modern　generalisations；　I　read　a　little　history。　



And　in　history　I　found　that　Christianity；　so　far　from　belonging　to　the



Dark　Ages；　was　the　one　path　across　the　Dark　Ages　that　was　not　dark。　



It　was　a　shining　bridge　connecting　two　shining　civilizations。　



If　any　one　says　that　the　faith　arose　in　ignorance　and　savagery



the　answer　is　simple：　　it　didn't。　It　arose　in　the　Mediterranean



civilization　in　the　full　summer　of　the　Roman　Empire。　　The　world



was　swarming　with　sceptics；　and　pantheism　was　as　plain　as　the　sun；



when　Constantine　nailed　the　cross　to　the　mast。　　It　is　perfectly　true



that　afterwards　the　ship　sank；　but　it　is　far　more　extraordinary　that



the　ship　came　up　again：　　repainted　and　glittering；　with　the　cross



still　at　the　top。　　This　is　the　amazing　thing　the　religion　did：　



it　turned　a　sunken　ship　into　a　submarine。　　The　ark　lived　under　the　load



of　waters；　after　being　buried　under　the　debris　of　dynasties　and　clans；



we　arose　and　remembered　Rome。　　If　our　faith　had　been　a　mere　fad



of　the　fading　empire；　fad　would　have　followed　fad　in　the　twilight；



and　if　the　civilization　ever　re…emerged　（and　many　such　have



never　re…emerged）　it　would　have　been　under　some　new　barbaric　flag。　



But　the　Christian　Church　was　the　last　life　of　the　old　society　and



was　also　the　first　life　of　the　new。　　She　took　the　people　who　were



forgetting　how　to　make　an　arch　and　she　taught　them　to　invent　the



Gothic　arch。　　In　a　word；　the　most　absurd　thing　that　could　be　said



of　the　Church　is　the　thing　we　have　all　heard　said　of　it。　　How　can



we　say　that　the　Church　wishes　to　bring　us　back　into　the　Dark　Ages？　



The　Church　was　the　only　thing　that　ever　brought　us　out　of　them。







　　　　　I　added　in　this　second　trinity　of　objections　an　idle　instance



taken　from　those　who　feel　such　people　as　the　Irish　to　be　weakened



or　made　stagnant　by　superstition。　　I　only　added　it　because　this



is　a　peculiar　case　of　a　statement　of　fact　that　turns　out　to　be



a　statement　of　falsehood。　　It　is　constantly　said　of　the　Irish　that



they　are　impractical。　　But　if　we　refrain　for　a　moment　from　looking



at　what　is　said　about　them　and　look　at　what　is　DONE　about　them；



we　shall　see　that　the　Irish　are　not　only　practical；　but　quite



painfully　successful。　　The　poverty　of　their　country；　the　minority



of　their　members　are　simply　the　conditions　under　which　they　were　asked



to　work；　but　no　other　group　in　the　British　Empire　has　done　so　much



with　such　conditions。　　The　Nationalists　were　the　only　minority



that　ever　succeeded　in　twisting　the　whole　British　Parliament　sharply



out　of　its　path。　　The　Irish　peasants　are　the　only　poor　men　in　these



islands　who　have　forced　their　masters　to　disgorge。　　These　people；



whom　we　call　priest…ridden；　are　the　only　Britons　who　will　not　be



squire…ridden。　And　when　I　came　to　look　at　the　actual　Irish　character；



the　case　was　the　same。　　Irishmen　are　best　at　the　specially



HARD　professionsthe　trades　of　iron；　the　lawyer；　and　the　soldier。　



In　all　these　cases；　therefore；　I　came　back　to　the　same　conclusion：　



the　sceptic　was　quite　right　to　go　by　the　facts；　only　he　had　not



looked　at　the　facts。　　The　sceptic　is　too　credulous；　he　believes



in　newspapers　or　even　in　encyclopedias。　　Again　the　three　questions



left　me　with　three　very　antagonistic　questions。　　The　average　sceptic



wanted　to　know　how　I　explained　the　namby…pamby　note　in　the　Gospel；



the　connection　of　the　creed　with　mediaeval　darkness　and　the　political



impracticability　of　the　Celtic　Christians。　　But　I　wanted　to　ask；



and　to　ask　with　an　earnestness　amounting　to　urgency；　〃What　is　this



incomparable　energy　which　appears　first　in　one　walking　the　earth



like　a　living　judgment　and　this　energy　which　can　die　with　a　dying



civilization　and　yet　force　it　to　a　resurrection　from　the　dead；



this　energy　which　last　of　all　can　inflame　a　bankrupt　peasantry



with　so　fixed　a　faith　in　justice　that　they　get　what　they　ask；



while　others　go　empty　away；　so　that　the　most　helpless　island



of　the　Empire　can　actually　help　itself？〃







　　　　　There　is　an　answer：　　it　is　an　answer　to　say　that　the　energy



is　truly　from　outside　the　world；　that　it　is　psychic；　or　at　least



one　of　the　results　of　a　real　psychical　disturbance。　　The　highest



gratitude　and　respect　are　due　to　the　great　human　civilizations　such



as　the　old　Egyptian　or　the　existing　Chinese。　　Nevertheless　it　is



no　injustice　for　them　to　say　that　only　modern　Europe　has　exhibited



incessantly　a　power　of　self…renewal　recurring　often　at　the　shortest



intervals　and　descending　to　the　smallest　facts　of　building　or　costume。　



All　other　societies　die　finally　and　with　dignity。　　We　die　daily。　



We　are　always　being　born　again　with　almost　indecent　obstetrics。　



It　is　hardly　an　exaggeration　to　say　that　there　is　in　historic



Christendom　a　sort　of　unnatural　life：　　it　could　be　explained　as　a



supernatural　life。　　It　could　be　explained　as　an　awful　galvanic　life



working　in　what　would　have　been　a　corpse。　　For　our　civilization　OUGHT



to　have　died；　by　all　parallels；　by　all　sociological　probability；



in　the　Ragnorak　of　the　end　of　Rome。　　That　is　the　weird　inspiration



of　our　estate：　　you　and　I　have　no　business　to　be　here　at　all。　　We　are



all　REVENANTS；　all　living　Christians　are　dead　pagans　walking　about。　



Just　as　Europe　was　about　to　be　gathered　in　silence　to　Assyria



and　Babylon；　something　entered　into　its　body。　　And　Europe　has　had



a　strange　lifeit　is　not　too　much　to　say　that　it　has　had　the　JUMPS



ever　since。







　　　　　I　have　dealt　at　length　with　such　typical　triads　of　doubt



in　order　to　convey　the　main　contentionthat　my　own　case　for



Christianity　is　rational；　but　it　is　not　simple。　　It　is　an　accumulation



of　varied　facts；　like　the　attitude　of　the　ordinary　agnostic。　



But　the　ordinary　agnostic　has　got　his　facts　all　wrong。　



He　is　a　non…believer　for　a　multitude　of　reasons；　but　they　are



untrue　reasons。　　He　doubts　because　the　Middle　Ages　were　barbaric；



but　they　weren't；　because　Darwinism　is　demonstrated；　but　it　isn't；



because　miracles　do　not　happen；　but　they　do；　because　monks　were　lazy；



but　they　were　very　industrious；　because　nuns　are　unhappy；　but　they



are　particularly　cheerful；　because　Christian　art　was　sad　and　pale；



but　it　was　picked　out　in　peculiarly　bright　colours　and　gay　with　gold；



because　modern　science　is　moving　away　from　the　supernatural；



but　it　isn't；　it　is　moving　towards　the　supernatural　with　the　rapidity



of　a　railway　train。







　　　　　But　among　these　million　facts　all　flowing　one　way　there　is；



of　course；　one　question　sufficiently　solid　and　separate　to　be



treated　briefly；　but　by　itself；　I　mean　the　objective　occurrence



of　the　supernatural。　　In　another　chapter　I　have　indicated　the　fallacy



of　the　ordinary　supposition　that　the　world　must　be　impersonal　because　it



is　orderly。　　A　person　is　just　as　likely　to　desire　an　orderly　thing



as　a　disorderly　thing。　　But　my　own　positive　conviction　that　personal



creation　is　more　conceivable　than　material　fate；　is；　I　admit；



in　a　sense；　undiscussable。　　I　will　not　call　it　a　faith　or　an　intuition；



for　those　words　are　mixed　up　with　mere　emotion；　it　is　strictly



an　intellectual　conviction；　but　it　is　a　PRIMARY　intellectual



conviction　like　the　certainty　of　self　of　the　good　of　living。　



Any　one　who　likes；　therefore；　may　call　my　belief　in　God　merely　mystical；



the　phrase　is　not　worth　fighting　about。　　But　my　belief　that　miracles



have　happened　in　human　history　is　not　a　mystical　belief　at　all；　I　believe



in　them　upon　human　evidences　as　I　do　in　the　discovery　of　America。　



Upon　this　point　there　is　a　simple　logical　fact　that　only　requires



to　be　stated　and　cleared　up。　　Somehow　or　other　an　extraordinary



idea　has　arisen　that　the　disbelievers　in　miracles　consider　them



coldly　and　fairly；　while　believers　in　miracles　accept　them　only



in　connection　with　some　dogma。　　The　fact　is　quite　the　other　way。　



The　believers　in　miracles　accept　them　（rightly　or　wrongly）　because　they



have　evidence　for　them。　　The　disbelievers　in　miracles　deny　them



（rightly　or　wrongly）　because　they　have　a　doctrine　against　them。　



The　open；　obvious；　democratic　thing　is　to　believe　an　old　apple…woman



when　she　bears　testimony　to　a　miracle；　just　as　you　believe　an　old



apple…woman　when　she　bears　testimony　to　a　murder。　　The　plain；



popular　course　is　to　trust　the　peasant's　word　about　the　ghost



exactly　as　far　as　you　trust　the　peasant's　word　about　the　landlord。　



Being　a　peasant　he　will　probably　have　a　great　deal　of　healthy



agnosticism　about　both。　　Still　you　could　fill　the　British　Museum　with



evidence　uttered　by　the　peasant；　and　given　in　favour　of　the　ghost。　



If　it　comes　to　human　testimony　there　is　a　choking　cataract　of　human



testimony　in　favour　of　the　supernatural。　　If　you　reject　it；　you　can



only　mean　one　of　two　things。　　You　reject　the　peasant's　story　about



the　ghost　either　because　the　man　is　a　peasant　or　because　the　story



is　a　ghost　story。　　That　is；　you　either　deny　the　main　principle



of　democracy；　or　you　affirm　the　main　principle　of　materialism



the　abstract　impossibility　of　miracle。　　You　have　a　perfect　right



to　do　so；　but　in　that　case　you　are　the　dogmatist。　　It　is　we



Christians　who　accept　all　actual　evidenceit　is　you　rationalists



who　refuse　actual　evidence　being　constrained　to　do　so　by　your　creed。　



But　I　am　not　constrained　by　any　creed　in　the　matter；　and　looking



impartially　into　certain　miracles　of　mediaeval　and　modern　times；



I　have　come　to　the　conclusion　that　they　occurred。　　All　argument



against　these　plain　facts　is　always　argument　in　a　circle。　　If　I　say；



〃Mediaeval　documents　attest　certain　miracles　as　much　as　they　attest



certain　battles；〃　they　answer；　〃But　mediaevals　were　superstitious〃；



if　I　want　to　know　in　what　they　were　superstitious；　the　only



ultimate　answer　is　that　they　believed　in　the　mi